ML20129J379
| ML20129J379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1978 |
| From: | Rubenstein D NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129J281 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-309 NUDOCS 8507220558 | |
| Download: ML20129J379 (20) | |
Text
.
A*""ACTIC L 1r7!?f 0F FrtAL REPOR~ 113 5*'3MI'""O ST 30MA3 7. FXiC 50, M.D.
Sy David Rubinstain Applied Statiscies 3rsuch Office of Management and
? ogram Aca17 sis IT.S. Nuclaar Regula:or7 Commission l
B507220558 850524 PDR FOIA ALVAREZ85-309 PDR l
l
~ _. -..--,..-.--. ---...,..-_---..-.-.-
r-3-
l Is nr opinien the :ssul:s of nea 17 all.abulations and ana17sas given by the authors ars Largel7 subsu=ed. by de analyses per-'d -
I ing :o Tablas.11 and 23. 3ese :vo :ablas centrol for one-importan: variable,. age at death; day deal vi:h nucually a:cclusive groups and da statistical analysia is ra:her straight for card.
Tabla 11 (for males) and sN'a:17 Tabla 23 (for females) break.
dcwn de al' certified deaths by groupings of radiacion deses and ages an dead. For each cat' defined 27 2 particular age group and radiation estego:7.he percan: of cancs: deads is computad. The percen: of cancar deads is also c mputed for each radiacion group tocaled over ages. Le total group of Tabla 11 shows a rather consistant and app;sciabla rise in de percene of cancer deaths as one naves f: ur de :ero :sdiaciou subg oup :s de f00 -- centigsde subs: cup.
3e sa=a holds :: e for 70 + age group and :o lasser degrees or oc an all for other poups.
Eowever,, for no age group do he data suggese a :ensiacane devnvard
- sed. Le data is certsd-'7 consistanc vid an upward ::and for the higher age groups if all:wancas for pl.tusible s:aciacical variacion are cade. Tabla 23 providas si d's: :ssul.s.
I
- 4. -
3.
Caveses on Section 2 and criticisms on the 71:a1 Recore..-
-In -Ais see:1on I shall discuss sene aspects of.he data and the analysis which indicate a cautious approach :o de da:a and ther results of the authors. Se primary issue is dea:h races and cancer death races among workars a: risk rather than cancer death rates among deaths. *herefore a prospective type of analysis is preferable :o a retrospective analysis. Moreover
.I feel thac the logic of a prospec.1ve analysis is = ors direc and problems such as confounding are :mre apparen: and : se:able vid the prospective approach. Beyond the issue of prospec:17e vs retrospective analysis, I find tha: the da:a is ve.7 :: icky and -hat much of the ana17 sis by Mancuso ec. al. is see convincing. Sese vill be discussed with a few detailad ena=plas ra:her dan wi:h exhaustive cri:1cisn.
Confoundinst of see and esd12 fon dose.
The auchors poin: ouc repea:adly. da: :1=e rela:ed variablas such as calendar year, 7 ears before dead, and age are related to de respectiva dosages received or de proportion of verkars exposed.
I wish :n po1== clear 17 :o d e 314:1cuship becveen cumula:ive Table 21 11s:s d e dosages at given ages and cancer death rates.
= san cumulative dose by age for non-cancars and :vo selec:ad 3: cups The mean cu=ulative dose for cen-canes:s rises fron of cancer.
aboue 10' con:1: ads a: icv ages to a **-- of abcut 30 :en irsds for ages of 50 years :o de :11-s1=:ias anddeclines is de sevse:Las.
~5-This rise and fall is repeated for tha two cabled cancer groups combined.
Unfortunately va do not ' cow da ;a::arn for other enncers whid. On de average (sea table 4 had icw mean cu=ulacite deses. Eovaver,.he non-csacers by themselves form.he overwhel-d g sejori 7 of cases and de trend for them 1.s very clear. In Table 11 we can see chac the cancer race of the non-exposed workers rises sharply :o the fif ties, reaches
=^= in the sixties, der"*es in the-seven:ias to a level roughly reached is the for: des. If one looks ac the cotal column de same patters is obsethed. An inspection of U.S. statistics fc= de year of 1970 yielded de same pac:ern but roughly ac :etce de races for Hanford workers. yor cue reason or another de sample of deceased Hanford workers is such dat deir mean cumulative doses are highes: at de ages ac which "catural" cancer deaths predoninaca.
The data of :able 11 are perhaps sore relevant since ther show da cumulative doses at death. To show de :enfounding rslacionship requires moderace17 i=volred analysis I have desea one based ou de ma17sia of contingenc7 : ables. Each call of Table 11 has an obserted frequenc7 of desch designated by de authors as"' fos'.'
L a expec:ad frequencies for he cells a:e computed is such a sanner dac cor:ssponding cella of an7
- wo columna are proportional to che respectiva column :ccal, and vid idenci:21 propor:1onali:7 properties for :ws.
'"he differences between o'oserved and expec:ad frequencias indica:a.he manner in which propor:141 assign =en: is riolacad.
he ra:1cs of dese diffarances o de respec:1te expected frequencias sees :o 31te a good quanci:acite : essure of de shif:s 40 6
-S-f :m proporticnali:7
~.able.t shows da: in age groups vid high :ancar rates (50-39, 60-49) de differseces are negative for icw radia:1cn groups and post:1ve for high. radiation groups _ h colloquial language dose eso age groups gen :: sore chan their fair share of high radia:Lon.
Se opposi:e =end or a seu::a1 =end is apparent for the other age groups..
Table 11 which gives =ean
~ d2:1ve doses vs age bears further examina:1c'n as :s the pecit'2: cature of de confounding of =ean cumulative radia:1cu doses and age and the arra:10 nature of.his confounding.
- e: us first icok agal: at de non-cancers.
3a: :he cumulative doses rise vi-2 age is ca:nral enough; de older a workar is the more chance he had :o ace.m21 ace :adia:1ca. 3ue why is :hore such l
a sudden drep (377.) between.he ages of 65 and 707 Noce dat dese =eans i
are based respec:17e17 :n 1071 and 715 workers and prssumab17 ces:17 al'_
of -Je 716 verkers in de 70 year group are also 1 de 65 year g :up.
Among possibla explana:1cus are the ic11 wing:
(a)
New workers vi-2 :o :sdia:1:n vere hl sd 2: ages above 65 chus diluting de =es=.
(b)
S e mean cumulative doses are s ecus 17 i=fluenced by a. few workers vid ext:s=ely large doses.
l (c) Se death rates becveen ages of 63 and 70 years ars strikingly higher for verkars vi:h odarate :2dl.atice deses.han for verkers vi d Iess :2dia:1:n (Note da: dese are sc=-cascar das es).
l (d) 3ere is some ;eculi.tr age related assiganen: of :2dla:1:n l
doses c verkars.
(
L
-T--
- 4h11e some of.hese amplanations sa7 be ver7 implausibia in.his concast and (d) appears perhaps to be che most plausibia, vi:h limi:ad, retrospective summ==M_as it is difficult to decide vid convic:fon.
We comparison of the :neen radiacion dose at death (99 ceneirads, see Table 2).*sid :he w'=
mean radiacion dose of all ages (33 ceneirads) presents a shdiar problem.
- he mean cumulative doses for :he :vo cancer groups listed. i= Tabla 21.
also show very sharp changes is small age incarvals suggesting caution in incorpreting resul:s.
For example for Ras 'Teoplass deads de mean e umalacive dose changes from 701 cancirads :s 34 caneirads in one year.
I do not wish, :s case doubn on :he accuracy of dose numbers; however I do suggest -Jtac such. sumbers akan a: faca value can sistaad. *he authors app 17 b11:he17 Studen:s :- :sse :o such numbers- (in Tabla 21 as elsewhers) and seen :s imply validic7 to :hese scacistical :sses.
An examination of analvses raistinz :s T.able 4 Table a presents an analysis somewhat diffarant fres dose discussed above.
De authors argue from de face dac for cancers for which de cancar raca
- of Hanford workars was high :e14:1re :o.he cancer :a:a of :he L 1.
population de sean cumulative doses vers also high.
For exa=pla for myelomas de ratio of the raca of Hanford workers :s :he rz a of de A
U.S. population was highese a=cng al' cs cers the au. hors list in Table 4, and at the-sane :1=a de sean :- th:17e dose of Eanford workers dying 41,.h =7 ele =as vas also de highese. A=ong :he 13 cancer groups considered by the au: hors the relacienship be:veen Jean dose for :he cancers and the respective ra io is :oc perfec: but quite respec:abla as an exand a:Lon of *able i vill reveal.
The co = ela:1on.
(Spear =en's rho) be:veen de dose and de ra:1o is.61 vid a one-sided P value of about.003.
The au: hors su=nari:e de rela:1onship by concasting :he observed deachs vid.he expec:ad dea:hs (based on 7.3 experiance scandardized to achieve 670 deads) for :vo groups of caccers,1.4. dose vi:5 high nean et=ula:17e doses and : hose vid low cu=u14:17e dose.
Ter de high dose group de obse: red su=ber 391 is significan:17 larger dan.he expec:ad s :nber of 313.2.,
this diff arance as well as de above cocela:1cn sugges:
at first i=pressica hat high cancer ra:es are associa:ed vi:h radia:1ce.
The sugges:ad rela:1onship is soc as si=ple as i: sigh see:2.
Iec us em-d e the i=plicacion of de sean dose of 773 can:1: ads for
=yelomas the cancer group vid :he highesc ratio.
First 14: us ga:her some fac:s. Table 1 indicaces de:e vere *.1 esses of nyele=as.
7:o =
Table 3 so: reproduced here 1: can be infar ed cha: 3 of casa 11 cases
- sceived so :sdia:1on wha:sover. Final *.7 ve seed de ;er:en: ages of all cases in various radia: ion :acagorias :f Table il as well as :he percen: ages of ancers in ':hese ;;oups.
-9 Cases Cancers Jose No._
No.
0 1136 33.0 226*
33.7 1-19 625 17.3 98 14.6 10-99 394 25.4 194 29.0 100-499 5 12.
14.5 113 16.9 500 154 4.1 39 5.3 To al 3520 100.(1) 670 100.0
}
- 226 = 16.9 x 1336 The najori:7 of al'. cancers coce from workars vi:h doses less -Aan 99 can:1: ads and :he overwhel=ing.ajori:/ froc workers vi.h doses less dan 500 cancirada.
.! :7elocas follow de sa:e ;a::arn den de large average dose was caused by a few exceptional doses, in which case de observed ;henonenon is aberan: ra:her han :7pical.
If ex::ene observa:1:ns a s :uled ou:. hen.he deses af de 3 cases vid :sdiacion =us: cen:er en.abou: 900 canci:ada suggesti=g sece:hing like a :hrsshold ;hencuenen and :ha: lever radia: ions ars ;;ocac:17e.
Ie=enber.ha: nore dan 30% of ir:dadia:ad esses have doses '. ass 500 cen:L: ads.
The au: hors seen :s :sjecn the :hrasifold phenonenon and strongl7 endorse the hype:hesis of a linear relacionship (page 12. "de onl7 logical al:erna 1re").
In face : hey base : heir co=pu:a.1ons of de doubling dese and excess :or:ali:7 CISt, page '.3) on da: as s u=p tio:..
3 de linear hypothesia 1.r : te and de racia of de intar:ap: :o de n
m t
O.
Preliminaries.
The document under review is the Final Repor: 113 by Taomas T.
Mancuso, M.D. submi:ted under contrae: to ERDA.(ll. The sub-scantive part relating esacers :o :sdiation was wri::en by Thoems Mancuso,.tlica Stewart, and George Ineale. This pare has also been published is the Real-J. Physics Jcursal [1].
~.2 this review the subsantive par: say be referred :o as the Final Report or the Mancuso Study.
Several ables era reproduced from :he Tinal Report and the able numbers of the Tinal Report are used.
Toocuotes by.his reviewer have been added :o some of.hese tables. Tables developed by dis reviewer vill be labelad vid capi:21 letters.
Pages ci:ed is.his review :sfer :o.he page numbers of the Final Report.
1.
!=credue:1on and spe-sach o review.
Is his summar7 of.he Final Repor: Mancuso stacas: "The stud 7 shows chac dere is a defd ':e rela:icuship between icw level tonizing radiacion and :he development of cancer." Wile he also scaces more de:211ed conclusions, *. shall deal prinard17 #.6 the quota as.he central issue because:
k
I -
z a
"'ha broad issue is of greatest concern to NRC.
h
- o che extene dat da analyses of de 71 sal Repor: suppor its conclusions, his-in my viete cosas through 4: lease as forcefully for the general conclusion as for more specific conclusions.
In Section 2, I shall discusa che support for da relationship, faction I will deal selectively vid some short:enings of the data and analyses perforned by the-authors.
Sec:Lon /* M.11 offer a sunenary view 2.
Support for the relationship between cancer an low ivevel ioni:1st radiation.
Tabla 1 of the Final Report breaks down :he certifiad deaths (befors 1973) of Ianferi verkers by cancer deschs and non-cancer deaths.
2 shows respectively for desa two groups mean canulative radiation doses of 1.18 and 99 centirads, and propor:1ons of radia:1on exposed workers of 6o.0 and 61.1~..
M s apparen: association between cancar deaths and radiation suggests ac face value a causal relacionship. Many of tha succeediss :ablas and graphs presen: de same da:a broken down by finer classificacious such as exposures received in specif1: calendar years or ac specific ages or broken down by specift: types of cancers. As one vould expece desa :sfined breakdcuts :end :o show de sa=e essociation between cancer deads and ar;osure, and nei:her is i:
surprising ha: the assoc 12cion seems to be 3:ronger for sons subsets of the daca dan for others.
r-
==
~ 2.0 ~
slope of de seraighe 11:ss are proportional over cancer classifica-tions -den de =ean doses for all cancers should be de same. Even withouc dis :sserie:1on diffs:seces between mean doses on various
- 7 pes of cancer does soc see:a :o be a good measure of de : 14:1ve "riska" of cancer :7 pes :o radiacion.
Even though we car soc be abla :o find a plausibla explana:1co, for the scacistically significane cor:slacion between =ean doses and de racia observed :s espec:ed i: cert:s seca a::ention. One can duplicace the authors' analyses substi:uting de per:ss: age of exposed workers for the =ean etm.t14:1ve doses; the resui:s 4:s ;;ese::ed i "abla 3.
The differsuce beeveen observed and a=pec:ad for :he "high-riak" cancers becomes very s $" and :he cc::alation be:veen percent exposed and de racio has becoce slightl7 =egative (:ho =
.05).
"he fac: da: :wo ec related =essures-percant exposed and =ean doses-71ald such sc:d'" gl7 differsne :ssul:s assis poin:s to the fac: dan de data is ::1:ky.
4.
Su==at-r "t av b =7 op1:fon -"A of.he 71:41 Kaport iJ :oc relavas: or of questionabla validi:7 The ra al:dar of de repor: LJ 1argely subsu=ed by de analyses of Tables 11 and 23; especially on dose cacters of graa:ase concer: :o NRC.
Bis leaves us vi:h ha issue how valid ara :hese a:alyses.
Sase analyses are sc:scified (controlled) by ags ac desch and dersfors relative 17 1:vulnerabia :o confound 1:; fase vi d dis variable. Howeve,
age at death is noe de on17 relavan: :1:e rala:ad variabla.
II I believe date of birth and scan allowance for lacanc7 art i or:anc.
A worker's date of bi::h decard es whechar he v11*. ::ach befors 1973 (cucoff date of stud 7), the ages i= vhich cancers deaths ::ach. heir highese proportions among deaths. Se :scher odd behavior of de mean cumulative dose as a function of age suggests : hat if la:ancy is accounced for the apparen: picture may change.
?inally,since the radiacion has been so scrongly confounded vi:h :ime : slated va: tables 1: seems plausibla dac it may al.so be :oufounded vi:h other variables.
In. facr differences is esdiation exposurs suggest diffarsucas in occupaciou and cor slated charac:ariscies.
Sere are no goed sciancific guidelines to evaluate these possibill:ias The numerical rela:1onship of cancar incidence and lov level radia:1on, if te ever can be ceuvincingly demonst:stad, #
nose likely be demonstraced by a painstaking prospec:17s study. Despt:a various reservations feel that.he :ssul:: of Tables 11 and 13 should noc be ignored is de fo=ulacion of :sgulatory pdlic7 until mora defint:a studies have been carr ed. cu:..
One more cemmenc, de rapid decline of de nean cunulative dose be:veen ages of 65 and 70 does suggest among 'other possibilities an increased death ra:a caused by radiation. Cat 11 or uniass bec:ar analyses art available NRC should soc be oblivious to $se suggestion.
k
i t
n References 1
i l
(1]
nomas T. Mancuse. M.D. - 5tudy of Tifacime Heal:h. and Mor 211:7 Zzperience of Zaployees of Z20A Contrac: ors; iinal Reper: 113.
I Prepared f=r :he U.S. Inergy Research and Oevelopment F=d dstracion; September 30, 1977.
i
(,2 }
?. Mancuso, A. Seawart, G. K=eale - Radiation Imposures of 3anford
'4crkers Dytsg from Cancar and Other Causes. Heal:h ?hysics 33.5:
369-385, 1977.
i 1
e o
i l
r 9
9 e
i
~~
LT -
TABIZ Z External Radiatien Keeerds f== Three G =u=s o f Ncn-su rivers :
Cancers, : ten-cancers anc ence 3:.eci cea:ns t gg)
Cumulative Mean. Radiati:n.I Exposed Radiacion I:qcsed Ocse en-Survivors Cases Wc kers Dose Wc kers in Centi: ads i
Nos.
Ncs.
Conti: ads 1
A 3
ancers 670 442 92657' 66.0 210 13a en-Cancezz 2350 1742 2S2961 61.1 162 99 11 Car-ified Oeaths 3520 2134 375613 62.0 172 107
-) Men vi:h one er== e ;csi:ive *:adge raadi.gs..
- 3) A = Mean c=ulative radiatica dese f :
e:qcsed vc kars.
3 = Mean==ulative radiation dose f : allvc:Me$s.
t lavtawers connacc: Apparen:17 uncertifiad des:hs 2:a coc included is this tab!,a..
9e D
e 8
5
c
- 14 _
TABLZ 4 Chaerved and Expected Nt=hers of Specific Necelasms -Listed Acco rdanc :o Mean Cumula:17e Radia:Lon Mean Cu=ulative II Radia:1:n Ccsa No. of Deaths Ratis Neoplasms ('*)
Cantirads Cbserved Expected obs :Exp 1.
Myelemas 775*
11 7.s 1.45 2.
P ancreas 253*
49 27.2 1.31 3.
Brain 220' 13 17.1 1.04 4.
Kidney 187
- 21 15.0 1.40 l
5.
Lung 169*
192 144.4 1.31 6.
Large, Intestine 135*
61 63.1 0.97 7.
Myeloid Laukemia 122*
11 f.3 1.90 8.
Lymchemas 119
- 34 27.7 1.23 l
.9.
Rectum 99 19 29.6 0.64 LO.
Mout.'. & Pha'ryn:t 89 24
.21.9 1.10 l
ll.
Other Genite-U ina$7 82 13 30.9 0.49 l
L2.
Stemach.
60 38 58.7 0.65 13.
P :stata 42 43 67.5 0.f4 i
14.
Other 2ncastinal 22 13
,17.3 1.00
- 15.
Liver & Call 31 adde:
3L 13 12.5 1.44 l
16.
Ly=pha:i: Lauksela 19 3
9.+
0.31 1
1,7.
Other RE5 Neoplases 11 5
20.3-0.25 l
13.
Cther Solid 81 90 83.0 0.39 l-3 188*
397 313.2 1.25 9-13 65 273 351.7,
0.73 t
l I
'All Cancers 13'8 *- -
670 670.0 1.00 i
(1) Set Tabla 3.
(2) Chserved see Table 0,-
expee ad see 1960 cancar deaths of whi:s U.S.
males in NC Menegraph 33.
- = AbcVe :he maan valus f:: all c:::1fied daa:hs (13 7), see Table 3.
l
r; c-15 -
,u
- r 4.,
.e r
1>,
a e
1o 4
O
=
.. i.
o w
~
g g
N
- J L4 g
r-o.
.1 - o c'
?
+
y Q*2GT* D: }'ddidd y
J 8
1 d,
?e, i
e a
ec u
f a
'S C C 3.3.(.m$
i.
.e p
2
'N N
r.
a
! ". * *
- i m l'
A b'. n =
u n 4 3
n
=
g A
c 2-8 u
- c
=
w u
\\t e
i 1
e
- i J
g 2.
g.=-o e
e-.m I
u E
i}
=
-)
O' 3
Y 4 4 33
- 1. -
i
.o 2
.s.
o 2
,R.
C CE a 2
n S
- om,,.
a.
m
=
u
-d 4
0 g
8-1 f
a w
o,
=
e d
't a " ",, 2 '-
4
^
w y
3 4
2 4 2 W-T' 1
g
=
2 3
- ee=
c ~
u i
a -
E H,,
f.
g =
J J.,:.:
aN w
e
-~ ~ ~. ~
w na u
i 3
4
.-e
<e n
m o
~
, ~,
2 s
2 u
o u
p
=
V A
4 S 2 8 S. C 8 1
- ~
~
t n
- u u t
y n
.y J
u
.= n a
~
c:
s 1
p-
.a 4
s u
g 3
(
om:'t " -
- 9 T.
g e-
-x.,
.o s
L
[
g.,,
- ~ ~ - -
o.
g g
,. m a
8 3
d 5
~
g * ~
-~3
.C
., e -
e,t a o -
w.
o g
6 l' -
j g
~
u l
g C
4a =
3 3
Ei qoe n a e
5 ee d el ; J
]
-c
~
9 e.
N nN N N N c
y
- a nu.
.n
,s u
1 S
1 f.ss=sy a
'aI 4
1,.
l
= - -
mm - -
g w
a a
u
".. =.
n, e,
.g e,..
. ; g
=
3 eo w
3 T ^
~3 11 4 f f
?,,,
q w
A u
i w
'4 2
- g v ow p
e 3 g
"P d'
- s
,.i D{
9 W
r" unaus 4A M^nn Cumulativo Coscs of Extn nal Radia' tion by stated Aces:
11 Non-Cancers, KI5 Nec=lasms and Other Selected Cancers'~y ancers RES Neoplasms Other Cancers (
cs. of Cases Age in No n-RIS Other Tears R(')
3 R
t(3)
R t
Cancers Neoplasms Cancer 21 8
39
'2. 3 43 1
5 22 7
2 39 3.1 87 2
7 23 9-7 47 3.2 115 3
7 24 13 11 40 2.1 145 3
9 35 19 11 34 177 3
11
^
30 38 37 40
~353 13 43 35 51 39 42 622 22 85 40 56 35 48 370 30 125
~
45 59 6a 56 1,093 34 175 50 73 116.
105 2.0 1,302 33 20 5 55 33 230 2.5 154 3.2 1,39 7 20 213 60 80 211 2.0 130 2.1 1,326 25' 169 65 76 453 5.3 132 2.0 1,072 15 111 70 48 70L 9.2 30 716 3
59 7L 43 701 9.9 39 645 3
51 72 43 34 99 2.7 587 5
40 73 38 24 100 3.5 521 5
29 74 37 35 98 3.1 454 4
25 75 36 45 93 2.8 386 3
22 76-35 45 115 3.3 233 3
16 77 35 45 112 3.0 173
'3 15 71 37 Sa 119,,
2.5 221 2
10 (1) Cancers of tha cancraas, lung, brain, kidney, and larga in:astine (see Table 3).
(2) A = Mean,cumula:ive desa c ' external radia:ica.
(3)i values gras:er than :he critical value of 2 3 i-
---..m m
?*d*
N M
3 me
- C 21 Q C ~3 Q3 0.-.
f*t M
M a3
. as 0 31 *2 M
43 M
to M3 C lT. C
- s M
x 23
'4 3
3 k.-
P N
N.
N
- .tT j
c h
,f*'*
N M
=
U C
Q m
- =4 M
m
-c ct O
lrt
- 3 Q
m M
N a=4 m
C 4J 4
w 4
c e
o M
=
o-6 m
ta~
C O
i* a N
m m
m m
4 2
C
,4
-r c
t=.
y O
aw
=
=
=
=
C M
M N
c4 m
w a
3
= =.
c, ac
.n
-=
~
~
~
C 4
m 4
N Cm w
to N
C3 CD cN S
0 0
5 O
c c
c
=0 a
ei n
a w
W G
C U
E O
.:d mmmm
=
a-
- 'l O N ** v M MNmv N*Mv N*Mv NNNN O W 3 3
ww w
wwww w-,
w
==
Q 4)
Q O
N-NM i
O
==
n a
~,~~~*w a
'a i
O 3~
U ll1 Q M
L O. v c'.s tT W NMCdm 0OcMe m C O.% O 03mNmO
.t.
m 1 :l -
=
- i.'-
MMNMM eMmNe N O 03 m N NOCcO OMcmO r=
(.
O ait MMVMM v d N t.n v WmNMN d
mcN MNMvM Z Q4 E*
us
=.C
,a t
U M.
i t
-~
P We e..
a.-. m d M -* c O 4 N -:
- MeNMm I v N :-
m.%.-e 0 l
b 4Q M-m tt v
M
=
-=
[
=
23---N O
Cw a-t U
O c'
4 Q
O-
-.* v -:' N e
.eOcMO cmmcc N
- v -4 O OvmN4 l
t O
r== N c
M -.*
m c
tti m O
m c
Om--O N
N
.O.
.C D'
l UI j.
u 4
y
~.
Q O
3 O
U O
.. O n *g.
- 3 C
=e 1
J V7W
! I a i 1 a i !
1 1
( l 4 3
O 4mda 0-OOW c-OOW O-OOW 0-OOW O-COW o
eO m :3 ec ec
- .n O S O $. a 0
m a
m
,+
C U
=*
O Q
b
.U, -~*
.4 M
.=e m
'w1 2
3
.a o
m o
4 'G 4
4 c
4 4
0
'J J,
U i
i s
O
.~J
[O O
O O
N d
W
N m
C M.
l I
s' M
N l
w v
s.
~
~
mi.I 1 Contingenc-r Tabla: Age at Death 7s Radiation Doses 3ADIAT',CN DOSES Aga 0
1-19 20-99 100-499 500+
. Totals:
obs 108 55 58 24 L
9 254 exp 96.4 45.1 64.5 36.9 n.1 25 4
<40 diff 11.6 9.9
-6.5
- 12.9
~2.1 diff/exp
.12
.21
.10
.35
.19 obs kSS 32.
137 74 17 495 exp
'237.9 87.9 125.7 71.9 21.7 495.1 40-49 diff
-2.9
-5.9 11.3 2.10
-4.7 diff/exp
.02
.07
.09
.03
.22 obs 331 137 200 155 58 881 exp 334.L 156.4 223.3 127.9 38.5 381 50-59 diff
-3.1
-19.40
-23.30 27.1 19.5 diff/exp
.01
.12 21
.51 obs 60 162 243 134 53 1007 exp 82.1 173.3 255.3 146.2 44.0 1007 60-69 diff p22.2
-16.3
-7.30 37.30 9.0 diff/exp
.06
.09
.03
.26
.20 obs h5I 139 251 74 17 383 ex; 335.1 156.3 224.3 128.2 38.6 383 70*
diff 16.9 32.2 26.7
-54.20
-21.50
. diff/exp
.05
.21
.12
.42
.56 2ota14:
bs 1336 625 394 511 154 3520 exp 1236 625 394.1 511.1 153.9
?
T'.u.:-
'1 o.
<~
~
TA31Z 3 SELZu.ra SUMMARIES HCM 33LIS 3 AND 4 'JI'"E CANCE DIAGNOSES CRDEID 3? DECREASDTG PERCINT EX?CS E CASES
?X"O CBS/II?
E.CT Cf 00SI CANCZRS MOSD CBSER7D EZ?EC.f.a 7ALUE
?xix VALU2
?x;I Aactum 34.2 19 29.6
.6L 13.5 99 9
Lymphomas 82.4 34.
27.7 1.23 7
119 3
Large Intestise.
78.7 61 63.1
.97 11 135 6
Myelomas 72.7 12.
7.6 1.45 2
775 1
Stemach 68.4 38 58.7
.65 12 60 3
Lung 67.7 19 2 144.a 1.33 5
169 5
Kidney 66.7 23.
15.0 1.10 a
137 4.
Lymphatic LI 66.7 I
9.4
.31 17 19 17
~
Other G.U.
66.7 15 30.9 49 16 32 11 Pancreas 63.3 49 37.3 1.31 6
15 3 1
3 rain 61 '
13 17.3 1.04 9
220 3
Rasidua (Solid Tu= ors) 60.0 90 33.0
.59 13 al 11 Residue (RES Neoplasms) 60.0 5
20.3
.25 13 1'
13 Mou:5. & Pharyn:e 33.3 24 21.9 1.10 3
89 10 Liver & Gall 31addar 55.5 13 12.5 1.44 3
31 15 Other Iaces-d=a.1 55.6 13 13.0 1.00 10 32 15
'd.yaloid Lauke:::ia 54.5 11 5.3 1.90 1
122 7
?:cstrate 48.3 13 67.3
.64 13.5 42 14-Totals:
'l-9 394 386.1 Totals: 10-13 276 233.6 All Cancars 570 670 tho wi:h ! Exposed
.05 40 i:.. a
,,.