[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: your questions about the SMRs of the controls for the NSWS
Title: Re: your questions about the SMRs of the controls
for
Kai, The control group had an SMR (all
causes) of 1.02 (not significant) Their SMR from all cancers was 1.12
(95% limits 1.05-1.20)
For a
group of 32,500 controls that suggests that for some reason
they had excess cancer, almost certainly work related. I think the PI
should have commented on this in the final report.
John
Jacobus was wrong when he wrote >....It is interesting that all groups who worked in the shipyard, exposed
and non-exposed to radiation, had lower risks than the general
population.Maybe that should tell you something about the
subject population also."
John
was wrong but I doubt if he will admit it. I had an e-mail from him
today accusing me of quoting data out of context and several other
untrue statements. I replied to him and asked him for examples.
From: "Strom, Daniel J" <strom@PNL.GOV>
>... "The NSWS study is characterized by an unhealthy
> control group, making it one of the very few studies in
occupational
> epidemiology not to find a
"healthy worker effect" (Table 1).
What Dan overlooks is that if a sample of 32,500 are
unhealthy, it probably means being a shipyard work is unhealthy.
Someone should find out why. The nuclear workers had the same
environment. They were much healthier than white males in the U.S.
(SMR 0.77).
Best wishes, John Cameron.
--
John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)
2678 SW 14th Dr. Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 371-9865 Fax (352) 371-9866
(winters until about May 10)
PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556
(for UPS, etc. insert: E2571 Porter Rd.)
(608) 583-2160; Fax (608) 583-2269
(summer: until about Oct. 15)