Re: Cancer Assessment Press Release

["Scott D. Kniffin" <Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Any epidemiologists out there that know what happens when you compare similar
workers w/ and w/o radiation?  Has this been done?  Why don't we exploit the
results if they support the 'a little is good for you' theory of radiaton
dose?  Why do I feel like I just opened a HUGE can of worms?

Scott Kniffin???

Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov
RSO, Unisys Corp. @ Lanham, MD
CHO, Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA, Greenbelt, MD

The opinions expressed here are my own.  They do not necessarily represent
the views of Unisys Corporation or NASA.  This information has not been
reviewed by my employer or supervisor.  

At 12:33 01/30/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Scott--
>
>The explanation is pretty simple actually.  People who are able to work
>("healthy workers") are healthier than the general poplulation which
>includes people that are too sick or unhealthy to work.  So any study that
>looks at workers always tends to show the workers are healthier than the
>general population even if adjusted for parameters like age and sex.  
>
>The usual way that good epidemiologists deal with this is to compare an
>exposed worker population to an unexposed worker population doing similar
>work.  
>
>I'm not an epidemiologist so this should not be considered a definitive
>explanation.
>
>Jerry Hunt, CHP
>Office of Radiation Protection
>Oak Ridge National Laboratory
>P.O. Box 2008
>Bldg. 4500-S, MS-6099
>Oak Ridge, TN  37831-6099
>Ph.-(423)576-5117, Mailto:huntjb@ornl.gov
>*******************************************
>
>