RE: Scientific responsibility

[Susan L Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

Sandy Perle wrote:

> There have been studies that 

> demonstrate that those workers exposed to radiation have a better 

> mortality than a similar group who are not exposed. However, the anti-

> nuclear crowd always tries to answer those statistics with the 

> healthy worker effect. In my opinion, if the data demonstrates better 

> health, less illness, why can't that just be accepted?



DOE actually sponsored a study that combined cohorts from several

different researchers looking at women at 10 DOE facilities.  All were

badged (more importantly, all were workers), and the comparison was made

between those without measurable exposure and those who had some

exposure.  Those with some exposure were healthier.  WRONG ANSWER!  Of

course the study manager said this was a healthy worker effect within

workers (i.e., those who didn't have health concerns were willing to

risk being exposed to radiation).  I don't buy it.  



When I asked if this study possibly showed that there could be a

hormesis effect, the researcher said that the design of the study

couldn't demonstrate that.  However, she was willing to say that the

design of the study could demonstrate a harmful effect (if it were

there).  I don't understand....



The only conclusion I can draw is that the belief that any exposure is

dangerous is entrenched within the political and [most of the]

scientific bureaucracy.



My opinions only.



Susan Gawarecki

--

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

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/