[ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study -
HealthyWorker Effect
John Jacobus
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 16 21:59:34 CET 2005
Part of the problem is that biology is not like
physics. Predictions made at high values do not
necessarily occur at low values. Then there is the
problem of cellular studies vs. epidemiological
studies. How cells respond to radiation may be
mediated by the response of other cells and enzymes,
etc. in the body. I guess that I doubt that there is a
risk or benefit at low doses and dose rates, but I may
be in the minority.
I really don't know how common hormesis is in nature.
I guess if you look for it, you will find it. I have
never consider the analogy with vitamins to be that
strong of an argument. We need vitamins for
biochemical functions. Do we really need radiation?
If so, how much? Are people who live in "high"
radiation areas really that much healthier?
Actually, I think that those who push hormesis are
desperate for an audience. My impression is that
hormesis is being pushed to counter the LNT argument
and oppose the idea of ALARA. You eliminate ALARA,
you save money.
Any final "resolution" will require an analysis of the
entire body of evidence. If any effect, good or bad,
is demonstrated to be marginal or even non-existent,
it doubt it will change the way we do things. But I
could be wrong.
--- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
> You already sent me copies. I did not say anybody
> was biased, just that
> Long's detractors seem more desperate to mine the
> data for some little shred
> of evidence to support LNT. Since hormesis is a
> common effect in nature,
> why would anyone assume LNT makes sense? If the
> precautionary principle and
> LNT had always ruled, we would not have RDAs for
> vitamins.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> To: "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com>;
> <John_Sukosky at dom.com>
> Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power
> Industry Workers Study -
> HealthyWorker Effect
>
>
> > 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
>
=== 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