|
"Low Level Revision 1 1.2.2 1.2.2.1 |
Wade Patterson, CHP and former
editor of the Health Physics Journal, states (1996) that in the study by Cardis et al
above: "Matanoski et al, 1991, Health effects of low-level radiation in shipyard workers, Report to DOE,1991, the best dosimetry, and lack of confounding evidence, with best epidemiological population and study, was not included." "The following quotation is from the study text: The current paper presents a detailed comparison of the estimates for the combined worker population with risk estimates derived from high-dose-rate studies, comparison of risk estimates across facilities, together with the results of analyses of cause-specific mortality and radiation dose. "The term, High-dose-rate studies refer to those of atomic bomb survivors and patients irradiated for therapeutic purposes." "Also quoted from the text: The constant linear relative risk model used for deriving estimates for the workers.... and ...the models derived by the BEIR V Committee for estimating risks of leukemia and respiratory, digestive and other cancers were applied to the data for the workers. "Thus the data used for risk estimates, comparisons, and analyses have been fitted to a curve with positive slope and origin at zero (the LNT). "Also from the text (referring to leukemia): When the analyses were restricted to cumulative doses below 400 mSV and below 200 mSV, to assess the influence of death in the higher dose categories on the dose-response relationship, the association was no longer statistically significant... "This data and analysis in this study does not indicate support for the LNT, contrary to the representations made by the authors and others." |
RSH > Documents
> RSH Data Docs > 1.2
> 1.2.2 > 1.2.2.1
> Patterson 96
|
For more information please contact the RSH President Jim Muckerheide
For website problems please contact the Webmaster |