Re: Re[2]: Radiation Hormesis -- or not

["HP Dean" <RadConDean@comcast.net>]

Here, is the University of Utah web site information on the Project and dose

data bases.



http://www.utah.edu/radiobiology/mayak/



Dean Chaney, CHP

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "ivylist" <ivylist@ecko.uran.ru>

To: "J. Marshall Reber" <jmarshall.reber@comcast.net>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:46 PM

Subject: Re[2]: Radiation Hormesis -- or not





> JMR> Can anyone supply details about the study of the Mayak workers in

Russia

> JMR> who seem to have shown a protective effect of gamma exposure to the

lung

> JMR> cancer caused by the inhalation of plutonium?

>

> Most recent paper (on my opinion there is no reliable protective effect of

gamma

> exposure):

> M. Kreisheimer, M. E. Sokolnikov, N. A. Koshurnikova et al.

> Lung cancer mortality among nuclear workers of the Mayak facilities in

> the former Soviet Union. An updated analysis considering smoking as

> the main confounding factor

> Radiat Environ Biophys (2003) 42:129-135

>

> Abstract. A new analysis of lung cancer mortality in a

> cohort of male Mayak workers who started their employment

> in the plutonium and reprocessing plants between

> 1948 and 1958 has been carried out in terms of a relative

> risk model. The follow-up has been extended until 1999,

> moreover a new dosimetry system (DOSES2000) has

> been established. Particular emphasis has been given to a

> discrimination of the effects of external g-exposure and

> internal a-exposure due to incorporated plutonium. This

> study has also utilized and incorporated the information

> from a cohort of Mayak reactor workers, who were

> exposed only externally to g-rays. The influence of

> smoking as the main confounding factor for lung cancer

> has been studied. The baseline lung cancer mortality rate

> was not taken from national statistics but was derived

> from the cohort itself. The estimated excess relative risk

> for the plutonium a-rays was 0.23/Sv (95%CI: 0.16–

> 0.31). The resulting risk coefficient for external g-ray

> exposure was very low with a statistically insignificant

> estimate of 0.058/Sv (95%CI: 0.072–0.20). The inferred

> relative risk for smokers was 16.5 (95%CI: 12.6–20.5).

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________

> Ilia Yarmoshenko

> Ekaterinburg

> Russia

> ************************************************************************

> 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/