Comments on my present view of NSWS & the Br. radiologists study

NUCLEAR SHIPYARD WORKER STUDY (1980-1988): A LARGE COHORT EXPOSED TO LOW DOSE-RATE GAMMA RADIATION. Ruth Sponsler and John R. Cameron will be available in a journal I have decided to make it available on my web site. You can go directly to the article with the following URL

The four tables in the article follow the references. It was necessary to reformat each of the tables and they are immediately available upon clicking on the Table you desire.

I believe that low to moderate doses of radiation may cause a decrease in cancer. However, I feel the most important datum in the NSWS is the greatly reduced death rate from non-cancer, which is also reflected in the death rate from all causes. The NSWS data gives the death rate from all causes of the cohort was 24% lower than that of the controls. The cancer death rate of the cohort was about 15% lower than the cohort. It is thus certain that the death rate from non-cancer is somewhat above 24%.

In the 100 years of British radiologists study Berrington, A, Darby, SC, Weiss, HA, Doll, R. 100 years of observation on British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997 Br J Radiol. 74, 507-519 (2001) British radiologists who joined a radiological society between 1955-1979 had a death rate from cancer of 29% lower (NS); a death rate from non-cancer 36% lower (p<0.001); and death rate from all causes of 32% lower (p<0.001) than male non-radiologists in England and Wales (the controls). (I have a pdf file of this article if you request it by e-mail.)

For the full 100 years the radiologists had a death rate from non-cancer 14% lower (p<0.001) than the controls. Their death rate from cancer for the 100 years was about 4% higher than the controls (NS) This is the primary reason I believe that longevity is the best measure of radiation effects on health.

I have more confidence in the results of the British radiologists studies than the NSWS. It covers a much longer period and a much larger range of dose rates. I feel it is more important that we consider radiation effects on health the way we consider other toxic agents which happen to be beneficial at low to moderate doses, such as each of the ~15 essential trace elements. There is an optimum dose rate for essential trace elements (recommended daily value) and I hypothesize that there is "recommended annual dose" or RAD for radiation in my article: "Is radiation an essential trace energy?" Physics and Society October 2001 http://www.aps.org/units/fps/oct01/a5oct01.html

Last week I submitted a letter to Radiology with the title "Longevity is the most appropriate measure of health effects of radiation." I expect a decision in the next few weeks. An early draft of the letter is available as an unpublished article on my web page:

In my article in Physics and Society (above) I proposed a double blind study of senior citizens in the U.S. Gulf States to test the hypothesis that increasing their dose rate to the dose rate found in the U.S. mountains might improve their longevity. I feel this is an ethical study but I doubt if I will live long enough to see the idea taken seriously.

If increased background radiation is shown to improve longevity, it will in effect make the LNT hypothesis irrelevant and lead to further studies to determine the RAD.

My current evaluation of the NSWS is that it is the best epidemiological study of radiation workers ever done and contains useful information. I have been disappointed to see many people criticize this unpublished study, some without having read the details of the study. I recall few if any criticisms of the scientists who used tax dollars for the research and never published the details of the study. Some individuals in the DOE must also share the blame for not insisting the study be published. The scientists who served on the Technical Advisory Panel for the NSWS (I feel) should have brought pressure to bear on the DOE to have the study published. Merrill Eisenbud, a member of TAP is deceased. I believe that if he were alive he would be supporting my efforts to see the study published.

The most serious problem for radiation scientists is to bring about a peaceful revolution in the way radiation health guidance is established. I agree with Harald Rossi's suggestion that the Health Physics Society should work on the solution of this long standing problem. Dictatorships by self selected groups is an inappropriate way to determine radiation health policy.

--
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)