Re: The "right" answer

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Jerry,

I was not trying to make a point about the study per

se.  I was pointing out the study was available for

review, i.e., it was not surpressed, and that the data

has been reviewed.  I think the study accomplished its

original purpose, which was to show that there is not

an excessive number of cancers among shipyard workers.

 I believe that was a claim that was made about

workers in the Portsmouth NSY.  However, people may be

reading into the study more that what it says.  As Dr.

Boice points out, factors like smoking and asbestos

exposure were not taken into account, which may be

factors that negated a the healthy worker effect.



Since there seems to be some controversy surrounding

the non-nuclear workers, I looked at the stratified

results of the exposed workers.  I considered that low

or no dose population, i.e., <5 mSv (<500 mrem), with

the other groups in Table 1.  I believe that this is

an acceptable technique since this is what is done

with the atomic bomb survivors.  I think you will

agree that there is an incresed cancer risk for those

above 10 mSv (1,000 mrem).  If I am wrong with this

interpretation, I hope an epidemiologist will correct

my assumptions.



Of course, epidemiological studies may not be perfect.

Otherwise, the author could not say the "more research

is needed.





--- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net> wrote:

> John,

>     When citing a reference to confirm a point you

> are trying to make, it is

> a good idea to read it carefully to assure that it

> really says what you

> think it says. My original inquiry (see below)

> related to whether there had

> been any technical criticism of the data sources  or

> Biostatistical

> methodology in the NWNS. Rather than finding fault,

> the Boice article you

> cited actually praised this epidemiological study

> for its care, attention to

> detail, and "high quality of research".

>     The only problems Boice found with the study

> were no healthy worker

> effect found,  limited data size, and  that

> generally the results did not

> seem to agree with his preconceptions.  These are

> hardly criticisms, unless

> one believes the researchers should have found

> things that simply were not

> there. From the Boice review, I get the impression

> that Matinoski and her

> coworkers did as well as possible with the 

> information available to them.

>     Nonetheless, despite any shortcomings the NWNS 

> may have had, its

> results are more than sufficient to cast serious

> doubt on use of LNT as a

> basis for radiation exposure standards.

>     The absolutely perfect epidemiological study 

> has yet to be performed.

>                 Jerry

> . . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.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/