[ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study - Healthy
Worker Effect
John Jacobus
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 16 19:18:19 CET 2005
I agree, but I misread your comments.
What you suggest is the what is usually done, or
should be done. However, that is often not. There
was a recent "study" of people who lived in apartments
in Taiwan that were made with Co-60 contaminated
steel. The comment was that the cancer rate of these
individuals compared to the general population was
low. Again, there are probable a number of
confounding factors that enter into the statistics,
and the best way to do the study would be to use a
cohort of apartment dwellers in buildings without the
contaminated steel. Further, if you look at the
Japanese atomic bomb studies, the cohort is those who
probably received little or not radiation exposure,
but were in the cities at that time.
http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq8
--- John_Sukosky at dom.com wrote:
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
>
=== message truncated ===
+++++++++++++++++++
"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/
More information about the radsafe
mailing list