Re: Conspiracy to suppress the shipyard stu

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

	Would publication in HEALTH PHYSICS of Wade's summary be
sufficient? Would a much more extensive paper be desirable? I am confident
that we could arrange for publication with the Editor, especially if John
Cameron or Merrill Eisenbud wrote it.   

 > Bernard L Cohen wrote:  
> >         Not publishing a high quality $10 million study is a crime against
> > the scientific community, no matter what the excuse. Certainly, not
> > being paid for the writing is no excuse. Any ethical scientist
> > would feel compelled to do this on his own time if necessary. Bias in what
> > appears in the scientific literature is at least as bad as bias in
> > carrying out a scientific study for the effect it has on the scientific
> > method.
> >         Could someone write a report on the study and publish it in some
> > scientific journal, like HEALTH PHYSICS? If no one else can do it, I will
> > volunteer if someone gets me the information. But a member of the review
> > committee would be much more appropriate.
> 
> I'm almost certain that Art Upton was chair of the Technical Advisory
> Panel and both John Cameron and Merril Eisenbud were members. 
> 
> The report itself is 300+ pages long but the section of most interest is
> shorter.
> 
> Here's a summary I prepared. Sorry about the table format. You'll have
> to make the best of it.
> 
> Summary of the Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study
> 
> The study is reported in:
> G.M. Matanoski et al., "Health effects of low-level radiation in
> shipyard workers", Final report, Johns Hopkins University, Department of
> Epidemiology, (June 1991).
> DOE Contract Number: DE-AC02-79EV10095
> 
> 4 Discussion
> 	4.1 Summary of findings
> "The study of health effects of low-dose radiation in shipyard worker
> reports analyses using standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and an
> external comparison. The data are presented in two ways: the total
> experience of all individuals is analyzed according to the dose category
> which individuals reached, either at the time of death or at the end of
> the study period, or the experience of individuals is counted in each
> dose category in which individuals contributed person-years of follow-up
> during the course of the study. The first type of analysis is referred
> to as "categorical" analyses and the second, "time-dependent" analysis.
> The analyses represent the results from data available at the end of the
> contract and include death information collected through December,
> 1981."
> 
> "The SMRs from the categorical analysis in which the individual remains
> in the same group throughout follow-up indicate that the risks of death
> in the NNW (non-nuclear workers) group of shipyard workers are similar
> to that of the general population, but the risks of total mortality in
> both groups of nuclear workers (<0.5 rem, and *0.5 rem) are lower than
> the U.S. rate. The all cause mortality is highest for he NNW group and
> lowest for the *0.5 rem group which certainly does not suggest that
> radiation causes a general risk of death. In fact, in the *0.5 rem
> group, the mortality is only 76% of that of the general population and
> is significantly lower than would be expected."
> 
> "The SMRs for leukemia and all lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers (LHC)
> indicate risks of these diseases among nuclear workers which are below
> those of the general population. The SMR of 1.10 for the NNW group
> indicates that the observed deaths are similar in number to those
> expected based on population rates. The only unusual feature of the data
> is the fact that, unlike the SMRs for all cause mortality, for these two
> causes of death the SMR for the *0.5 rem group is higher than the SMR
> for the <0.5 rem group. Thus, a comparison between these two groups
> suggests that the leukemia ratio is 2.17 times higher and the lymphatic
> and hematopoietic cancers ratio is 1.55 times high in the *0.5 rem group
> than in the <0.5 rem group. However, in no case are the ratios
> significantly higher than those of the external comparison group of U.S.
> white males at a p * 0.05. Certainly, the risks of leukemia or all
> hematopoietic neoplasms are not high compared to the NNW group."
> 
> "In conclusion, the nuclear worker population does not show a
> significant increase in the risk of any of the cancers studied except
> for mesothelioma when compared to the general population. Mesotheliomas
> are known to be asbestos related and the role of this substance in the
> apparent risk needs to be determined in future analysis. A lower but
> significant excess was also noted in non-nuclear workers. The mortality
> from lung cancer is slightly higher than that of U.S. males for the
> shipyard population as a whole, but within the subgroups only the NNW
> group has a statistically significant increase. Among the nuclear
> workers, the slight risk increase, while not statistically significant
> compared to the general population, appears to increase with increasing
> radiation DE (dose equivalent) level. These results would have to be
> controlled for asbestos and smoking before any weight can be placed on
> the observation."
> 
> "The data clearly indicate that both nuclear worker groups have a lower
> mortality from leukemia and lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers than
> does the non-nuclear group. All three groups have lower rates than the
> general population. However, if the <0.5 rem group or the 0.5-0.9 rem
> group is used for comparison, then all dose groups 1.0 rem and above in
> the * 0.5 rem group have higher mortality rates than the <0.5 rem group
> for both leukemia and all lymphatic hematopoietic neoplasms. There is no
> consistent dose response with radiation that would suggest that
> radiation is not the factor associated with the increase. Therefore,
> further investigation must be focused on whether variations in jobs or
> other shipyard exposures or non-job related risk factors may be
> influencing the rate of disease among the nuclear workers. The SMRs are
> very sensitive to any changes, such as lagging, due to small numbers, so
> these within group observations may simply represent chance variations."
> 
> Table 4.1.A
> Mortality for selected causes, *0.5 rem group, <0.5 rem group, and NNW:
> Summary of Standardized Mortality Ratios.
> 
> Cause, SMR *0.5 rem, 95% C.I., SMR <0.5 rem, 95% C.I., SMR NNW, 95% C.I.
> All, 0.76, 0.73-0.79, 0.81, 0.76-0.86, 1.00, 0.97-1.03, 
> Leukemia, 0.91, 0.56-1.39, 0.42, 0.11-1.07, 0.97, 0.65--1.39
> LHC, 0.82, 0.61-1.08, 0.53, 0.28-0.91, 1.10, 0.88-1.37
> Meso-thelioma, 5.11, 3.03-8.08, 5.75, 2.48-11.33, 2.41, 1.16-4.43
> Lung cancer, 1.07, 0.94-1.21, 1.11, 0.90-1.35, 1.15, 1.02-1.29
> 
> Comments:
> 1. All of the above is a direct quotation from the report.
> 2. The fact that the SMR for the NNW group is 1.0 belies the much touted
> "healthy worker effect."
> 3. The all-cancer rate of .76 for the *0.5 rem group is approximately 16
> standard deviations lower than that for the general population.
> 4. The table has its columns delimited by commas, and its rows by
> paragraph marks. It can be re-formatted, if desired, with the "insert
> table" function of Microsoft Word, and perhaps other word processing
> programs.
> 
> Best wishes,
> -- 
> Wade
> 
> mailto:hwade@triax.com
> 
> H.Wade Patterson
> 1116 Linda Lane
> Lakeview OR 97630
> ph 541 947-4974
>