Rocketdyne Worker study -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Gary and Radsafers,

We have not gotten very far with our review of the Rocketdyne/AI worker study,
but it is evident that this study does not justify any immediate change in our
standards or practices.  I suspect that, for many people,  the presence of Alice
Stewart on the advisory panel and Douglas Crawford-Brown as a consultant will be
enough to relegate the report to the trash can, but we must look a little deeper.

The immediate good news is that the workers studied were healthier (less cancer
and total mortality) than either the US population or the reference worker
population.

My problem at the moment is in trying to determine how the investigators found 1
or 2 deaths in a group to be statistically significant using a 95% confidence interval.

The significance of the study is limited by its small population, the inability to
correct for smoking or for the exposure to hazarous chemicals.  (Rocketdyne, of
course, was engaged in testing rocket engines and in conducting experiments with
propellents.)

Any insights you have on this study would be appreciated.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov