Search

Objectives: To discover whether direct estimates of the risks of cancer for nuclear workers agree with indirect estimates based on survivors of the atomic bomb; whether relations between age at exposure and risk of cancer are the same for workers and survivors, and whether dosimetry standards are sufficiently uniform to allow pooling of data from different nuclear industrial sites., Method: Data from five nuclear sites in the United States were included in a cohort analysis that as well as controlling for all the usual factors also allowed for possible effects of three cancer modulating factors (exposure age, cancer latency, and year of exposure). This analysis was first applied to three distinct cohorts, and then to two sets of pooled data., Results: From each study cohort there was evidence of a risk of cancer related to dose, and evidence that the extra radiogenic cancers had the same overall histological manifestations as naturally occurring cancers and were largely the result of exposures after 50 years of age causing deaths after 70 years. There were, however, significant differences between the five sets of risk estimates., Conclusions: Although the risks of cancer in nuclear workers were appreciably higher than estimates based on the cancer experiences of survivors of the atomic bomb, some uncertainties remained as there were non-uniform standards of dosimetry in the nuclear sites. The differences between nuclear workers and survivors of the atomic bomb were largely the result of relations between age at exposure and risk of cancer being totally different for workers and survivors and, in the occupational data, there were no signs of the special risks of leukaemia found in atomic bomb data and other studies of effects of high doses.

In 1964, the Atomic Energy Commission agreed to sponsor "a study of the lifetime health and mortality experiences of all employees of AEC contractors." The commission put in charge of this study a physician (Thomas Mancuso) who had recently shown how the U.S. Social Security system could be used to identify the dates and causes of death of all insured workers. As director of the AEC project, Mancuso was at liberty to include any or all the postwar offshoots of the Manhattan Project. His master plan included workers from Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, but it soon became apparent that his attempts to link radiation exposures to subsequent events were proving more successful at Hanford than elsewhere. The authors of this paper, who participated in the study, review the controversy surrounding its eventual publication.

Though most of the production work at Hanford is done by manual workers, 46% of the most dangerous jobs are performed by people who have professional or technical qualifications. For these privileged workers occupational mortality risks are positively correlated with radiation doses but for manual workers, who have relatively high death rates, there is an inverse relation with dose. The high ratio of professional to manual workers is clearly the reason for the industry having fewer observed than expected deaths and the inverse relation with dose for less privileged workers is probably a sign that there has been selective recruitment of the most highly paid manual workers--that is, skilled craftsmen into the more dangerous occupations. Evidence of this selective recruitment was obtained by equating danger levels with levels of monitoring for internal radiation. Therefore, there should be some control for these levels in any analysis of cancer effects of the measured dose of radiation.

This paper reports on results from the study initiated by Mancuso into the health risks from low-level radiation in workers engaged in plutonium manufacture at Hanford Works, Washington State, USA, and attempts to answer criticisms of previous reports by an in-depth study. Previous reports have aroused much controversy because the reported risk per unit radiation dose for cancers of radiosensitive tissues was much greater than the risk generally accepted on the basis of other studies and widely used in setting safety levels for exposure to low-level radiation. The method of regression models in life-tables isolates the effect of radiation after statistically controlling for a wide range of possible interfering factors. Like the risk of lung cancer for uranium miners the dose-response relation showed a significant downward curve at about 10 rem. There may, therefore, be better agreement with other studies, conduct at higher doses, than is widely assumed. The findings on cancer latency (of about 25 years) and the effect of exposure age (increasing age increases the risk) are in general agreement with other studies. An unexplained finding is a significantly higher dose for all workers who developed cancers in tissues that are supposed to have low sensitivity to cancer induction by radiation.

This paper continues the series by Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale (MSK) on studies of cancer risks for radiation workers at Hanford. It concentrates on the statistical problems posed by the need to estimate and control for job related mortality risks when there are several changes of occupation and no certainty about how different occupations are related to two socioeconomic factors which have strong health associations--namely, education and income. The final conclusion is that for tissues which are sensitive to cancer induced by radiation there is a risk of cancer for Hanford exposures whose dose response is curvilinear with long latency and increasing effect with increasing exposure age.