RE: Healthy Worker Effect

["Charles Meyer" <cmeyer@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

> Date:          Wed, 20 Mar 96 13:20:44 -0600
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          Shonka Research Associates Inc <sra@crl.com>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       RE: Healthy Worker Effect

> Al
> you know better.  Cancer incidence, mortality and morbidity are all
> lower for "workers" regardless of industry than for unselected
> members of the general public since the public includes young, old
> and others who are not employed, including those whose physical
> condition does not permit them to be employed.  When one compares the
> cancer incidence rates with "national averages", one must correct for
> "healthy worker effect" for any industry since workers are healthier
> than national averages.  In order to show "hormesis" one must show
> that nuclear workers are healthier than workers from comparable
> industries (nuclear would have to show a "healthier than healthy
> worker effect".  This would become fuzzy just as the NIC (not in
> city) cohort is for the japanese survivors.
> 
> Joe Shonka
> sra@crl.com
> 
Now I'm really confused!  I thought the " healthy worker effect" was 
based on a comparison with workers in other industries.  Would some 
one who actually did some of the work clarify where the expression 
 " healthy worker effect" came from and what is meant by that 
expression.

             ***************************************
               Russ Meyer                            
               Internet: cmeyer@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us 
               tel: 512/834-6688                                                    
               fax: 512/834-6654
             ***************************************