The Health Risks of nuclear workers

Large scale studies of the health of nuclear workers report that workers exposed to love levels of ionizing radiation on the job, were at greater risk for health problem that might be related to the radiation exposure than members of the general population. This is true for studies of workers in Oak Ridge, Hanford, and nuclear shipyards.

For example, a University of North Carolina study of "115,143 people hired before 1979 at the Hanford (Wash.), Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Tenn.) and the Savannah River (S.C.) nuclear facilities," claimed to have "identified 98 workers who died of multiple myeloma," and compared them to "391 age-matched controls . . ."

Researchers reported, "Older workers with cumulative radiation doses of five rem or more were almost three-and-a-half times more likely to die from multiple myeloma than workers at the same plants whose cumulative exposures were less than one rem." Date of and gender hire may have been a significant factor. For example Hanford "male workers and those hired before 1948 died of multiple myeloma at about twice the rate of women and workers hired after 1948 . . ."

The weakness of this study was indicated by the inability of researchers to determine chemical exposures of workers. For example, Researchers looked for records of workers "exposed to solvents, metals, welding fumes asbestos and other agents faced increased risks of multiple myeloma. . . Records of such exposures, however, were inadequate to enable the scientists to calculate increased risks accurately." Large numbers of nuclear workers at all the listed facilities would have been exposed to the chemicals known to increase multiple myeloma risk.

Given the inability to control for independent variables, no scientifically valid conclusions about the effects of radiation alone on the multiple myeloma risks due to low level radiation exposures of nuclear workers.

It should also be noted that the multiple myeloma risk of nuclear workers over time is .085% How much of that risk is due to radiation and how much is due to toxic chemical exposures is unknown. The small number of Large scale studies of the health of nuclear workers report that workers exposed to love levels of ionizing radiation on the job, were at greater risk for health problem that might be related to the radiation exposure than members of the general population. This is true for studies of workers in Oak Ridge, Hanford, and nuclear shipyards.

Researchers also reported, "Older workers with cumulative radiation doses of five rem or more were almost three-and-a-half times more likely to die from multiple myeloma than workers at the same plants whose cumulative exposures were less than one rem." Date of and gender hire may have been a significant factor. For example Hanford "male workers and those hired before 1948 died of multiple myeloma at about twice the rate of women and workers hired after 1948 . . ."

Given the inability to control for independent variables, no scientifically valid conclusions about the effects of radiation alone on the multiple myeloma risks due to low level radiation exposures of nuclear workers.

Federal proposals to compensate sick World War II, and Cold War nuclear workers try to get around these problems by acknowledging a that they suffered from expose to radiation, chemicals, heavy metals and other toxins. I have no doubt that safety practices at nuclear research and production facilities were far more lax than they are today, and it is plausible that some of the workers who are sick are sick because of radiation, heavy metal and chemical exposures. But there are other factors that should be considered. In my childhood I had a chance to observe nuclear workers in Oak Ridge. I have strong memories of watching ORNL, Y-10 and K-25 workers smoke on innumerable occasions. I have little doubt that most World War II, and Cold War nuclear workers smoked, and that a large number of them smoked heavily. I also know that a considerable number of Cold War Nuclear workers drank heavily.

Cold war era uranium miners were exposed to radioactive radon gas. Over time many got sick with lung cancer. While some of the lung cancer victims were non-smokers, the smokers contracted lung cancer at a far higher rates. Smokers of course are vulnerable to lung cancer in the absence of radiation exposures, but researchers concluded that miners who smoked and were exposed radon were more likely to get cancer than people who did not experience the radon exposure. Thus life style can be a factor in and often a major factor radiation linked illnesses. And of course, not every sick nuclear worker is sick because of work related exposures or bad habits.

Federal agencies charged with compensating sick nuclear workers have reportedly been slow to process compensation claims. No explanation has been offered for the problem, but the task of determining work related causes for the illnesses of nuclear workers must be daunting.

Finally, nuclear safety does not exist outside time. The problems may remain the same, but solutions evolve. Thus investigations of the health effects of radiation exposure ought to investigate the effectiveness of nuclear safety as a preventive method. Have radiation exposures lessoned over time due to improved safety measures? Has the rate of workers’ presumed radiation related diseases lessoned? Have any safety measures been particularly effective? Finally, what can be done to prevent or decrease workers’ radiation exposure?