Mortality Among Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Abstract

Occupational hazards including asbestos and ionizing radiation may contribute to these excesses.

Mortality of older construction and craft workers employed at department of energy nuclear sites: Follow‐up through 2016

“…They found mostly excess risk for lung cancer; other studies found excess risk for multiple myeloma . Richardson et al found excess risk for cancer of the pleura, bladder, and for leukemia among hourly male workers in a cohort of 22 831 workers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory employed between 1943 and 1984.…”

“…In addition to external and internal radiation exposures, construction and trade workers are exposed to asbestos, silica, solvents, metals, and welding/cutting gases and fumes while conducting work tasks or while in the vicinity of other crafts. While several studies have investigated mortality risks among workers largely engaged in operations of DOE facilities, few data exist concerning mortality among the construction trade workers who build, repair, renovate, perform major maintenance, or demolish facilities within the DOE sites.…”

Mortality of older construction and craft workers employed at department of energy (DOE) nuclear sites: Follow‐up through 2011

“…In addition to external and internal radiation exposures, construction and trade workers were exposed to asbestos, silica, solvents, metals, and welding/cutting gases and fumes while conducting work tasks or while in the vicinity of other crafts. While several studies have investigated mortality risks among DOE production workers, [Kneale et al, ; Checkoway et al, ; Gilbert et al, ; Loomis and Wolf, ; Cragle et al, ; Richardson and Wing, , , ; Wing et al, ; Richardson et al, , 2013] little data exist concerning mortality among construction trade workers.…”

Low-dose ionizing radiation increases the mortality risk of solid cancers in nuclear industry workers: A meta-analysis

“…Three articles were excluded, although they involved uranium workers and nuclear power (20,24) and uranium gaseous diffusion plants (25), as the radiation doses were closely controlled and were within the range considered as safe. Three articles on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory staff (26,27) and nuclear test participants (28) were also excluded. The data selection was confirmed by carefully reading the full text and supplementary information for each article.…”

“…The 90% CI of SMR was applied in 2 studies (34,35); this value was difficult to convert to 95% CI for the present meta-analysis, and the calculation of skewed distribution may have reduced the precision. Another source of bias was the combined colorectal SMR in three individual parts of the colon, small intestines and rectum in several studies (17,26,(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47), which could increase heterogeneity. Unfortunately, while the type of work-related exposure may be similar, a large-scale study also has significant differences in sensitivity and may have skewed the results of the meta-analysis.…”