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

[John Jacobus]

One question I have was the difference between the
numbers statistically significant.  I don't just mean
that one numbers was 36 and the other 45.

I am not saying I am an expert in the area but would
like to offer the following.  Consider that the number
of cancers in the cohort, non-exposed group was 45,
and the confidence level was 6 to 70.  Now, if the
cancers in the exposured group was 36, that is
certainly with the expected range of 6 to 70.  I would
say that would show that there is no harmful effect. 
However, to say that there is a healthy worker effect
would be a stretch is all other factors, e.g., age,
children born, smoking, etc., were held equal.

Can you cite the report?

--- Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs