[ RadSafe ] U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study - Healthy Worker Effect

Wed Mar 16 18:02:31 CET 2005

I agree that since many factors differ between the worker
population and general population, interpretation of these
results is limited to calling it a "healthy worker
effect".

That's why I asked why a comparison cannot be made to
non-nuclear power plant workers employed during the same
period in order to account for the degree of the healthy
worker effect.  Wouldn't that adjust for the major
confounders between the worker population and general
population? That way we may be better able to observe
an obvious benefit or harm due to ionizing radiation.

John M. Sukosky, CHP
Dominion
Surry Power Station
(757)-365-2594 (Tieline: 8-798-2594)

                      John Jacobus                                                                                                 
                      <crispy_bird at yaho        To:       John_Sukosky at dom.com, radsafe <radsafe at radlab.nl>                         
                      o.com>                   cc:                                                                                 
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study - Table 2       
                      radsafe-bounces at r                                                                                            
                      adlab.nl                                                                                                     

                      03/16/2005 10:39                                                                                             
                      AM                                                                                                           

Simply stated, the worker population does not
represent the general population.  Consider the
absence of breast cancers.  Ergo, no or few women
workers.  Also, how many of the workers are under 18
or over 65?

--- John_Sukosky at dom.com wrote:
> Below, I've reproduced Table 2 from the "Analysis of
> the
> Mortality Experience amongst U.S. Nuclear Power
> Industry
> Workers after Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing
> Radiation".
> (Howe, et al., 2004)
>
> Based on these results, the authors stated that:
> "...The cohort
> displays a very substantial  healthy worker effect,
> i.e.,
> considerably lower cancer and noncancer mortality
> than the
> general population...".
>
> Does anyone know why a comparison cannot be made to
> non-nuclear
> power plant workers employed during the same period
> in order to
> account for this "very substantial healthy worker
> effect"?
>
>
> John M. Sukosky, CHP
> Dominion
> Surry Power Station
> (757)-365-2594 (Tieline: 8-798-2594)
>
>
> TABLE 2
> U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study (Howe et
> al., 2004):
> Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) by Cause of
> Death, 1979â€“1997
>
> Cause                            Observed
> Expected(a) SMR    95%CI
> All causes                        1,190    2922.4
> 0.41  0.38, 0.43
>   All solid cancers                 368     564.3
> 0.65  0.59, 0.72
>     Stomach cancer                   16      19.7
> 0.81  0.47, 1.32
>     Colon cancer                     36      47.8
> 0.75  0.53, 1.04
>     Pancreatic cancer                18      29.0
> 0.62  0.37, 0.98
>     Lung cancer                     125     210.4
> 0.59  0.49, 0.71
>     Prostatic cancer                 14      23.2
> 0.60  0.33, 1.01
>     Kidney cancer                    14      17.7
> 0.79  0.43, 1.32
>     Brain and other CNS(b)cancer     23      27.0
> 0.85  0.54, 1.28
> All lymphopoietic cancer             49      75.7
> 0.65  0.48, 0.86
>     Multiple myeloma                  6       9.5
> 0.63  0.23, 1.37
>     Leukemia                         29      27.2
> 1.07  0.71, 1.53
>     All noncancers                  773    2282.3
> 0.34  0.32, 0.36
>     Nervous system diseases          20      39.9
> 0.50  0.31, 0.77
>     Circulatory system diseases     350     832.7
> 0.42  0.38, 0.47
>     Arteriosclerotic heart
>     disease including CHD(c)        248     524.6
> 0.47  0.42, 0.54
> All vascular lesions of CNS          24      89.5
> 0.27  0.17, 0.40
> All respiratory diseases             37     129.1
> 0.29  0.20, 0.40
> All pneumonia                         8      48.1
> 0.17  0.07, 0.33
> Digestive system diseases            32     148.9
> 0.21  0.15, 0.30
>
> (a) Expected number of deaths based on age-,
> gender-, calendar year-
>     and cause-specific mortality rates for the U.S.
> population during
>     1979â€“1997.
> (b) Central nervous system.
> (c) Coronary heart disease.
> > _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing
> list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
> other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>

+++++++++++++++++++
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe