[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Cancer deficiency clusters, "U" in Workers



Howard,

I am not sure what you think I wrote.  I never said any thing about lung

cancers in mountain states or Iowa.  ( I notice that you have trouble

following threads on e-mails.  You also bring issues into the thread that

are irrelevant.)  The study was looking at leukemia and blood neoplasms,

which I believe are a more sensitive indicator of penetrating ionizing

radiation than the use of lung cancers.  I think the comments about lung

cancer are intriguing, as I would expect the rate to be similar in all

groups and that of the general population.  To me, this indicates (1) this

study is not reflective of the general population since the lung cancer

rates are higher but the overall cancer rates are lower than those of the

public.   Also, (2) as a cohort study it is not sensitive enough to indicate

what the effects of radiation are, good or bad, below 10 mSv for leukemia

and blood neoplasms in this study.  (To extrapolate beyond this work

presented is speculative, at best.  I guess you can conclude that a U shaped

response can be drawn from the fact that only the non-nuclear works has a

statistically higher incidence of lung cancer from this study.  However, if

asbestos exposures and smoking were not controlled for in the analysis, than

the question of radiation and lung cancer rates is irrelevant.  Don't you

agree?)



Again, Matanoski (which is the correct spelling of her name) is an

epidemiologist.  John Cameron is not.  I am a health physicist and not an

epidemiologist, and rely on a more professional, e.g., an epidemiological,

review of the data.  Is Dr. Pollycove an epidemiologist?  Mulkerheide?  You?

You constantly  point to studies that support your views, but ignore those

that do not.  Do I detect a bit of bias?  Or ignorance of the scientific

process?  Research experiments are performed to test speculations

(hypotheses), but a complete review of the literature, such as done in NCRP

136 needs to be done periodically to see how all the data fits together.

Who knows, maybe some of the work on low radiation effects sponsored by DOE

(see http://emsp.em.doe.gov/announcements/fr99%5F14.html ) will provide some

of this information.



I have read parts of the Feinendegen and Pollycove review article in the

first SNM you referenced.  I wished you had provided the proper title and

page reference.  I find the dual radiation response at low doses interesting

and a plausible hypothesis. It is a shame not all of the studies support

this hypothesis.  I guess my concern is that while most of these studies

detail the immediate tumor response to low radiation, what are the resulting

effects after a long period of time.  As you know, most medical studies

follow patients for only a short period of time.  Cancer studies usually

consider treatment responses or remissions for 5 years.  While moderate

doses or radiation appears to induce repair mechanism, are any damaged and

potentially cancer-inducing cells escaping?  I think GOOD epidemiological

studies of populations that are continual exposed to more than average

background radiation levels would be interesting.  Particularly if higher

cellular immune factors do not reduce the cancer rates compared to control

groups.



I really think you need to expand you reading of the literature.  You need

to read the literature critically to arrive at a some sense of what the data

shows and what the problems might be in getting to the conclusions.



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



-----Original Message-----

From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

[mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:59 AM

To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)

Cc: 'RadSafe'

Subject: Re: Cancer deficiency clusters, "U" in Workers





John (and all following MORE radiation need)

You observe that  lung cancer rates are higher in coast areas than mountain

states (or Iowa) - and less when exposure is  0.5 rem (5 mSv) to 1.0 rem (10

mSv) THAN EITHER ABOVE OR BELOW that dose. This supports a "U" rather than

linear (LNT) dose effect.



This differs, indeed, from Mantoski's inference, that " there is no

consistent

dose response with radiation, which would suggest that radiation is not the

factor -.".

You suggest asbestos, where I infer a "U" dose effect (non LNT) to explain

the

data.



References (not "speculation"):

Cameron, one of the NSWS tech Advisory Committee, (below).

Myron Pollycove PhD MD, Ludwig Feinendigen MD, Biologic and Epidemiologic

Foundations of Radiation Hormesis J Nuc Med 42(7)(9),2001.

Numerous studies catalogued by Muckerheide aand B Cohen on line.



I arranged for Pollycove to present hormesis to our skeptical classmates at

UCSF

50th reunion and have carefully reviewed repeated presentations by him,

Bernie

Cohen, TD Luckey, Muckerheide and others at Doctors for Disaster

Preparedness

meetings, like,

THIS WEEKEND at Sheraton Colorado Springs, Y'ALL  COME! Program is at

www.oism.org/ddp. Call 520-325-2680. Cost is only $150 for 16 presentations

by

Zebroski, Cuttler, Lowell Wood, etc, (2 lunches and banquet), with

arrangements

to question and visit with the luminaries.                     Howard Long



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Howard,

> But if we question the validity of statistical cluster that show a higher

> increase of cancer near a power plant, it should be, and is, statistically

> probable that studies will show a statistical cluster of healthful effects

> of radiation.

>

> You noted the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study.  It you like, I will send a

> copy of the abstract written by one of the authors of the study, Dr.

> Genevieve Matanoski.  It appeared in Radiation Research 133, 126-127

(1993).

> (I think it is important to supply references rather than speculations,

> don't you?)  Quoting the abstract:

>

> "The data clearly indicate that both nuclear worker groups have a lower

> mortality from leukemia and lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers than does

> the nonnuclear group.  All three groups have lower rates than the general

> population.  However, if the NW<5.0 or the 5.0-9.0 mSv group is used for

> comparison, than all dose groups 10 mSv and above in the NW>/= 5.0 group

> have higher mortality rates that the NW<5.0 group for both leukemia and

all

> lymphatic hematopoietic neoplasms.  There is no consistent dose response

> with radiation, which would suggest that radiation is not the factor

> associated with the increase. . . . The SMRs are very sensitive to any

> changes, such as lagging, due to small numbers, so these within-group

> observations may simply represent chance variations."

>

> A couple of simplistic observations, since I am not an epidemiologist but

> feel that I can understand the basics.  First, this is a cohort study,

which

> may not have any relevance to public exposures.  I guess that if you want

to

> reduce your risk of cancer, you should work in Naval shipyard, since "All

> three groups have lower rates than the general population."  Second, the

> risk mortality increases at occupational exposures above 10 mSv.    Third,

> other factors that were not considered, such as asbestos exposures, may

> influence the results as they may be more important than the factor,

> radiation, that is being studied.  For example, the study indicates that

the

> mortality from lung cancer for all groups was higher than that of the

> general population.  But only the non-nuclear workers had a statistically

> significant increase.  I guess you can conclude that radiation reduces the

> risk of lung cancer in this cohort.  Of course, I would rather a more

> qualified epidemiologist than I review the data.  While I admire John

> Cameron for his work, he is not an epidemiologist either.

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

> [mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 7:03 AM

> To: jjcohen

> Cc: Gibbs, S Julian; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); Radsafe Mail list

> Subject: Re: Cancer deficiency clusters

>

> Yes, Jerry,

> Such a study has been done on 27,872 nuclear shipyard workers - but until

> recently only reported as not showing expected increase in cancer.

>

> John Cameron, one of 8 members of the technical advisory committee of the

> Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study reports, "The cancer death rate of the

NW>0.5

> group [those receiving an extra 0.5 rem] was over 4 std.dev. lower than

the

> NNW control group [non-nuclear workers of similar ages and jobs]. This

good

> news is not mentioned but the data are available in the final report."

> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/oct01/a5oct01.html

> . . .

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/