Occupational Exposures and Environmental Health Hazards of Military Personnel

Abstract

Background: Military personnels are frequently exposed to environmental pollutants that can cause a variety of diseases. Methods: This review analyzed publications regarding epidemiological and biomonitoring studies on occupationally-exposed military personnels. Results: The exposures include sulfur mustard, organ chlorines, combustion products, fuel vapors, and ionizing and exciting radiations. Important factors to be considered are the lengths and intensities of exposures, its proximity to the sources of environmental pollutants, as well as confounding factors (cigarette smoke, diet, photo-type, healthy warrior effect, etc.). Assessment of environmental and individual exposures to pollutants is crucial, although often omitted, because soldiers have often been evaluated based on reported health problems rather than on excessive exposure to pollutants. Biomarkers of exposures and effects are tools to explore relationships between exposures and diseases in military personnels. Another observation from this review is a major problem from the lack of suitable control groups. Conclusions: This review indicates that only studies which analyzed epidemiological and molecular biomarkers in both exposed and control groups would provide evidence-based conclusions on exposure and disease risk in military personnels.

The role of environmental exposures and gene–environment interactions in the etiology of systemic lupus erythematous

“…Adverse respiratory effects from deployed military base burn pits (devoted to open-air combustion of waste) are well documented, although no clear link with SLE was seen after up to 2.8 years of follow-up in a large US cohort, possibly due to power issues (the average follow-up was only 1.3 years) or outcome ascertainment error (since SLE was identified on the basis of electronic medical records and not otherwise clinically confirmed) [68,69]. Another recent study using a military job exposure matrix surprisingly reported an inverse association with inorganic dust exposure and SLE risk among veterans receiving care through the US Veteran's Affairs medical system [70].…”

Exposure Assessment to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Occupational Military Scenarios: A Review

“…The interaction between electromagnetic fields and health has been deeply investigated in the last 30–40 years particularly for the devices typically used in the civil environment [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ], whereas for the devices used in the military environment more investigation is needed. Indeed, technological breakthroughs have been leading to a progressively increasing exposure of military personnel to high-intensity radiofrequency radiation [ 6 ]. Moreover, even if the military personnel need the regulations limiting the exposure to prevent harmful effects, at the same time the usage of RF devices should not be overly limited.…”

Uncovering Evidence: Associations between Environmental Contaminants and Disparities in Women’s Health

“…The risk of exposure to environmental contaminants also varies by occupation. United States military personnel, which includes a disproportionally high percent of Black and Hispanic Americans, are at increased risk of exposure to environmental contaminants [44]. Additional occupations that may lead to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants include firefighters, miners, farmers, and industrial workers [45].…”

“…Interestingly, although Blacks and Hispanics make up only 12% and 16% of the general U.S. population, respectively, collectively they represent nearly half of the active-duty women in the American armed forces today (29% Black; 20% Hispanic) [153]. Military service is frequently associated with significant exposure to environmental toxicants [44,154] and thus may disproportionately impact women of color and their pregnancies. A recent study suggested that Black women in the United States military are more likely to deliver prematurely compared to their counterparts, regardless of equal access to health care services [155].…”