Lung Cancer Risks from Plutonium: An Updated Analysis of Data from the Mayak Worker Cohort
ABSTRACT Workers at the Mayak nuclear facility in the Russian Federation offer a unique opportunity to evaluate health risks from exposure to inhaled plutonium. Risks of mortality from lung cancer, the most serious carcinogenic effect of plutonium, were evaluated in 14,621 Mayak workers who were hired in the period from 1948-1982, followed for at least 5 years, and either monitored for plutonium or never worked with plutonium. Over the follow-up period from 1953-2008, there were 486 deaths from lung cancer, 446 of them in men. In analyses that were adjusted for external radiation dose and smoking, the plutonium excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy declined with attained age and was higher for females than for males. The ERR per Gy for males at age 60 was 7.4 (95% CI: 5.0-11) while that for females was 24 (95% CI: 11-56). When analyses were restricted to plutonium doses <0.2 Gy, the ERR per Gy for males at age 60 were similar: 7.0 (95% CI: 2.5-13). Of the 486 lung cancer deaths, 105 (22%) were attributed to plutonium exposure and 29 (6%) to external exposure. Analyses of the 12,708 workers with information on smoking indicated that the relationship of plutonium exposure and smoking was likely sub-multiplicative (P = 0.011) and strongly indicated that it was super-additive (P < 0.001). Although extensive efforts have been made to improve plutonium dose estimates in this cohort, they are nevertheless subject to large uncertainties. Large bioassay measurement errors alone are likely to have resulted in serious underestimation of risks, whereas other sources of uncertainty may have biased results in ways that are difficult to predict. © 2013 by Radiation Research Society.
- SourceAvailable from: Nezahat Hunter[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background:Cancer incidence in the Mayak Production Association (PA) cohort was analysed to investigate for the first time whether external gamma-ray and internal plutonium exposure are associated with raised incidence of solid cancers other than lung, liver and bone (other solid cancers).Methods:The cohort includes 22 366 workers of both sexes who were first employed between 1948 and 1982. A total of 1447 cases of other solid cancers were registered in the follow-up period until 2004. The Poisson regression was used to estimate the excess relative risk (ERR) per unit of cumulative exposure to plutonium and external gamma-ray.Results:A weak association was found between cumulative exposure to external gamma-ray and the incidence of other solid cancers (ERR/Gy=0.07; 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.01-0.15), but this association lost its significance after adjusting for internal plutonium exposure. There was no indication of any association with plutonium exposure for other solid cancers. Among 16 individual cancer sites, there was a statistically significant association with external exposure for lip cancer (ERR/Gy=1.74; 95% CI: 0.37; 6.71) and with plutonium exposure for pancreatic cancer (ERR/Gy=1.58; 95% CI; 0.17; 4.77).Conclusion:This study of Mayak workers does not provide evidence of an increased risk of other solid cancers. The observed increase in the risk of cancer of the lip and pancreas should be treated with caution because of the limited amount of relevant data and because the observations may be simply due to chance.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 10 September 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.543 www.bjcancer.com.British Journal of Cancer 09/2013; 109(7). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.543 · 4.82 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article examines the question, "Is risk assessment fuzzy, or is it a quantitative science?" In the context of this paper, risk assessment is defined as the estimation of health risk to people from exposure to radioactive materials and chemicals when they are released to the environment by a source. Today we employ risk assessment to investigate past, present, and future exposures, and the outcomes of the analysis are used for determining compliance with regulations, emergency response, facility design, and health impacts to populations from historical exposures (dose reconstruction). Risk assessment has become an essential component of government policy and decision-making, and it is clear it will be used increasingly in the future. It has undergone a dramatic evolution since the early 1970s both as a scientific methodology and also in how it is used. The key to understanding risk assessment is to explain the basic components and unique disciplines that meld it together. Each element requires skills in fundamental sciences such as engineering, physics, mathematics, and physiology in order to produce information required for the next step. As each step is developed, a clear interdependence emerges, resulting in a science that is quantitative and reliable and provides a tool for many purposes. In the end, however, it is how we communicate the results that becomes the most important component. Introduction of the Taylor Lecture (Video 1:36, http://links.lww.com/HP/A19).Health physics 02/2014; 106(2):148-61. DOI:10.1097/HP.0000000000000023 · 0.77 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Beginning in 1948, the Soviet Union initiated a program for production of nuclear materials for a weapons program. The first facility for production of plutonium was constructed in the central portion of the country east of the southern Ural Mountains, about halfway between the major industrial cities of Ekaterinburg and Chelyabinsk. The facility, now known as the Mayak Production Association, and its associated town, now known as Ozersk, were built to irradiate uranium in reactors, separate the resulting plutonium in reprocessing plants, and prepare plutonium metal in the metallurgical plant. The rush to production, coupled with inexperience in handling radioactive materials, led to large radiation exposures, not only to the workers in the facilities, but also to the surrounding public. Fuel processing started with no controls on releases, and fuel dissolution and accidents in reactors resulted in release of ∼37 PBq of I between 1948 and 1967. Designed disposals of low- and intermediate-level liquid radioactive wastes, and accidental releases via cooling water from tank farms of high-level liquid radioactive wastes into the small Techa River, caused significant contamination and exposures to residents of numerous small riverside villages downstream of the site. Discovery of the magnitude of the aquatic contamination in late 1951 caused revisions to the waste handling regimes, but not before over 200 PBq of radionuclides (with large contributions of Sr and Cs) were released. Liquid wastes were diverted to tiny Lake Karachay (which today holds over 4 EBq); cooling water was stopped in the tank farms. In 1957, one of the tanks in the tank farm overheated and exploded; over 70 PBq, disproportionately Sr, was blown over a large area to the northeast of the site. A large area was contaminated and many villages evacuated. This area today is known as the East Urals Radioactive Trace (EURT). Each of these releases was significant; together they have created a unique group of cohorts with their chronic, low dose-rate radiation exposure. The 26,000 workers at Mayak were highly exposed to external gamma and inhaled plutonium. A cohort of individuals raised as children in Ozersk is under evaluation for their exposures to radioiodine. The Techa River Cohort consists of over 30,000 people who were born before the start of exposure in 1949 and lived along the Techa River. The Techa River Offspring Cohort consists of ∼21,000 persons born to one or more exposed parents of this group, many who also lived along the contaminated river. The EURT Cohort consists of ∼18,000 people who were evacuated from the EURT soon after the 1957 explosion and another 8,000 who remained. These groups together are the focus of dose reconstruction and epidemiological studies funded by the United States, Russia, and the European Union to address the question, "Are doses delivered at low dose rates as effective in producing health effects as the same doses delivered at high dose rates?"Introduction of Joint U.S. and Russian Studies of Population Exposures (Video 2:13, http://links.lww.com/HP/A28).Health physics 02/2014; 106(2):294-304. DOI:10.1097/HP.0000000000000033 · 0.77 Impact Factor