Re: Cancer Assessment Press Release

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

John,  thanks for your comments regarding my statement concerning 
epidemiological studies. It is not that I am against the studies, 
more than I take issue with "who" conducts the studies, and, the 
"motivations" behind the studies. Studies are helpful in determining 
causal relationships, if carried out scientifically, and without all 
of the biases and baggage. Perhaps my comments appeared to be 
paranoidal in nature. However, can we honestly say that the most 
recent studies that have been published regarding radiation workers 
and cancer, that they have been fair, and, that the conclusions have 
been even remotely valid?  Let's just consider Steven Wing, Hanford, 
Rocketdyne and even some that have been recently published in Europe.

The BNL study appears to be more politically motivated than a search 
for worker healthfulness. WHY was BNL chosen? They have been in the 
news recently due to leaks, yet, we are told that the exposures to 
these individuals have been minimal, and, there have been no leaks 
which have affected the public. Granted, there may be a reason to 
consider worker healthfulness, but if that is true, is it because 
there have been leaks at the facility, or, is it that ALL nuclear 
facilities in the USA, and others around the world, should also have 
studies done. If we are to gain any real knowledge, than we should 
also consider a broader spectrum to analyze, not just a small sample, 
such as BNL.

IF a valid study is to be conducted, it needs to consider the other 
environmental causations of cancer. It was my impression, from 
reading the article, that this was not the case. Having read parts of 
the Rocketdyne Study, and having heard a presentation on its content, 
can we all say that the study was scientifically valid? Now there 
will be additional studies conducted, due to the original study. It 
too did not consider environmental factors. What cost is there to 
society, to the company itself, due to this poorly conducted 
epidemiological study?

My real paranoia is, that whatever the results, they will be negative 
with respect to workers at nuclear facilities. I believe that this is 
the bias in most cases. 

I am NOT against studies, for I am a scientist. I only differ on the 
methods and motivations behind them. Study of an even playing field, 
and I am all for them.

John, thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand my thoughts.

Regards....



> Sandy:
>      You surprise me, with the paranoid implication that all health
> surveys of nuclear workers are evil.  Others seem to see the clearance
> against the cancer registry of all former nuclear workers as having 
> political rather than health motivation.  In my view as an environmental 
> epidemiologist, such studies are a way for the management of BNL to carry 
> out part of its obligation to monitor the healthfulnesss of working conditions.
>   Should not this be a positive interest of the Health Physics community ?  
> Do you prejudge all the results of badge monitoring and make a public issue 
> of it?
>    The defintions of "healthy worker effect" are correct, and its impact
> on overall mortality may be substantial.  Cancer mortality is less
> affected.  Let us keep information open and flowing, even if we can't
> always predict what it says or understand what it means.
>                John R. Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H.
>                Professor of Epidemiology, gjohn@BGUMAIL.bgu.ac.il      
------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205

ICN Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -