Comment: This was a very scientific and complex briefing leaving little doubt that a massive amount of sampling and analysis has been done -- so far to no avail in getting real answers as to what dangers lie undiscovered. Mind boggling that one has to be one year in the career field to be counted based on the "rules" of "standard occupational cancer studies." All one had to be was present at a one time spill to have something go terribly wrong with one's health.
The use of statistics in this analysis was highly emphasized showing a way out and leading one to believe that the missileers were healthier than the general population.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/update-study-cancer-rates-missile-community/
Quote:
Oct. 31, 2024 | By Greg Hadley
“One significant adjustment required individuals to serve for a minimum of one year in the career field,” the official said. “Standard occupational cancer studies generally require a minimum of one-year duration of employment to be included in the analysis.”
This excluded some 205,000 previously included individuals, including 19,000 from missile-related career fields.
After adjusting for demographics and using slightly different metrics for comparing the missile community to the rest of the Air Force than it did with the general population, the results “suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the incidence of most types of cancers” compared to the rest of the Air Force. Furthermore, compared to the general population, “almost all the standardized incidence ratios were less than 1.0, suggesting that the missile community had lower relative risk for developing these types of cancers.”
Yet officials were quick to caution that their findings were not final.
“The release of the preliminary information is just an attempt to be transparent, not definitive in the discovery journey yet,” said Col. Greg Coleman, AFGSC surgeon general. “We still have another 50 percent of the data to go through. So the data is instructive. But I just want to caution folks, don’t draw definitive conflict conclusions from the data yet, until the report is done and all the data analysis is done.”
AFGSC boss Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere also sought to preempt concerns that the study was sweeping the missile community’s concerns aside, as previous studies in 2001 and 2005 did.
“I sense in the community writ large that there is some skepticism based on the results of the 2001 and 2005 reports. I share, and I’ve been very vocal about my unsatisfaction with those two reports,” Bussiere said. “But this study, this effort, and this energy is significantly more focused and engaged than those two times.”
