Doggone it, Dan, you haven't even given me time to read&reply to your _other_ post this thread yet! <theatrical sigh>
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Here is an > > abstract which urges caution in interpreting > "adverse > > pregnancy outcomes" and exposure to radiation, yet > > *did* find a "statistically significant > association > > between uranium operations and unfavorable birth > > outcome was identified with the mother living near > > tailings or mine dumps." > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1399640&dopt=Abstract > They didn't say what statistically significant > meant. I'd guess 1 sigma > was statistically significant, but one sigma above > the line would result in > a false positive about 15% of the time or so. I _used_ to know what "stat sig" was in terms of numbers in the medical literature; I want to say "by the chi-squared method" but I'm afraid that I've forgotten if that's 1 sigma or some other portion...Hmm, now I think it means "p = or < 0.05" which I believe is 'better than' 1 sigma... I've noticed that abstracts are frequently short on hard data - <grimace> if I were terribly cynical, I'd say it's so that one must buy the article or journal... > In particular, let us consider the last line of the > abstract: > "Also, birth defects increased significantly when > either parent worked in > the Shiprock electronics assembly plant. Overall, > the associations between > adverse pregnancy outcome and exposure to radiation > were weak and must be > interpreted with caution with respect to implying a > biogenetic basis." > > I interpreted this as data that, if combined with > other similar data, would > have a correlation that was high enough to actually > point to a correlation. And _my_ first thought was "I wonder if that plant is built on top of old mill tailings?" > But, where could we find similar data? > Aberdeen and Denver are obvious choices. If the > tailing pile is that > dangerous, then Aberdeen should be more dangerous, > since the background > level of radiation there is very high. IIRC, it is > high enough so that it > would be illegal if it came from an industiral > exposure to the general public. Ooh, so you say, yet you don't give me actual numbers! I'll try to find it myself *this* time, but next is _your_ search! :P > > I think we've already agreed that uranium miners > have > > an increased risk of lung cancer, but here is one > > abstract from a population-based case-control > >study about Navajo men and lung cancer: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10738707&dopt=Abstract > > "Navajo men who were underground miners have > >excess risk of lung cancer... <snipped a bit> > I'd be curious to see what fraction of the total > population were miners. > I'm surprised that number is not in the abstract. > Its amazing that these > abstracts do not contain the simple information that > would allow for a > quick calculation of the statistical significance of > the findings. True; yet this _was_ a "population-based case-control study" which found that "Sixty-three (67%) of the 94-incident lung cancers among Navajo men occurred in former uranium miners. The relative risk for a history of mining was 28.6 (95% confidence interval, 13.2-61.7)." Thus, of the 94 lung cancers identified in the population sample, 63 were former uranium miners. This older study (1984, NEJM) found [entire abstract]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6717538&dopt=Abstract "We performed a population-based case-control study to examine the association between uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men, a predominantly nonsmoking population. The 32 cases included ***all*** those occurring among Navajo men between 1969 and 1982, as ascertained by the New Mexico Tumor Registry. For each case in a Navajo man, two controls with nonrespiratory cancer were selected. Of the 32 Navajo patients, 72 per cent had been employed as uranium miners, whereas no controls had documented experience in this industry. The lower 95 per cent confidence limit for the relative risk of lung cancer associated with uranium mining was 14.4. Information on cigarette smoking was available for 21 of the 23 affected uranium miners; eight were nonsmokers and median consumption by the remainder was one to three cigarettes daily. These results demonstrate that in a rural nonsmoking population most of the lung cancer may be attributable to one hazardous occupation." [***emphasis mine] A 1999 German study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10564936&dopt=Abstract "...A comparison of the frequencies of malignancies of male workers older than 15 years with those of the population of the mining area for the years 1957 to 1989 demonstrates a significantly higher percentage of lung cancer among the uranium miners. There was no significant difference for other solid cancers and leukemias." > > There is the rub: you seem to be assuming that not > > only can "we" keep track of and contain toxic & > > hazardous substances for centuries, but that > whatever > > mistakes we are currently making can be corrected > >in the future -- > There is suppose to be _one_ nuclear storage site > for the US. The waste > will be stored behind big doors that can be locked. > All that the > civilization 200 years from now will have to do is > keep the doors locked. How hard is that? Dan, why do you keep saying "200 years" when the _government_ sites I've looked at use 'thousands' of years? Could you give me a cite that states 'in 200 years nuclear waste storage sites will have radiation levels no higher than background?' Or 'that of mine tailings?' Not that I'd want to live over a mine tailing myself. Would you feel safe living by one of the transport routes for high-level waste, given the current traffic crash/wreck data? > >I take the "conservative" approach, > > based on how we have lost track of things like > where > > we buried/stored nerve gas bomblets a mere 50 years > > ago, and that certain birth defects are associated > >with the mother's living near hazardous wastesites. <snipped 2 studies that found maternal proximity to landfill or 'hazardous waste sites' is associated with congenital anomalies --which I assume you do not dispute?> > I also think we differ in how much faith we place in > certain statistical > signals. Lets take, for example, the reports of > breast cancer being high > on Long Island than in the general public. If one > takes all known risk > factors into account, they go away. A second is how > many studies can show > a 3 sigma correlation with X and some form of > cancer. This seems to be > very significant until one realizes that there are > many different types of > cancer and a different one has the 3 sigma effect in > each case. One could > have the same type of correlation if one were to do > a number of different > studies comparing results for people born between > 1:15 PM and 1:47 PM and the general public. Yet the incidence of breast cancer *is* rising, as is male infertility -- I do not merely take 'on faith' any statistics; and one must take into account *who* has funded a study as well, and what is their vested interest in the outcome. That is why a drug company-sponsored study carries much less weight than, say, conclusions drawn from the Framingham database. Similarly, _who_ complains of illness is a factor to be considered; frex, in the case of "Gulf War Syndrome," I take the reports of formerly healthy pilots much more seriously than those of non-coms who may have used the service as a ticket out [I do not mean to imply that most NCs are 'opportunists,' but rather that 'if those whose very reporting of symptoms is going to deny them their life-work nevertheless do so, _something_ must be wrong']. > The classic example is the data that was claimed, by > some medical > researchers, to show a correlation between power > lines and a number of > different diseases. The APS used the data to show > that power lines also > prevented diseases. The methodology simply overdid > the risks. Yet this is still an area of 'annoying' anomalies... "Although the interpretation of the available evidence by most expert bodies has led them to conclude that exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields is not a human health hazard, a working group under the auspices of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) concluded that there was a possible low risk associated with certain exposures to ELF magnetic fields....therefore the conclusion of the World Health Organisation that further research is needed seems valid." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11008945&dopt=Abstract Frex, this report suggests that aerosolized pollutants are more likely to be deposited in lungs, near areas of excess electrical charge: "This analysis suggests that typically 2000 excess negative charges per cm3 are required to match the measured DC fields. Such space charge will result in unipolar aerosol charging in excess of the normal bipolar steady state charge distribution of pollutant aerosols..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10622258&dopt=Abstract > In high energy physics, we had lotsa interesting > looking bumps come and go. > For every real 3 sigma signal, there were scores of > false alarms. When > charm was found, I recall an 8 sigma signal that > screamed for attention. > > We have different biases, yours an optimistic "can > > do" engineers outlook, mine a more cynical "law of > > unintended consequences" one [yet not quite > >Murphy's Law bad]. > My actual criterion is we shouldn't strain at gnats > and swallow camels. :-) > I would be happy to compare the dangers to the > public from radiation with > the dangers from a number of other sources. I'd > suggest that we worry about > the big causes before we get upset about something > that might possibly kill > someone maybe in 200 years. If we did really want > that standard, wouldn't > we need to get rid of bridges, for example? Now, now, no need to get snide... ;) We certainly ought to crack down on obvious disasters-every-year like drunk driving, which kills, disables and injures thousands of Americans annually. And if everybody simply exercised moderately for 30 min 5 days a week, the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and stroke would decrease by ~ 50% (my best guesstimate, but some say much more, others a bit less). > I realize that sound silly, and I'm not trying to > mock your position. But, > since even pessimistic analsyis has fairly low > radiation exposure > associated with it, except for people who are stupid > enough to enter the > facility without taking precautions, then we are > talking about the > possibility of dangers that correspond to the > dangers inherent in old bridges. Do you have any numbers on transport risks? Although these will mostly be theoretical, since AFAIK high-level waste has been stored pretty much where it was/is being generated. > > And does this one that found "The risk of birth > > defects among index children was significantly > > associated with mother's military service in >Vietnam" reflect chemical exposure, or something else? > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10982986&dopt=Abstract > Yea, but look at the methodology: > "We compared self-reported pregnancy outcomes for > 4,140 women Vietnam > veterans with those of 4,140 contemporary women > veterans who were not deployed to Vietnam." > > How about a biased sample as the most likely cause > of the observation? I > know physicians who were doing work in that field > years ago, and they found nothing. I agree that a self-selected sample is more suspect than a randomely-selected one; I should have looked harder. Interestingly, most of the studies based only on military hospital records do not find a correlation between adverse pregnancy outcomes and active/deployed duty, but this 2003 one, "in states that conducted active case ascertainment of birth defects between 1989-93" concludes: "We observed a higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficiency, aortic valve stenosis, and renal agenesis or hypoplasia among infants conceived postwar to GWV men, and a higher prevalence of hypospadias among infants conceived postwar to female GWVs. We did not have the ability to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes were needed for less frequent individual component defects." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract This case-controlled study found a relationship between _paternity_ and some birth defects: "Vietnam veterans' relative risk of fathering an infant with one or more major malformations was 1.7 (95% CI = 0.8, 3.5) compared to non-Vietnam veterans." although "These findings should be viewed with caution since maternal and delivery characteristics appear to have contributed to the etiology of several of the major malformations among the Vietnam veterans' children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2400033&dopt=Abstract <some snippage> > But, if you held every industry to the > same standards that you > hold the nuclear power industry, we wouldn't have > much. For example, we > wouldn't have buildings because of the dangers of > people falling during > construction. We wouldn't have fossil fuel because > of global warming. We > wouldn't have cars because of fatal accidents. All your examples are point or short-term risks, not "hundreds or thousands of years" of risk, and those engaged in the activities have _chosen_ to do so. If I were out to eliminate all my personal risk, I certainly wouldn't ride horses! :) And I just saw an interesting snippet on current technology that greatly reduces car emissions for only several hundred dollars more per car (airtight steel gas tank instead of leaky plastic one, catalytic converter warmed sooner, and I forget the third measure)...PVEZ? I think these cars are called? [I already deleted the MIT Tech review this came from, sorry!] > > I also hold the logging industry responsible > > WRT loss of old-growth forest that will not be > > duplicated/replaced until ~ 1000 years (coastal > > redwood forest), and the loss of the many species > > dependent upon those ecosystem (frex various > > salmon populations). > The reason that forests shrunk so is due more to > your profession than any > other profession. <grin>. What stopped the loss of > forests No, US logging is *still* being pushed, frex by the current administration - and world-wide, we are still losing forest acreage at an alarming rate. "Ghost Bear Island's" 10,000 year old forest in Canada is being logged; logging roads contribute hugely to the slaughter of primates and other animals for bushmeat in Africa....I could go on at length. :-( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ghostbear/html/body_intro.html http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9904/23/bushmeat.enn/ >was the advent > of tractors and the improvement of the technology of > farming. I have no > argument with limiting or eliminating the harvest of > old growth redwoods > now, but that's only a small fraction of the reason > the forests in the US > are much smaller than 400 years ago. <scratches head> Our voracious appetite for redwood decking? Japanese appetite for redwood chopsticks? I did not mean *only* to stop redwood harvest -- the complex ecology of old growth forest is in no way replaced by timber plantations (although I applaud setting up such a renewable resource, just not at the expense of primary forest); the loss of potential medically useful plants alone makes me howl, to say nothing of "useless" fripperies like monarch butterflys or hyacinth macaws. Or chimpanzees and gorillas. :-( > Nuclear power is the only know technology that can > be a cost effective > substitute for fossil fuels. The risks associated > with nuclear power are > much lower. I'd be willing to bet that the loss of > life per MWh associated > with wind and solar power will be greater than > nuclear, too. Yet, nuclear > is the one everyone is afraid of. Given our government's history of nuclear cover-up (I refer to the fifties and sixties), and this administration's twisting of science findings and uncertainties (see the article Kneem posted re: letter from multiple nobel laureates etc.) to fit its agenda, I think caution is justified. Debbi who'd take you up on that bet, but it doesn't seem very likely at the moment, does it? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
