Re: Cancer Assessment Press Release

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

Ron,
So what this implies (playing the devil's advocate) is that the nuclear
industry
is the ONLY industry that has this physical screening and regular periodic
exams
to maintain worker health.  Also, we have had supreme luck in selecting 
individuals to work in this industry that natually have less incidence of
cancer
than the rest of the population.  
More curiosity questions for the epidemiologists out there.  Does the 
"general population" in these studies include those below or well below the 
poverty line?  How do you deal with the confounding factor (is that the
correct
term?) of people who refuse to take care of themselves or refuse medical
treatment on religious grounds?  Trying to do a balanced and fair
epidemiological study sounds liek a complete nightmare.  Seems like there's
way too much room for
bias and opinion to seep in.  

Scott Kniffin

mailto: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 19:24 02/01/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Scott:  
>
>How's this?
>
>The 'healthy worker effect' is the reduced morbidity and mortality seen in
>epidemiologic studies of worker groups as compared with the general
>population or with other control groups, even siblings.  It is largely
>attributable to preemployment selection (eg people who are hired are
>healthy) and to periodic physical examinations in worker populations which
>result in early detection and treatment of certain diseases which may
>otherwise result in early fatality.
>
>Ron Kathren, CHP