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

Philippe Duport pduport at uottawa.ca
Wed Mar 16 18:59:20 CET 2005


The comparison has been made, see



"Epidemiological surveillance at Electricité de France–Gaz de France: health 
assessment of nuclear power plant employees between 1993 and 1998 by H Gros, 
A Chevalier, E Carrie, G Lahon - Occupational Medicine 52(1) pages 35-44 
(2002).



  Note:     Electricité de France : nuclear power stations employees

                Gaz de France : non-nuclear employees

                EDF & GDF are sister companies with same employment status, 
medical coverage, ...



The risk of cancer is significantly lower in nuclear plant employees than in 
non-nuclear employees for any hierarchical level for all cancers.



Overall RR for cancer nuclear vs non-nuclear workers : 0.60 (95% CI =0.50 – 
0.71); RR = 0.72 (0.59 – 0.88) for all causes of death





P Duport

 Univ Ottawa


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <John_Sukosky at dom.com>
To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:02 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study - 
HealthyWorker Effect


>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, 1979–1997
>>
>> 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
>>     1979–1997.
>> (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
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 




More information about the radsafe mailing list