Pu-238 Dust Mitigation with HEPA filters

stungun · Veteran Member

RE: Pu-238 Dust Mitigation with HEPA filters

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

Yeah -- and I will also let you know when they stop ignoring the overwhelming evidence against LNT at low doses & dose rates....

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

SG wrote:

I paste a URL for Dr Steve Wing's report on LANL, that differs a little from the DOE version.

If you do a search of the RADSAFE listserv archives ( http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ ) for Steve Wing, you will find quite a few interesting comments from the subscribers.
According to Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP, Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH) at University of California, Davis:
"Remember, he is a sociologist, not a scientist. His training is limited to sociology and mathematical epidemiology. ....I have discussed these issues with Wing, and I believe that his positions and interpretations are clouded by his sincere belief that ionizing radiation and all things nuclear, especially bombs, are great societal evils that he must combat. "

Steve Wing has an unusual concept of epidemiology. He appeared in Albuquerque, NM in October, 1994 at a conference titled "Women, Health and the Environment: Action for Cancer Prevention." The purpose of this conference was to blame all cancers (and in particular breast cancer) on radiation and chlorine. During a panel discussion, Wing endorsed the use of what he called "popular epidemiology," which he defined as someone picking up his clipboard and going door to door quizzing his neighbors about their health.

Prof. Raabe continues: "I have met with him on three occasions, and I believe that he is a nice man. He is certainly bright and sincere. I have also pointed the flaws that I believe exist in his studies, such as in a debate that was held at Brookhaven National Laboratory in June. These are matters os science. As far as his radiation effects papers having appeared in "...top rated international epidemiological journals..." and "refereed by distinguished epidemiologists". Two were published were epidemiological journals. We do not know who the referees were. His other papers that he references are one in JAMA and one in Industrial Medicine, both medical journals, and a couple in Environmental Health Perspectives, a general environmental health government publication, one in New Solutions, a publication I have not seen. Publication of any paper, including my own, even in a prominent journal, does not prove that it is flawless or that the conclusions are correct. Likewise, publication in lesser journals does not prove a study is flawed or wrong. I think we have had plenty of RadSafe postings over the last two years that have pointed out the big flaws and limitations in Wing's radiation papers including the recent one on multiple myeloma that we reviewed two years ago when his full report became available. Wing has published a few times on lung cancer in radiation workers at Oak Ridge, but apparently has never actually studied these workers' medical records. He seems to limit his work to using available dosimetry data and mortality records to formulate his epidemiological analyses. This approach leaves the results open to possibly serious distortions by untested confounders. His studies of lung cancer at Oak Ridge ignored the cigarette smoking history of the subjects dying of lung or other cancer, heart disease, or emphysema. Cigarette smoking can explain all his findings. His claim that older workers are more sensitive to radiation carcinogenesis conflict with the published results of the atomic bomb survivor studies. Wing's statement to Congress that the big international epidemiological studies that show no detectable health effects from low-level ionizing radiation in radiation workers are less reliable than his limited studies seems illogical to me."

"It has been repeatedly demonstrated that it is Steve Wing who is prone to the use of selective and questionable methodology in his analyses, apparently to support his personal opinion that ionizing radiation is more hazardous than others believe. Nothing can be proved or disproved by epidemiological studies, and the obvious flaws in Wing's methodology are an impediment that cannot and should not be disregarded in trying to the findings into the fabric of radiobiology. In his discourses, Wing consistently refers to his selective mathematical associations as radiation effects, a jump in logic that scientists should cautiously avoid. Mathematical association does not prove causation, and many studies must agree before the causation hypothesis can find justifiable support. Selective studies like Wing's are not convincing when they disagree with other similar and better studies."

"the past work of Steve Wing is marked by manipulation of data to fit the mold of his anti-nuclear orientation. ... very specific scientific flaws have been repeatedly pointed out in his work. Selective (post hoc) use of data is the most egregious. Wing has never been able to rebut these widely disseminated criticisms. His other error is to repeatedly cite casual speculation as proven data.
For example, "the A-bomb survivors are obviously hardier than those who died, so it would be expected that they have a lower cancer mortality." Interesting conjecture, wholly unsupported by data. That is not science. And his ideological statements, published in some of his technical papers, belie the claim that he is apolitical."

stungun · Veteran Member

Hi Jaro,

Yes, if you can not attack the scientific specifics of the argument, then attack the man. In this case, instead of admitting that Dr Wing's LANL report was accurate, or specifying where you believe it is inaccurate, you attack Dr Wing. You can google one of his recent studies where there was no detectable effect of pu exposure in DOE workers, and try to use it against me, or realize Dr Wing is documenting what he studies, whether the conclusion is considered "pro-nuclear" or "anti-nuclear."

But I will let Dr Wing's testimony to Congress, and his list of publications listed at the bottom speak for itself, and let the reader's decide. One of your quoted rants on Wing lamented that he considered the survivors of Hiroshima healthy and strong immune systemed people. Below is a more thorough explanation, in context, with how Dr Wing states it...

This is all, of course, irrelevant to any statements that I have made in the above discussion on HEPA filters. I just thought your inquiring minds would appreciate the chance to absorb a few words from Dr Wing...

http://www.house.gov/science/wing_071800.htm

Steve Wing, Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina

Statement to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United States House of Representatives, July 18, 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about health effects of low level radiation. I am an epidemiologist on the faculty at the University of North Carolina where I have studied radiation health effects among workers at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Hanford and Savannah River under funding from the Departments of Energy and Health and Human Services. Epidemiology, the study of disease in human populations, is especially important in risk estimation and standard setting because animal and laboratory studies necessitate extrapolation from high to low doses, from molecules and cells to organisms, and from other species to humans (1-3).

We know that ionizing radiation can cause cancer and inherited mutations by damaging DNA. Although epidemiologists have studied populations exposed to both high and low levels of radiation, extrapolation of risks from high to low doses has led to a debate over whether a straight line extrapolation, the linear no-threshold model, is appropriate. My testimony will make three points: current cancer risk estimates are too low by a factor of ten or more; current standards do not adequately protect workers and the public; and, a large and growing body of scientific evidence shows that there is no basis for further relaxation of radiation protection standards.

Extrapolation from high dose studies.

High dose studies examine special populations including patients receiving radiation treatments. By far the most influential are studies of survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that are currently the primary basis for cancer risk estimates. However, the A-bomb studies are flawed due to selective survival, poor dose measurement and confounding exposures (4-7).

The atomic bombings produced massive immediate casualties as well as delayed deaths due to lingering effects of radiation, infectious epidemics, and the destruction of food, housing, and medical services (8). Only the healthiest survived these conditions, especially among those who are most vulnerable, the young and the old. By 1950, when a list of survivors was assembled for long-term study, persons most susceptible to radiation had already died. The healthy survivor effect leads to underestimation of risks, particularly for exposures in utero, during childhood, and at older adult ages (6).

Detection of radiation risks depends upon the ability of an epidemiological study to classify persons according to their exposure levels. A-bomb survivors were not wearing radiation badges, therefore their exposures had to be estimated by asking survivors about their locations and shielding at the time of detonation. In addition to the typical types of recall bias that occur in surveys, stigmatization of survivors made some reluctant to admit their proximity (9). Acute radiation injuries such as hair loss and burns among survivors who reported they were at great distances from the blasts (10, 11) suggests the magnitude of these errors, which would lead to under estimation of radiation risks.

Another bias occurs because of the higher exposures of distant survivors to residual radiation. Fallout affected distant survivors in both cities (8, 12). In addition, survivors who were shielded or exposed at greater distances were strong enough to enter the areas near the hypocenters of the blasts within hours of detonation, exposing themselves to residual radiation created by the atomic weapons (8, 12-14). Residual radiation exposures of lower dose survivors leads to an underestimate of radiation risks.

Direct observation from low dose studies.

In 1956 Dr. Alice Stewart and colleagues reported in The Lancet that fetal exposures during obstetric x-ray examinations are associated with elevated childhood cancer rates (15). The fetus is especially sensitive to radiation due to rapid cell division. Stewart's findings have been replicated in numerous other low dose studies (6, 16-18), and standards for medical practice now dictate that small doses of radiation associated with a single x-ray should be avoided during pregnancy.

-- Edited by stungun at 02:54, 2005-10-16

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

SG wrote:

instead of admitting that Dr Wing's LANL report was accurate, or specifying where you believe it is inaccurate, you attack Dr Wing.

....I just thought your inquiring minds would appreciate the chance to absorb a few words from Dr Wing...

Thanks to a RADSAFE colleague, here is another illustration of Steve Wing's ( & company) selective use of data to support his antinuke thesis and create scare stories. This is not science, and Wing doesn't deserve the respect of a scientist. He alone is responsible for ruining his own reputation. No amount of referencing of obscure reports by you will save it for him, IMO. And of course he doesn't help your case either, so I would suggest you find less dubious sources for supporting your arguments.

http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2005-October/001063.html
From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael McNaughton
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:18 PM

The Pu-238 issue arises from a 1973 LANL report that in 1972, at several air-sampling locations, the Pu-238 concentration was higher than the Pu-239 concentration. No explanation is given in the report so Steve Wing is
correct when he says it is "unexplained". I don't know what he means when he refers to "estimates from DOE." Anyway, the concentrations were less than 1% of the applicable limits, and it was 33 years ago, so I don't feel any urgent need for an explanation.

The autopsy data are from the 1960s and 1970s. According to standard statistical tests, there is no significant difference between the Los Alamos concentrations and those at other locations. The claim that the Los Alamos concentrations are "higher than background" results from (a) using an incorrect measurement of the Los Alamos background to claim that the Los Alamos concentrations should be half the Colorado concentrations, and (b) comparing Los Alamos only with Colorado, ignoring the data from the rest of New Mexico and several other locations.

mike

Mike McNaughton
Los Alamos National Lab.