09-04-2006, 05:18 AM
I've been reading some of the commentary published regarding the infamous Royal Society report on DU, The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions-Parts 1and 2.
These links all go to pages (free ones) from the Journal of Radiological Protection.
MEETING REPORT - The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium
H Jackson 2001 J. Radiol. Prot. 21 327
Depleted uranium munitions—where are we now?
Brian G Spratt 2002 J. Radiol. Prot. 22 125-130
Reviews of both reports by Dr. Ronald Kathren can be found here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/21/3/701
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/22/2/708
It's a lot of reading to be sure, and I don't think too many people are going to follow those links and read the articles through, but I just did. To me, it almost feels like this particular journal takes a particular interest in sounding VERY ASSURED that depleted uranium munitions are VERY innocuous as far as battlefield waste goes.
The chair of the working group that produced the reports, Brian Spratt, shares the view, along with Dr. Ronald Kathren that essentially ALL PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS support the same conclusion - that it is the ONLY scientific conclusion worthy of the title.
Of course they are all hypotheses, and even Spratt admits as valid the criticism of some anti-DU people that cancer incidence studies should be the basis for declaring it safe or harmful. But they feel the ICRP models of radioactive harm are not useful for modeling DU risk, (see here) being developed through studies of the effects of Fat Man and Little Boy. Spratt doesn't agree there. He and his allies clearly mean to insist that modeling is a perfectly valid way to "prove" depleted uranium dust is innocuous.
But contrary to these people's assertions that the literature is unanimously on their side, there certainly are journal articles stating that lung cancer was a well known risk for uranium miners.
The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People
Doug Brugge, PhD, MS and Rob Goble, PhD
Doug Brugge is with the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. Rob Goble is with the Center for Technology, Environment, and Development, Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
From World War II until 1971, the government was the sole purchaser of uranium ore in the United States. Uranium mining occurred mostly in the southwestern United States and drew many Native Americans and others into work in the mines and mills. Despite a long and well-developed understanding, based on the European experience earlier in the century, that uranium mining led to high rates of lung cancer, few protections were provided for US miners before 1962 and their adoption after that time was slow and incomplete. The resulting high rates of illness among miners led in 1990 to passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/9/1410
These links all go to pages (free ones) from the Journal of Radiological Protection.
MEETING REPORT - The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium
H Jackson 2001 J. Radiol. Prot. 21 327
Depleted uranium munitions—where are we now?
Brian G Spratt 2002 J. Radiol. Prot. 22 125-130
Reviews of both reports by Dr. Ronald Kathren can be found here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/21/3/701
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/22/2/708
It's a lot of reading to be sure, and I don't think too many people are going to follow those links and read the articles through, but I just did. To me, it almost feels like this particular journal takes a particular interest in sounding VERY ASSURED that depleted uranium munitions are VERY innocuous as far as battlefield waste goes.
The chair of the working group that produced the reports, Brian Spratt, shares the view, along with Dr. Ronald Kathren that essentially ALL PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS support the same conclusion - that it is the ONLY scientific conclusion worthy of the title.
Of course they are all hypotheses, and even Spratt admits as valid the criticism of some anti-DU people that cancer incidence studies should be the basis for declaring it safe or harmful. But they feel the ICRP models of radioactive harm are not useful for modeling DU risk, (see here) being developed through studies of the effects of Fat Man and Little Boy. Spratt doesn't agree there. He and his allies clearly mean to insist that modeling is a perfectly valid way to "prove" depleted uranium dust is innocuous.
But contrary to these people's assertions that the literature is unanimously on their side, there certainly are journal articles stating that lung cancer was a well known risk for uranium miners.
Quote:
The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People
Doug Brugge, PhD, MS and Rob Goble, PhD
Doug Brugge is with the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. Rob Goble is with the Center for Technology, Environment, and Development, Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
From World War II until 1971, the government was the sole purchaser of uranium ore in the United States. Uranium mining occurred mostly in the southwestern United States and drew many Native Americans and others into work in the mines and mills. Despite a long and well-developed understanding, based on the European experience earlier in the century, that uranium mining led to high rates of lung cancer, few protections were provided for US miners before 1962 and their adoption after that time was slow and incomplete. The resulting high rates of illness among miners led in 1990 to passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/9/1410
I should think that the uranium they were exposed to is less dangerous that DU, which remember, is like 98% pure uranium. Every atom of it is radiating.
Quote:
Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men
Samet J. M., Kutvirt D. M., Waxweiler R. J., Key C. R.
N Engl J Med 1984; 310:1481-1484, Jun 7, 1984
Abstract
We performed a population-based case-control study to examine the association between uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men, a predominantly nonsmoking population. The 32 cases included all those occurring among Navajo men between 1969 and 1982, as ascertained by the New Mexico Tumor Registry. For each case in a Navajo man, two controls with nonrespiratory cancer were selected. Of the 32 Navajo patients, 72 per cent had been employed as uranium miners, whereas no controls had documented experience in this industry. The lower 95 per cent confidence limit for the relative risk of lung cancer associated with uranium mining was 14.4. Information on cigarette smoking was available for 21 of the 23 affected uranium miners; eight were nonsmokers and median consumption by the remainder was one to three cigarettes daily. These results demonstrate that in a rural nonsmoking population most of the lung cancer may be attributable to one hazardous occupation.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abst...10/23/1481
Samet J. M., Kutvirt D. M., Waxweiler R. J., Key C. R.
N Engl J Med 1984; 310:1481-1484, Jun 7, 1984
Abstract
We performed a population-based case-control study to examine the association between uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men, a predominantly nonsmoking population. The 32 cases included all those occurring among Navajo men between 1969 and 1982, as ascertained by the New Mexico Tumor Registry. For each case in a Navajo man, two controls with nonrespiratory cancer were selected. Of the 32 Navajo patients, 72 per cent had been employed as uranium miners, whereas no controls had documented experience in this industry. The lower 95 per cent confidence limit for the relative risk of lung cancer associated with uranium mining was 14.4. Information on cigarette smoking was available for 21 of the 23 affected uranium miners; eight were nonsmokers and median consumption by the remainder was one to three cigarettes daily. These results demonstrate that in a rural nonsmoking population most of the lung cancer may be attributable to one hazardous occupation.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abst...10/23/1481
I intend to look further into this journal and these "radiation experts," and report my findings on this thread.