Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Memo to the Files OUTSIDE REVIEM OF MANCUSO, STEWART, KNEALE PAPER ON HANFORD WORKER On Monday, November 8, 1976, Drs. urs. BUTT, Weyzen, and Patrick to present their independent peer review of the Pfancuso et al. paper concerning Hanford workers' mortality. opinions indicated that in general the analysis was at best preliminary, the methodology was misleading and failed to address the hypothesis supposedly tested, and a re-analysis of the data was warranted. Among the basic methodological problems involved in the actual analysis 1. Age adjustments were n o t made; 2. Individual dose distributions for cancer and noncancer deaths were not presented; and 3.Testing of linearity and normality assumed inthe doubling dose hypothesis was not attempted. Any one of these three necessary analytical components alone would b e sufficient to affect the results found and would b e grounds fora Stewart-Kneale analysis essentially meaningless, o r as indicated, "garbage. " also indicated the limited value of a proportional mortality type of analysis, as done in this paper, rather than an incidence study which includes the living population of workers at risk of dying. Together, by their absence, they render the MancusoThere are other probleramatic issues specific to this paper which the peer review cormnittee identified. These include: 1. Choosing of the high percentage exposed-cancer group, an inherent fallacy of using proportionate mortality analysis, e.g., myeloid neo pl asia is exceptionally high, as pointed out in the paper,
Page 2
To the Files - 2 - November 16, 1976 but solid tumor deaths are low which by analogy would imply a protective effect of radiation exposure. 2. Estimation of latency and doubling doses are based on the year of the maximum value of the ratio between the percentage of workers who were exposed to radiation and died of cancer and t h e percentage exposed who died of noncancer causes. 3. The possibility of changes i n dosimetry such as suggested i n Table 2 by t h e jump i n exposure readings between 1955 and 1956. No relative risk est hate was presented, although this is the basic quantitative measure epidemiologists use in studies of this nature and could easily have been computed in this study and compared t o findings of previous studies of radiation exposure and cancer For these reasons, the peer review committee felt the basic data should be examined by a group independent from ERDA and its contractors. The committee volunteered t o undertake this re-examination of the data, primary analysis with methodological direction re the epidemiological content coming from ,, and, if available, epidemiological study of radiologists. - --,a bio statistician, being responsible for the , who has been involved inthe Dr. Mancuso isto be contacted '- a d requested t o provide the basic input data to Human Health Studies Program Division of Biomedical and