[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Shipyard workers etc[Scanned]
Daniel Strom,
I would like to expand on an observation I made in an earlier comment. I
believe the 'healthy worker effect' can only be expected if there is
some form of medical screening. In the case of the Nuclear Shipyard
Worker Study that is true for the Nuclear Worker groups (plus 3-yearly
medicals for the higher exposed cohort), but apparently the Non-NW group
was not medically screened and also contained those that had failed the
medical screening for radworkers (which included things like family
health history, etc.). In that case I see nothing unexpected or
sinister in the control cohort more or less reflecting the American
average. IMHO the lack of medical screening does put a question mark on
the validity of the control cohort. It might be more correct to compare
the low dose (<0.5 rem) and higher dose cohorts, which both had the same
screening (although there was still a difference in routine medical
supervision). There seems to be hardly any significant mortality
differences between these two cohorts (although these cohorts might not
be well controlled in terms of relevant parameters like age, duration,
etc.).
Own thoughts.
Chris Hofmeyr
chofmeyr@nnr.co.za
-----Original Message-----
From: Thurman Wenzl [mailto:tbwenzl@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: 05 February 2003 01:10
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Shipyard workers etc[Scanned]
I know it's a little late to be following up on this
dialog of nearly a month ago, but I didn't notice if
anyone pointed out that the Matanoski study, never
having appeared in the peer-reviewed literature, is
available from CEDR - at (I think) cedr.lbl.gov (all
452 pages)
On dose distributions, she reported that about 9% of
her monitored cohort had cum doses above 5 rem, while
Rinsky (1981 Lancet on Portsmouth shipyard only)
reported about 11.3% above that point (with a median
of 540 mrem).
NIOSH is following up on the Rinsky study.
Thurman Wenzl
..usual disclaimers..; these are my own thoughts.
From: "Strom, Daniel J" <strom@PNL.GOV>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:17:38 -0800
Reply-To: "Strom, Daniel J" <strom@PNL.GOV>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Ted,
The NWs were quite comparable to other working groups
in non-shipyard
studies, regardless of dose. The result that sticks
out like a sore thumb in
the NSWS is the NNWs, not the NWs. The NNWs
systematically differ from NWs
and NNWs in other cohorts. This result is inconsistent
with other rad and
non-rad occupational epidemiology studies.
- Dan Strom
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
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/