November 3, 2000

DOE’s comments to GAO state (p. 62) [with annotations]:

“This study did not show any cancer risks linked to radiation exposure. Furthermore, the overall death rate among radiation-exposed shipyard workers was less than the death rate [for the general U.S. population. False: Should be "for unexposed workers."] It is well recognized that many worker populations have lower mortality rates than the general population, because the workers must be healthy to perform their work. [Does not apply.] This study shows that the radiation-exposed shipyard population falls into this category. [This is false.] In conclusion, the Johns Hopkins [study found no evidence] to conclude that the health of people involved in work on U.S. nuclear-powered ships [has been adversely affected] by exposure to low levels of radiation incidental to this work. [The actual NSWS study data show the "…study found no evidence… has been beneficially affected…"]

Nuclear workers had significantly LESS cancer, and total mortality, than the matched non-nuclear workers. The cancer result was suppressed in DOE’s 1991 summary.

"Nuclear Workers" are compared to "Non-Nuclear Workers." No “healthy worker effect” exists! DOE consistently mischaracterizes such data. As the best study, these reductions are highly significant, but, more importantly, the report confirms such results in other nuclear worker studies. These are also misrepresented by DOE and other agencies.

NSWS data were provided to GAO (with other cases of suppressed and misrepresented data, including “scientific misconduct”). But, GAO did not consider this result, and further, did not object to DOE's NSWS misrepresentation. (DOE also misrepresents the "Low-Dose Research" program.)

GAO also did not report: On the failure to publish the NSWS (since 1987); nor DOE's contract on the study since1994, still unpublished. (Nor on Jake Spalding's unpublished LANL study, etc.)

That NSWS was suppressed in: 1) BEIR V (by the same Chairman), and 2) DOE’s IARC contract to assess “all” US, UK, and Canadian workers (1995); and 3) UNSCEAR 1994.

[Nor assess the IARC report, of 95,000 workers, with generally poor data, vs. the high quality data of 108,000 NSWS nuclear workers (of 700,000 total workers) in which IARC misrepresented its own data to falsely support the LNT (also misused by NCRP and the Federal agencies).]

GAO (for Congress) seems now also to misrepresent the radiation health effects data. It doesn’t even address DOE’s failure to produce results from this $10 million (by 1987!) study directed by Congress (nor costs since, continuing to suppress the data, now also in the GAO report.)

It ignores other similar cases, e.g., the AEC “high-dose worker study,” directed by Congress.