[ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study -
HealthyWorker Effect
John Jacobus
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 16 20:05:04 CET 2005
Sounds like you calling Long's detractors biased.
Interesting when you look at all of the data have has
been accumulated. You may want to start with NCRP
Report 136. Of course, Long comment that he discounts
the McGregor and Land article of 1977 does speak
volumes of his bias. I do not claim to be an expert
on the subject, but I do question those who are deaf
critism of the studies they cite. For example, the
study of the Taiwanese apartment dwellers has been
questioned as to the cohort population. If you ignore
this point, what are you advocating? Poor science?
Again, if you would like copies of the article so you
can review it yourself, let me know.
--- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Long's detractors seem far more desperate with
> respect to massaging the data
> than he does. If LNT were correct, and ionizing
> radiation is as dangerous
> as some urge, the Taiwan apartment dwellers, the air
> crews, the radiation
> oncologists, radiographers, etc. would be one bunch
> of sick puppies, but
> they do not seem to be. Instead, Long's detractors
> seem only to be able to
> make reference to selected portions of very few
> studies to support LNT.
> What is it that I am not getting here as a mostly
> lay observer?
>
> Syd H. Levine
> AnaLog Services, Inc.
> Phone: 270-276-5671
> Telefax: 270-276-5588
> E-mail: analog at logwell.com
> URL: www.logwell.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> To: <John_Sukosky at dom.com>
> Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:18 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry
> Workers Study -
> HealthyWorker Effect
>
>
> >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, 1979ââ,¬â?o1997
> >> >
> >> > 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
>
=== 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