Re: epidemiology and non-io

["GORDON MILLER" <gordon_miller@lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov>]

        Reply to:   RE>>epidemiology and non-ionizing
The epi' is a real mess.  It has gone from Nancy Wertheimer driving around
places where childhood leukemia was found searching for smoke stacks and
finding thick wires and transformer cans instead and also statistically shaky
association between thick wires and childhood leukemia to Scananavian countires
and big utilities doing studies which still produce statistically shaky
asociations.  The cost of getting statistically shaky associations has
increased several orders of magnitude.

I don't believe one epi study or one researcher can be taken as decisive.

This issue will probably shake out as the result of scientists coming to a
consensus that it's a hazard or agreeing that it isn't.  Some scientists who
have very strong personal stakes in the decision will disagree loudly if the
consensus doesn't go their way.

--------------------------------------
Date: 1/23/95 7:34 AM
To: GORDON MILLER
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
     I know that they were performing epidemiological research in this area 
     at MIT a few years back.  The technique being used was some type of 
     chromatography on DNA strands.  I would try there.
     
     Gus Potter
     Sandia National Laboratories
     Radiation Protection Internal Dosimetry
     CAPOTTE@snl.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: epidemiology and non-ionizing radiation
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at ccsmtp
Date:    1/23/95 3:43 AM


 My colleague, Prof. Michael Quastel has been showing me the
comments on power lines and health, and it occurred to me that there 
may be some value in hearing from an epidemiologist working in the 
area of radhealth. In general epidemiological findings are problematical 
for scientists with strong traditions in experimental research, because 
the list of relevant variables is usually longer than the patience or 
resources of an investigator, and because conclusions are generally 
those of association, and not, at least to purists, of causation.


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by lccmail.ocf.llnl.gov with SMTP;23 Jan 1995 07:32:00 U
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24]) by
vixen.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA16743; Mon, 23 Jan 1995
09:08:15 -0600
Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA28280; Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:08:09 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:08:09 -0600
Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790876441@ccsmtp.sandia.gov>
Errors-To: mandel@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Potter, Charles" <CAPOTTE@saix367.sandia.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: epidemiology and non-ionizing radiation
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List