Re: Leukemia in the news

[GACMail98@aol.com]

Mr. Baker,

It's plain that Mr. Ith's ariticle conflicts with the health physics
orthodoxy, and many in the health physics community have a low opinion of
journalists as a group, but other than that what exactly is the problem?  

Is it the source of Mr. Ith's information?  Mr. Ith cited information from the
Leukemia Society of America (LSA) which cited a peer-reviewed article
published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  As far as I know, these
are both reputable and credible sources for information on cancer and
associated environmental factors.  "Health Physics" (the official journal of
the Health Physics Society) is full of articles which cite other sources of
information with no more pedigree than Mr. Ith's cite.  

Is it Mr. Ith's failure to critically review the secondary reference, i.e.,
the NIH ariticle?  Mr. Ith reported the position of the LSA, a national public
health organization.  The LSA position was supported by the NIH peer-reviewed
article.  Mr. Ith is no more obligated to review the NIH article than a health
physicist is required to review the references in a National Council on
Radiation Protection position paper.  Though, in both cases, it would be a
good idea.

Is it the substance of Mr. Ith's article that the NIH article concludes that
previous studies underreported cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island
nuclear plant?  If so, then take that up with the LSA or NIH or Mr. Steven
Wing, the author of the NIH article.  It's your right to complain to the
Seattle Times, but let's not blame the messenger (whatever your opinion of his
profession) when it's the message to which you object.

Of course, before you complain to anyone Mr. Ith's article, perhaps, you would
be well-advised to actually read the NIH article first.

Glenn
gacmail98@aol.com

Subj:	 Re: Leukemia in the news -Reply - Forwarded
Date:	98-06-12 21:52:15 EDT
From:	mcbaker@lanl.gov (Michael C. Baker)
Sender:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-to:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
To:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)

I find the reporter's response below even more upsetting than the 
original article.  I have sent a letter to the executive and managing
editors of the Seattle Times explaining this and would encourage you
to do so also if you feel the same way.  Their email addresses are:

	mfan-new@seatimes.com 
	amac-new@seatimes.com

Mike Baker ... mcbaker@lanl.gov

At 02:02 PM 6/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>'Thought there might be some interest in Ian's reply....  apparently,
>standard "I'm no scientist" media disclaimers apply.
>
>'Have a great Friday!
>Michael
>mford@pantex.com
>
>>>> Ian Ith wrote on Thu 11 Jun 98  16:49 >>>
>Thanks for writing. I got the info from an article by the Leukemia
>Society, www.leukemia.org
>
>It cited 1997 research by people at U. North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
>I am no scientist, obviously, so perhaps I misinterpreted. Or
>perhaps the people at the Leukemia Society misinterpreted.
>
>But that's where that came from.
>
>Thanks.
>Ian
>
>

<< Subj:	 RE: Leukemia in the news
 Date:	98-06-12 17:02:52 EDT
 From:	mcbaker@lanl.gov (Michael C. Baker)
 Sender:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 Reply-to:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 To:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
 
  Isn't this the same data that was presented in the class action 
 lawsuit claiming health effects from TMI that was thrown out by
 the court for lack of credibility last year?  Is the Environmental
 Health Perspectives peer reviewed?
 
 Mike Baker ... mcbaker@lanl.gov
 
  At 11:17 AM 6/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
 >
 >Mr. Ith got his information at the Leukemia Soceity of America's
 >website.
 >http://www.leukemia.org
 >
 >This is the article:
 >
 >(7/97) Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident Linked to Residents' Leukemia
 >Risk
 >A survey by investigators from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
 >showed an increased risk of cancer, including leukemia, for people
 >living near Three Mile Island (TMI), following the nuclear accident at
 >the Pennsylvania facility on March 28, 1979.
 >Their study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, challenged
 >a 1990 Columbia University study that concluded radiation exposures were
 >too low to cause a cancer increase. The new study says, "Cancer
 >incidence, specifically lung cancer and leukemia, increased more
 >following the TMI accident in areas estimated to have been in the
 >pathway of radioactive plumes than in others areas."
 >