melanoma among 'scientists'?

[Thurman Wenzl <wenztb@worldnet.att.net>]

This confusing finding from LLNL would not be the first time that an 
assoc between job and disease was not found only among workers in 
'dirty' industries.  I don't have the references handy, but I believe 
that elevated brain cancer has been found among professionals - that 
could not be attributed to some 'traditional carcinogen.'

But continuing my question about UV at LLNL, Wade Patterson replied that 
all the buildings there had fluorescent fixtures, and thus that strange 
difference (in disease risk) between '69 and '66 buildings could not be 
so explained by UV exposure.  But what about at a more individual 
level? - could more scientists be working with fluorescents AT their 
desks?  In a small scale case control study, I can imaging trying to 
learn that characteristic of each study subject's workplace - with all 
the usual problems with possible response bias, which could be checked 
into with some kind of validation.    

One more thing: Wade P asked in passing about gogo dancers, and believe 
it or not, their exposures have been measured AND published - in 1969:

"TI:  Hazards to Go-Go Dancers from Exposures to "Black" Light from
Fluorescent Bulbs
AU:  Schall-EL; Powell-CH; Gellin-GA; Key-MM
SO:  American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 30, pages
413-416, 14 references
PY:  1969
AB:  Field and clinical study of the occupational hazards of long-wave
ultraviolet light from fluorescent BLB bulbs, and of noise level, on 
lightly clothed personnel in 55 New Jersey nightclubs, cabarets, and 
go-go bars. Maximum light energy was measured as 0.2 microwatts per 
square centimeter at 253.7 nanometers, 1.4 microwatts per square 
centimeter, and from less than 20 to 210 microwatts per square 
centimeter at 365 nanometers; noise levels ranged from 90 to 107 
decibels.  Clinical findings for inspection of the skin and eyes of 
hostesses and dancers are related to physiological characteristics 
including age, hair and skin color, and susceptibility to suntanning, 
and are correlated with work duration and weekly exposure time,
and distance from and level of the lights.  No significant clinical 
evidence of damage to eye or skin is found; however, interpositon of 
ordinary glass between the light source and the employee is suggested 
for reducing the potential eye and skin hazards from the light emitted 
in the erythemogenic frequencies without diminishing visual effects.  
Exposure time of customers to the light and noise is determined as 
insufficient to be hazardous."

I'd still like to see some UV measurement data from LLNL; it's one of 
the few places where I believe there are H&S  staffers who know how to 
do it.

Thurman Wenzl, ScD CIH
...usual disclaimers, ..my opinions only.