epidemiological study

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

Greetings:

As a followup to Jim Muckerheide's note, an epidemiological study
that might be of interest to radsafers appeared recently in Lancet
(Vol 344 Oct 15, 1994, p 1039) "Direct estimates of cancer mortality
due to low doses of ionising radiation: an international study."
It combined the data from seven cohort studies on nuclear workers.
The total study population was 96,000. Alice Stewart was not one of
the authors. In fact, this paper specifically rejects Stewart's claim
that we are greatly underestimating the risk from protracted low
doses. There are a lot of "epidemiologists" who can be counted on to
say radiation is good/bad for you but the contributors to this study
(from the IARC in France; PNL, Los Alamos, ORISE in the US; Harwell
in the UK etc)  don't seem to fit in one of these categories.

The summary concludes: "They [their risk estimates] provide little
evidence that the estimates that form the basis of current radiation
protection recommendations are appreciably in error"

The excess relative risk from leukemia, 2.2 per Sv, was statistically
significant although the excess relative risk for all other cancers 
was essentially zero.

Its worth looking at even if your inclination is to reject the
results.

Best wishes

Paul Frame