The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
assigned dose data also validated our assumption of higher exposure in the Engineering & Hull, Baker-only, and both-shot groups. The badge data do not validate the last three groups, but their appropriateness as a validation tool is questionable because of the limitations of film badge dosimetry discussed earlier. Overall, we believe our selections of dose surrogate groups are consonant with the assigned total dose data and are not refuted by the badge data.
Decisions for the Analyses in this Report
Based on our considerations as described in the preceding sections, the committee and staff decided not to use dosimetry data in the analysis. This decision was not taken lightly. The amount of painstaking sifting through military records by DNA to develop the dose data was immense. So, too, is the information gained about a physical exposure that no one, until then, had been required to measure. The dose data, however, as previously described, do contain biases that could affect the study's results in ways that are not well defined. To prevent that, we made the decision not to use the individual-specific reconstructed or badged doses before looking at exposure-outcome correlations.
Our decisions on the establishment of dose surrogates were:
Use participant vs. nonparticipant comparison.
Use a consolidated boarder variable as one exposure surrogate.
Use dosimetry data to provide an overall perspective regarding the amount of ionizing radiation exposure involved (see Appendix D).