RE: Healthy Worker Effect

[welch@CEBAF.GOV (welch)]

>> 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                            
>  
I have always assumed that what Joe said is the case, but then my question
is, "why does comparing nuclear workers with other similar workforce cohorts
become fuzzy?"  Isn't that really the comparison we should be making in the
first place?  Why is it not the normal case as Russ indicated he assumed it was?

Keith Welch
welch@cebaf.gov            
KW