[ RadSafe ] e: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study - Healthy Worker Effect

[Susan Gawarecki]

This has already been done in a large combined cohort study of women workers at 10 DOE facilities.  The comparison was between badged workers with no recorded exposure and badged workers with recorded exposures.  The ones with recorded exposures had fewer cancers and were healthier.  The researcher explained this as an internal healthy worker effect, i.e., that only the healthiest workers would voluntarily work in radiation areas.  Somehow she couldn't draw the conclusion that radiation exposure might actually benefit a worker.

I think what these studies demonstrate, is that for whatever reason, you are likely to be healthier if you work in a radiation area than otherwise.  A corollary is that is radiation can't possibly be a significant risk to health at these levels of exposure.  So why are we regulating it so stringently at these levels?

Obviously my own opinion,
Susan Gawarecki

John M. Sukosky 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.