Mortality among workers at the Savannah River Site

Richardson, David B.; Wing, Steve; Wolf, Sebastian

doi:10.1002/ajim.20511

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded studies conducted among workers who were predominantly exposed to other known or suspected carcinogens but also had some potential for exposure to asbestos (Atkinson et al 2004; Beall et al 2005; Boice et al 1999; Bulbulyan et al 1999; Coggon et al 1997; Costantini et al 1994; Langseth and Andersen 1999; Lewis et al 2003; Richardson et al 2007; Settimi et al 1999; Vasama-Neuvonen et al 1999; Ward et al 1994). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Camargo

Stayner

Straif

et al. 2011

Environ Health Perspect

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A recent Monographs Working Group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that there is sufficient evidence for a causal association between exposure to asbestos and ovarian cancer. We performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate this association.Data sources: Searches of PubMed and unpublished data yielded a total of 18 cohort studies of women occupationally exposed to asbestos.Data extraction: Two authors independently abstracted data; any disagreement was resolved by consulting a third reviewer.Data synthesis: All but one study reported standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) comparing observed numbers of deaths with expected numbers for the general population; the exception was a study that reported standardized incidence ratios. For simplicity, we refer to all effect estimates as SMRs. The overall pooled SMR estimate for ovarian cancer was 1.77 (95% confidence interval, 1.37–2.28), with a moderate degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 35.3%, p = 0.061). Effect estimates were stronger for cohorts compensated for asbestosis, cohorts with estimated lung cancer SMRs > 2.0, and studies conducted in Europe compared with other geographic regions. Effect estimates were similar for studies with and without pathologic confirmation, and we found no evidence of publication bias (Egger’s test p-value = 0.162).Conclusions: Our study supports the IARC conclusion that exposure to asbestos is associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Camargo

Stayner

Straif

et al. 2011

Environ Health Perspect

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cragle et al [1998] reported elevated but non-statistically significant lung cancer and leukemia mortality among SRS non-salaried workers compared to US White men. Richardson et al [2007] reported mortality among a cohort of 18,883 Savannah River workers hired between 1950 and 1986. Significant excess risk for leukemia and cancer of the pleura was observed among hourly paid men, and female workers had a significant excess risk for kidney cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mortality of older construction and craft workers employed at department of energy (DOE) nuclear sites

Dement

Welch

Bingham

et al. 2009

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dement

Hines

Quinn

et al. 2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To determine if construction and trades workers employed at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear sites facilities are at significant risk for diseases associated with occupational exposures, we compared the mortality experience of participants in the Building Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed) to that of the US population. Methods The cohort includes 24,086 BTMed participants enrolled between 1998 and 2016 and 5203 deaths. Cause‐specific standardized mortality ratios were calculated based on US death rates. Results Mortality was elevated for all causes, all cancers, cancers of the trachea, bronchus, and lung and lymphatic and hematopoietic system, mesothelioma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asbestosis, transportation injuries, and other injuries, particularly those caused by accidental poisoning, suggesting a possible effect of the opioid epidemic. Conclusions Apart from other injuries, mortality patterns were very similar to those reported in the past in this population. Construction workers employed at DOE sites have a significantly increased risk for occupational illnesses. Risks are associated with employment during all time periods covered including possibly after 1990. The cancer risks closely match the cancers identified for DOE compensation from radiation exposures. The high risk of lung cancer supports the value of early lung cancer detection. Continued medical surveillance is important.

show abstract

Mortality among workers at the Savannah River Site

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Mortality of older construction and craft workers employed at department of energy (DOE) nuclear sites

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About