Re: Cancer deficiency clusters

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Very good! Thanks. Considering the actual content of the report, this

statement convicts Matanoski (and DOE and other LNT-committed <people>) from

her own admission that there was at least 'dissembling' to obscure/suppress

the data (that's a euphemism for "scientific misconduct" as defined by HHS,

kind of like the dishonesty of: "We did not see an increase in cancer." when

the actual data show a decrease). This isn't substantially dissimilar to the

data presentation (in one figure) that convicted Robert Liburdy of

scientific misconduct at LLBL (also for fabricating an adverse effect that

didn't exist).



Instead of wasting keystrokes here, perhaps it would seem to be easier and

more effective for those who are familiar with the data (and its

manipulation and suppression) to simply allege scientific misconduct and

undertake a formal proceeding to document the case on examining facts

instead of bureaucratic dissembling and mis/disinformation.



Thank again, John! 



Regards, Jim



on 7/19/02 9:42 AM, Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) at jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov 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: 

> [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/