4.3 Article

Identification of Health Risks in Workers Staying and Working on the Terrains Contaminated with Depleted Uranium

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 213-222

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1269/jrr.08131

Keywords

Health risks; Depleted uranium; Chromosome aberrations

Funding

  1. Medical and Dentist School of Queen Mary University of London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated health risks in workers residing and working in terrains contaminated by low ionizing radiation doses which originated from ammunition containing depleted uranium (DU). The studied population was composed of two test groups (T-I, T-II) who were occasionally exposed to DU, and two referent (R-I, R-II) groups not exposed at any time to DU. All of them were evaluated for the following: complete clinical examination and blood count, presence of immature forms and blasts, leukocyte alkaline phosphatase activity and cytogenetic tests. The probability of onset of the characteristic complete biomarkers - chromosomal aberrations, was analyzed using logarithmic function of the Poisson regression. The estimated function of the density of probabilities of Poisson distribution of the chromosomal aberrations in the test group T-II was drastically different from the corresponding distribution of the referent group R-I and to a somewhat lesser extent from the group R-II; Wilcoxon test exactly confirms the presence of a significant difference between the reference group R-II and test group T-II, p < 0.05. The damages to chromosomes and cells were highest in the test group T-II of workers additionally occupationally exposed to DU. The group of workers T-I, who had been exposed to DU working on contaminated terrain, have had certain risks of cell and chromosome damages, and that risk was not greater than the risk to the referent group R-II of workers occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available