Re: "Healthy Worker Effect?" NSWS

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Dear John,

Thank you for your explanation of preference for British Radiologist

data over NSWS.

I suppose that selection could have given significant healthy worker

effect in NSWS if persons showing nervousness (adrenergic or type "A"

behavior) were rejected from the more sensitive radiation work.



I will Fax a few pages on the C Reactive Protein.

You may want to incorporate CRP in your studies. It is a quicker measure

than cancer or longevity, so you, too, might see confirmation of benefit

or harm from low dose radiation.



I will be getting your video, "Is Radiation As Dangerous As They Say?"

I am copying this to Radsafe to credit its sharp observers for calling

attention to potential selection and need for a randomized,

double-blind, placebo controlled study





Respectfully,



Howard Long  



howard long wrote:

> 

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

> From: "John Cameron" <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>

> To: <hflong@pacbell.net>

> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:35 AM

> Subject: Re: your comments on the "Healthy Worker Effect?"

> 

> > Dear Howard, I personally do not believe that the HWE can explain the

> > 24% decrease in deaths from all causes, nor the even bigger decrease

> > in deaths from non-cancer. I expect there is some HWE in the nuclear

> > workers. I do not think there is any HWE in the 100 years of British

> > radiologists. It is a  much clearer demonstration of a reduction in

> > deaths from non-cancer from a much larger dose rate.  That is the

> > reason I decided to promote the data from the radiologists than

> > defend the weaker unpublished data of the NSWS. The radiologists data

> > is readily available, even though it has been ignored.

> > Two days ago I talked to my old friend Randy Brill, a 75 year

> > old radiologist from Vanderbilt University. He had not even heard

> > about the British study  although he knew about the NSWS and didn't

> > find it convincing. Randy happened to be a member of the NAS

> > committee that "blessed" the CDC study showing deaths from fallout.

> > He said that their review pointed out the weaknesses of the study but

> > I doubt if those will appear in the published version.

> > I am convinced that we need a more open venue for discussion

> > of NSWS and related studies in a "room" in the VRM. The NSWS article

> > is now available on my web site at

> > http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/art_nsws1.htm In a month or two I

> > will transfer our NSWS article and any "comments" to a "room" in the

> > Virtual Radiation Museum (VRM). This will permit greater availability

> > of our NSWS article and reasonable comments, (i.e., non-emotional

> > comments supported by literature references) I hope I can count on

> > you and others to participate in this discussion. I expect that we

> > will have contributions from those who disagree with us. Their

> > comments will need to present documented data and references, if they

> > expect  to see them "published" in the VRM.

> > I still think the NSWS should be published in the scientific

> > literature so anyone can review the data and make their own decision.

> > Since it is unlikely to be available in print in the near future I

> > decided to make it available on my web site. I will also post

> > "scientific" critiques of the article and link them to the article so

> > other readers can view various points of view. I feel this will

> > promote a more appropriate discussion than the various postings on

> > radsafe or other venues.

> > I will attach my letter to Radiology which I think may be a

> > more fruitful approach to getting a more reasonable discussion about

> > radiation health effects. I am cautiously optimistic that Radiology

> > will publish the letter. If they do, I hope that the news media will

> > pick it up. It is hard to understand why radiologists go along with

> > LNT.

> > I welcome your advice and contributions.

> > Best wishes, John Cameron

> >

> > You wrote:

> > >I have not seen your response to the radsafe chatter suggesting that,

> > >despite age and job matching to avoid healthy worker effect, HWE was

> > >present in NSWS. During medical examination, applicants with family

> > >history of cancer or abnormal WBC in blood were selected away from

> > >radiation exposure. It seems like too small a number to give 0.76

> > >mortality, but where did you comment on that?

> >

> > I think my comments above make clear that I agree with you. However,

> > our opinions aren't going to help much on radsafe. We need to make

> > them more widely available as I suggest above.

> >

> > >You also wrote:

> > >Also, have you any thoughts on the value of CRP as a predictor of CV

> > >mortality?

> > >I'm working on Therasense here to develop a simple test for CRP, similar

> > >to their Freestyle, ouchless, blood glucose test.

> >

> > That is way outside of my competence to comment on. However, I think

> > your efforts in this area are apt to be much more productive than our

> > comments on radsafe.

> >

> > >I hope you are enjoying the warm weather there.

> >

> > It will be in the 80s today-I'm already in my 80's. I'll soon be 81.

> > I am happy to still be around.   We will head for SW Wisconsin in

> > early May.  I hope by then the world will have settled down.

> > Do you know about my 43 minute video on "Is radiation as

> > dangerous as the say?" It sells for $25 including

> > shipping.(www.medicalphysics.org) This summer I will "edit" it by

> > inserting new PPT slides showing the data from the 100 years of Br.

> > radiologists study to replace slides from the 1981 article on Br.

> > radiologists. I recently started agreeing to help those those who

> > show it to an audience to answer questions  following the video via

> > an amplified phone call.  My first try went well on Feb. 7 to a class

> > at UW. I am scheduled for a similar discussion April 7.  I believe

> > this type of educational activity is much more productive than

> > discussions on radsafe.

> > Best wishes, John Cameron

> > --

> > John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)

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

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/