Evidence of biased recording of radiation doses of hanford workers

Kneale, G W; Sorahan, Tom; Stewart, Alice

doi:10.1002/ajim.4700200612

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The primary occupational exposure under investigation at Hanford has been external penetrating ionizing radiation. These external exposures have been routinely quantified using personal dosimeters for a majority of workers included in epidemiologic studies [Gilbert, 1990;Kneale et al, 1991;Gilbert and Fix, 1996;Richardson et al, 1999Richardson et al, , 2000. Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated dose-response relationships for cancer mortality and external radiation exposures at older ages [Stewart and Kneale, 1989Stewart, 1993, 1995], but not for cumulative exposures across all ages [Gilbert et al, 1989[Gilbert et al, , 1993a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plutonium‐related work and cause‐specific mortality at the United States Department of Energy Hanford Site

Wing

Richardson

Wolf

et al. 2004

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workers employed in jobs with routine potential for plutonium exposure have low mortality rates compared to other Hanford workers even with adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, and employment factors. This may be due, in part, to medical screening. Associations between duration of employment in jobs with routine potential for plutonium exposure and mortality may indicate occupational exposure effects.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plutonium‐related work and cause‐specific mortality at the United States Department of Energy Hanford Site

Wing

Richardson

Wolf

et al. 2004

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wilson et al have cautioned, however, that examination of the proportion of dosimetry readings recorded as zero in this sample of 139 workers`s uggests that practices for handling very low recorded exposures may have varied from year to year'' (Wilson et al, 1990 ). Kneale et al also noted that the changes over time in dosimetry practice, and the observation of inconsistencies in dosimetry recording practices at ORNL, suggested that such problems might affect the Hanford dosimetry data (Kneale et al, 1991 ) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Evaluation of annual external radiation doses at values near minimum detection levels of dosimeters at the Hanford nuclear facility

Richardson

Wing

Watson

et al. 2000

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In epidemiological studies of workers exposed to ionizing radiation, recognition of the limitations of available radiation dosimetry data is important to interpretation of a study's findings. This paper provides an investigation of external radiation dosimetry data for workers at the Hanford nuclear facility, focusing on changes over time in practices for recording dosimetry measurements that were between zero and the minimum detectable level of a radiation dosimeter. Reported annual external radiation doses for the years 1944 ± 1989 were examined for 33,459 workers; these records are the sum of periodic dosimetry measurements within a calendar year. For each year, the proportion of annual external doses with values in the range of minimum detectable level was examined. Contrary to previous researchers, we conclude that there is evidence that dosimetry measurements with values between zero and the minimum detectable level may have been recorded as zero in some historical periods. This conclusion is supported by evidence drawn from historical documentation about radiation dosimetry practices at the Hanford facility. Although workers at the Hanford facility have relatively complete and detailed external radiation dosimetry data compared to some other nuclear facilities that began operation in the 1940s, these data may suffer limitations related to dosimetry recording practices at the facility.

show abstract

“…However, only a relatively few Hanford employees received a substantial proportion of their dose from these sources. Kneale et al [1991] specifically note the underestimation of doses in the United Kingdom that occurred because dosimeters, read as less than 0.5 mSv, were recorded as zero [Inskip et al, 19871. A review of early Hanford dosimetry records indicates that this practice was not followed at Hanford; that is, in all years of operation, individual dosimeter readings as low as 0.05 mSv were recorded [Gilbert, 19901. Although dose estimates at this level are subject to large relative uncertainties, the particular bias identified in the United Kingdom study does not apply to Hanford.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the increase in recorded dose noted by Kneale et al [1991] were the result of changes in dosimetry, one would expect to see distinct changes in annual doses in 1957 and 1972, when major dosimetry upgrades occurred. However, this is not the pattern shown in Figure 1 of Kneale et al [1991]. Also, we have examined recorded doses of workers who were continuously employed over the time periods that dosimetry changes occurred, and could find no evidence of a sharp increase in the magnitude of dose recorded at such times.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comments on “evidence of biased recording of radiation doses of hanford workers”

Fix

Gilbert

Wilson

et al. 1992

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kneale et al.[ 19911 note the increase in average Hanford worker recorded doses over the period 1944-1 965, and allege that this increase results from underestimation of dose in the early period of Hanford operation. More thorough examination of this issue does not substantiate this interpretation. An adequate examination needs to consider 1) practices used to record dose for Hanford employees, 2) types and levels of radiation exposure, 3) operating status of Hanford facilities, and 4) steps taken to ensure the accuracy of recorded dose.Because of the importance of historical dose estimates used in dose-response analyses of mortality of Hanford workers [Gilbert et al., 19891, Wilson et al. [1990] prepared a report that describes and evaluates the Hanford personnel dosimeter program from 1944 through 1989. This evaluation was based on review of extensive historical documentation, quality control evaluations internal to Hanford and between Hanford and other laboratories, a laboratory study comparing the capabilities of dosimeters used in different time periods at Hanford, and professional judgment based on the authors' extensive dosimetry experience. (The authors of this report were technically responsible, at different times, for Hanford dosimetry practices beginning in the early 1950s. Evaluations of technical aspects of the Hanford dosimetry program have been conducted since inception during 1943.)The original film dosimeter used at Hanford was developed at the University of Chicago [Wilson et al., 19901, and was also adopted for use by several other laboratories. Intercomparison studies, in which calculated doses were compared to known doses and between laboratories, were initiated as early as 1944. Major upgrades to the Hanford dosimetry system occurred with the implementation of multielement film and multielement thermoluminescent dosimeters, respectively, in 1957 and 1972. Similar upgrades occurred at other laboratories.The majority of Hanford personnel performed work in facilities in which the predominant exposure would have been to high-energy photons. Wilson et al. [1990] Address reprint requests to Ethel S. Gilbert, MS p7-82, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

show abstract

Evidence of biased recording of radiation doses of hanford workers

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Plutonium‐related work and cause‐specific mortality at the United States Department of Energy Hanford Site

Plutonium‐related work and cause‐specific mortality at the United States Department of Energy Hanford Site

Evaluation of annual external radiation doses at values near minimum detection levels of dosimeters at the Hanford nuclear facility

Comments on “evidence of biased recording of radiation doses of hanford workers”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About