Re: Babies Affected by Dads' X-Ray Exam

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

John,
This misrepresents Kinlen. Kinlen showed excess leukemia, as Mike said:
"Incidence of disease increased when there was a large influx of personnel for 
facility construction. This happenned whether or not the facility was related
to nuclear power." It's irrelevant whether his hypothesis on cause is right. 

> Mike:
>      Kinlen was the author of the hypothesis, which  presumed an 
> infectious agent and some lack of herd immunity in transient workers.
> There is not any evidence from proponents that acute lymphatic leukemia 
> in childhood is infectious and no data on immunity has been presented.
> The relationship of perinatal radiation to childhood acute lymphatic 
> leukemia is well established.  

Stewart's association of high-dose, high-dose-rate, x-rays to childhood
leukemia is generally considered to be marginal in the realm of epi. If it
weren't that this is *terrible radiation*, the evidence would have probably
been rejected. It may be "generally accepted", but hardly "well established".
Such effects have not been confirmed in mothers/children at lower doses and in 
other radiation exposure circumstances that could confirm the general
relationship. 

But it's certainly not justified to use this data to imply confirmation of
Gardner's hypothesis that small parental preconception doses result in
leukemia in children (nor the sillier idea of dragging isotopes home). If any
such premise were serious rather than disingenuous, medically-exposed patients 
at higher doses, and high-background populations, would be studied to confirm
it. Otherwise it's just another effort to take data out of context to foster
fear of radiation. 

>In my view those who lean on such a 
> mechanism as Kinlen's are avoiding the issue, not clarifying it.

In my view those who lean on such a mechanism as Gardner's are misrepresenting 
the issue, not clarifying it. 

> AFter a stint in the library, perhaps we can hear from you again.

Very nice. But Mike got it right. At least he fairly and accurately
represented the Kinlen paper. 

>                   John Goldsmith, M.D, M.P.H.  Professor of Epidemiology 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

 
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Baker wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If I remember correctly there was a followup study to Gardner's that
> > showed evidence that the increased incidence of leukemia was more likely
> > due to the transient nature of the work force required to build the
> > power plants and other facilities. Incidence of disease increased when
> > there was a large influx of personnel for facility construction. The
> > happenned whether or not the facility was related to nuclear power.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone can help me with my memory. Tomorrow when I am in my
> > office I'll see if I can put my hands on the study and give you better
> > information.
> > 
> > Mike Baker