[ 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