4.5 Article

Mortality among workers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1943-2017

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 722-749

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2021.1917784

关键词

Million Person Study; Los Alamos National Laboratory; plutonium; radiation epidemiology; dosimetry

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0008944, DE-SC0014664]
  2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC-HQ-60-14-G-0011]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [5UE1EH000989, 5NUE1EH001315]
  4. Naval Sea Systems Command [N00024-17-C-4322]
  5. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Interagency Agreement DOE [1824 S581-A1]
  6. UT-Battelle
  7. Oak Ridge National Laboratory from the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX15AU88G, 80NSSC17M0016, 80NSSC19M0161]
  9. [DE-AU0000042]
  10. [DE-AU0000046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the mortality experience of 26,328 workers first employed at Los Alamos National Laboratory between 1943 and 1980, with majority being hired before 1960. Most workers had a college degree, and a significant percentage were female, white, and Hispanic. The study found little evidence of radiation increasing the risk of lung cancer or leukemia, but esophageal cancer was associated with radiation and plutonium intakes were linked to an increase in bone cancer. Non-radiation related health issues were also observed among Hispanic workers.
Background During World War II (WWII), the Manhattan Engineering District established a secret laboratory in the mountains of northern New Mexico. The mission was to design, construct and test the first atomic weapon, nicknamed 'The Gadget' that was detonated at the TRINITY site in Alamogordo, NM. After WWII, nuclear weapons research continued, and the laboratory became the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Materials and methods The mortality experience of 26,328 workers first employed between 1943 and 1980 at LANL was determined through 2017. Included were 6157 contract workers employed by the ZIA Company. Organ dose estimates for each worker considered all sources of exposure, notably photons, neutrons, tritium, Pu-238 and Pu-239. Vital status determination included searches within the National Death Index, Social Security Administration and New Mexico State Mortality Files. Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) and Cox regression models were used in the analyses. Results Most workers (55%) were hired before 1960, 38% had a college degree, 25% were female, 81% white, 13% Hispanic and 60% had died. Vital status was complete, with only 0.1% lost to follow-up. The mean dose to the lung for the 17,053 workers monitored for radiation was 28.6 weighted-mGy (maximum 16.8 weighted-Gy) assuming a Dose Weighting Factor of 20 for alpha particle dose to lung. The Excess Relative Risk (ERR) at 100 weighted-mGy was 0.01 (95%CI -0.02, 0.03; n = 839) for lung cancer. The ERR at 100 mGy was -0.43 (95%CI -1.11, 0.24; n = 160) for leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), -0.06 (95%CI -0.16, 0.04; n = 3043) for ischemic heart disease (IHD), and 0.29 (95%CI 0.02, 0.55; n = 106) for esophageal cancer. Among the 6499 workers with measurable intakes of plutonium, an increase in bone cancer (SMR 2.44; 95%CI 0.98, 5.03; n = 7) was related to dose. The SMR for berylliosis was significantly high, based on 4 deaths. SMRs for Hispanic workers were significantly high for cancers of the stomach and liver, cirrhosis of the liver, nonmalignant kidney disease and diabetes, but the excesses were not related to radiation dose. Conclusions There was little evidence that radiation increased the risk of lung cancer or leukemia. Esophageal cancer was associated with radiation, and plutonium intakes were linked to an increase of bone cancer. IHD was not associated with radiation dose. More precise evaluations will await the pooled analysis of workers with similar exposures such as at Rocky Flats, Savannah River and Hanford.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据