The Five Series Study Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program
Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program
Pages 89-152
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 89... ...
APPENDIX A A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program This appendix contains a reprint of A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program: An Interim Letter Report of the Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons to the Defense Nuclear Agency, which was delivered to the agency on 15 May 1995.
|
From page 91... ...
This conclusion is based on the fact that the NTPR dose data were based on incomplete records, were developed primarily for the purpose of ensuing appropriate follow-up for participating veterans and do not meet the particular standards needed for use in epidemiologic research. The Worldog Group believes, based on its review, that comprehensive dose reconstructions Inay be feasible for a limited subset of veterans who participated in Me above ground nuclear test program.
|
From page 92... ...
The Working Group recognizes that dosimetry data could yield valuable insights into a dose-response relationship for an epidemiologic analysis, if they were derived from specific information that characterizes the veteran's duties at the time of his participation in the weapons tests and if they were estimated in a consistent and well-documented manner. The Working Group also understands that the NTPR database was developed primarily for the purposes of responding to veterans' inquiries about radiation exposures and as a basis for providing appropriate follow-up and settling claims for compensation in accordance with federal regulations.
|
From page 93... ...
If veterans who developed leukemia and filed a claim, for example, were assigned doses by methods that systematically differed from those used to assign doses to veterans who have never filed a claim, then this could produce serious bias In e~ratuat~g the dose-response relationship between radiation exposure and leukemia mortality. Quality Assurance Ideally, there should be comprehensi~c documentation of both the methods used to determine doses and the individual dose assignments.
|
From page 94... ...
On 13 April, the Working Group made site visits to JAYCOR and SAIC to review pertinent records. This review included documentation of methodologies, dose assignment policies, records from the NTPR database, and files of individual participants.
|
From page 95... ...
. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 6 OBSERVATIONS The NTPR Database The NTPR database contains the following categories of information: personal identification and information related to claims, cause of death, etc.; records of correspondence sent by the DNA; dud assignments and intervals of participation for specific test series; · dose assigrunents obtained from dosimetry records; dose assignments derived by reconstruction; and, total doses by test series and summed across all series combined.
|
From page 96... ...
After reviewing the SAIC dose reconstruction report, however, it became clear that the first of Me four readings is identified as a cohort badge reading, whereas the remaining three readings are identified as being individual badges issued to the veteran. In cohort badging, film badges were often issued to representative personnel in units with common activities and equivalent relationships to the radiation environment.
|
From page 97... ...
In reviewing the badge information, the Working Group found that correction factors recommended by the previous NRC committees had not been applied consistently to NIPR dose assignments. The two NRC eotsunittees, (1985a, 1989)
|
From page 98... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 9 approximately one-half.
|
From page 99... ...
Second, if some members of a group had film badge readings and others who did not wear film badges had a common relationship with the radiation environment, NTPR used cohort badging to derive individual doses for unbadged personnel. Third, when sufficient badge readings or a common relationship to the radiation exposure did not exist, doses were sometimes reconstructed.
|
From page 100... ...
This was done by comparing the dose entered in the data file for the 1985 Five Series Study (NRC, 1985b) with that in the current data file for all participants whose name had been referred to SAIC for an individualized dose reconstruction and for a comparison group of participants who had not had an individualized reconstruction.
|
From page 101... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 12 These findings do not, however, allay one of the Working Group's most serious concerns over differential dose assignment-that individualized doses could have experienced a significantly different pattern of change than nonindividualized doses.
|
From page 102... ...
There have been irreversible biases in dose assignments introduced as a matter of policy, but these policies have not been consistent over the life of the NTPR database. Because of these policy changes, repeated dose reconstructions for the same individual do not always agree, but the reasons for the discrepancies and the extent of the bias are not readily apparent.
|
From page 103... ...
Overall, the Working Group felt that documentation of both methods and individual dose assignments in the NTPR database was not sufficiently precise to permit its use for epidemiology. Uncertainty Analysis Although uncertainties have been determined for film badge readings, uncertainty analysis applied to estimated doses lacks comprehensiveness and is not state of the art.
|
From page 104... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 15 · The dose assignment procedure should incorporate plans for quality assurance, including documentation of methods, testing of models used, and verification of data processing.
|
From page 105... ...
Defense Nuclear Agency. Compilation of Dose Reconstruction Methodology; 3 December 1993.
|
From page 106... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 APPl;NDI=S
|
From page 107... ...
The principal purpose of this study is to ascertain whether mortality from leukemia, other cancers, or other diseases has occurred at a higher rate among participants at atmospheric nuclear weapon tests including SMOKY compared with a similar group of veterans who were not participants. This second follow-up study will utilize updated participant identification and radiation exposure data provided by DNA for the same five series of nuclear tests.
|
From page 110... ...
Its findings are used to verify participation of veterans in the atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and lo provide the historical basis for dose reconstructions. It also maintains the NTPR database that documents veterans' participation, VA claims history, most recently assigacd dose and other related information.
|
From page 111... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page C-2 dose estimate.
|
From page 112... ...
Contained in this document is the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of 21 October 1985, Guidance for the Determination and Reporting of Nuclear Radiation Dose for DoD Participants in the Atmospheric Nuclear Test Program." The binder also contains excerpts from relevant documents describing the methodologies for reconstructing external doses based on field surveys and internal doses from resuspension and inhalation of fallout. "DoD Experience with Dose Reconstructions for Atmospheric Test Veterans "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Shipyard Naval Personnel, Operation GREENHOUSE.
|
From page 113... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page E-1 NTPR Database Fields Relevant to this Review "ID INFORMATION" date of last record update indicates that the total dose exceeds 5 rem in 12 consecutive months indicates a VA claim for a radiogenic cancer, with claim number, ICD-8 codes, VA Regional Office and Court of Veterans Appeals indicated in the following fields.
|
From page 114... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 199S Page E-2 "SERIES INFORMATION" This section contains general infonnation about the participant's stands during a specific test senes.
|
From page 115... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page E-3 indicates the date the reconstructed dose was entered in the database.
|
From page 116... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page F-1 Source Codes for NTPR Data Fields Relevant to this Review Provided by DNAIJAYCOR
|
From page 117... ...
22 FILM PACKS DOSIMt~ tR, DOSE ASSIGNED BY tN~SnGA~ON 23 EXTREMITY TLD DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 24 NEUTRON TLD, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESrlGAllON 25 NTA FAST NUt I kON FttM, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVE=GA~ON 26 DOSE WPE UNMOWN, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVE=GA~ON 27 KODAK FILM WITH Ma AS ~R" POSITION OF FIN NUMBS 28 KODAK FI~t Wt~ ~J. ~ HR~ POSITION OF HWt NUMBER, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 29 DOSE ASSIGNED BY HEALTH PHYSICIST EVALUATION 30 RECONSTRUCTION OF REECO R~ BADGE RECORDS 31 TLD CARD, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 32 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT FROM COHORT MEMBER FILM BADGE 117 Revised Ott 1, t993
|
From page 118... ...
37 RESIDUAL OR ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE IN flNAL REPORTS, NOT FOUND tN DOSIMETRY SOURCE DOCUMENTS 38 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP 39 EVIDENCE INDICATES PAR~CIPA~ DID NOT WEAR ASSIGNED FILM BADGE 40 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER FROM COHORT FILM BADGE.
|
From page 119... ...
APPENDIX A DATA ELEMENT 62-66 HOSIERY TYPE CODE TABLE DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP. 53 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP 54 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON LESS THAN ANOTHER COHORT FILM BADGE, WEARER UNKNOWN 55 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON MORE THAN ANOTHER COHORT FILM BADGE,WEARER UNKNOWN MA FILM BADGE: M8 FILM BADGE: MC FILM BADGE: MD FILM BADGE: ME FI'M BADGE: OF FILM BADGE: MG FILM BADGE: MH FILM BADGE: Ml FILM BADGE: MJ FILM BADGE: INK FILM BADGE: Mi FILM BADGE: MM FILM BADGE: MN FILM BADGE: MO FILM BADGE: IMP FILM BADGE: MO FILM BADGE: MR FILM BADGE: MS FILM BADGE: MT FILM BADGE: MU FILM BADGE: MV FILM BADGE: M\V FILM BADGE: 119 PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MOL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL - 3 10 MR 1S MR 20 MR 25 MR 30 MR 35 MR 40 MR 45 MR 50 MR 55 MR 60 MR 65 MR 70 MR 75 MR 80 MR 85 MR 90 MR 95 MR 100 MR 105 MR t10 MR 115 MR 120 MR Revised Oct 1, lS93
|
From page 120... ...
OR NON OCCUPATIONAL X-RAY I DESTROYED J WATER DAMAGED K AGE DAMAGED L UNDETERMINED DAMAGE M MONITORED, NO DOSE ASSIGNED N OCCUPATION DAMAGE O NON - RETURN P PRESENT, BUT NOT MONITORED Q RESIDUAL DOSE FROM REECO SOURCE DOCUMENT R RECONSTRUCTED S ESTIMATED T COMBINED (ESTIMATED & ACTUAL) U PRESENT, 8= MONITORING UNKNOWN V MULTIPLE BADGES WORN~IGHEST DOSE ASSIGNED W MULTIPLE BADGES WORN/LOWEST DOSE NOT ASSIGNED X DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION Y OCCUPATION X-RAY BADGE ASSIGNED TO EQUIPMENT ONLY I NEUTRON MONITORED POSITIVE DOSE INCLUDED IN GAMMA DOSE HEW 2 MULTIPLE BADGES WORN, AVERAGE DOSE ASSIGNED 3 DOSIMETER ISSUED, NO RESULTS AVAILABLE - 1 Revised OCt 1 ~ 1 993
|
From page 121... ...
E TABLE = 121 DOSE RESULTS AVAll ABLE, ISSUE DATE AND/OR RETURN OR PROCESS DATE INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE 5 EXPOSURE RESULTS LESS THAN 50 MREM MAY BE QUESTIONABLE 6 BASED ON MEDICAL RECORD REMARK INDICATING NO EXPOSURE; FILM BADGE NOT USED AS BASIS FOR EXPOSURE 7 THE NET OPTICAL DENSITY OR PROBIT DENSITY IS UNKNOWN, THE GAMMA EXPOSURE IS REPORTED AS A BLESS THAN.
|
From page 127... ...
14. Schaefer Program Manager Nuclear list Pewond Review Ion Sciences Doctorate 127
|
From page 128... ...
. There are no entries to indicate whether these were individual or cohort badges; however, the dose reconstruction (Appendix G-2 #1)
|
From page 129... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page G-2 129 GO Personal Information Form-Film Badge Data Operation CASTLE
|
From page 131... ...
131 den .
|
From page 132... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page G-3 GO SAIC Memorandum to RAEM/NTPR Subject: Radiation Dose Assessment for < NAME A, Operation CASTLE (1954)
|
From page 133... ...
Background Operation CASTLE was the series of nuclear weapon tests conducted at the Pacific Proving Ground (PPG)
|
From page 134... ...
Film Badge Dasimet~y Radiological safer records for personnel in I-ST-762 include "cohort" Elm badges for the period 10 to id March, individual film badges for one~day periods, and medical record entries. Cohort badge #8787 was issued to one sailor, and that reading was used as a dose of record for eleven LST-762 personnel, including the veteran, for 10 to 16 March.
|
From page 135... ...
Rho reconstructed external gamma dose Dom fallout for generic persoMe1 who were topside 40°/O~and below decks 60°/e, of the time from I March to 25 July, when the dose rate fell to less than 0.001 rem per day, is 1.068 rem. Because the veteran's film badge readings cover part of that period, reconstructed doses will be applied only for the unbadged periods.
|
From page 136... ...
Me veteran's breathing rate throughout periods of inhalation of descending and resuspended flout is assumed to have been 1.2 m3 hr -I. As stated above, the veteran's film badge readings are higher than the reconstructed doses for personnel in I~ST-762 for the same periods.
|
From page 137... ...
7. "Neutron Exposure For DOD Nuclear Test Personnel," DNA-TR-84405, 15 August ~ 985.
|
From page 138... ...
. Michael Schaeffer May IS, 1995 Page H-1 H Example of Traceability of Dose Data Appendix H-1 is a printout (4 pages)
|
From page 139... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page H-2 139 H-1 Personal Information Form-Dose Assignment, NTPR Database
|
From page 144... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page H-3 H-2 Memorandum from SAIC to DNA-RAEM/NTPR Subject: Dose Reconstruction: |
From page 145... ...
Dunag BUSTER-JANGLE, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, and CASTLE, the veteran was a civilian working for For B-J and U-K, film badge data is available for all periods during which Tic veteran would have been exposed. For CASTLE, some film badge data is available, and dose reconstruction is used here for the reminder of He time.
|
From page 146... ...
() peration CASTING The attached table s =es the locations and doses used for the veteran dose reconstruction.
|
From page 147... ...
2. NUCLEAR JEST PERSONNEL REVIEW, Telephone Infom~adon Few, .
|
From page 148... ...
9. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation Crossroads, Volume I Basic Repon," DNA-TR-82~5V1, Defense Nuclear Agency, 3 March 198~ 10.
|
From page 149... ...
z c · ~ A c c, c c`: Cs3 cl: ~ ~3 c 'E ~ ''3~\ ~ ~X 4,)
|
From page 150... ...
D Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page I-1 Potential for Bias due to Differential Methods of Dose Assignment Comparison of Doses Assigned to Atomic Test Paruc~pants Who Had Individual Dose Reconstructions and Those Who Did Not The Dosimetry Working Group of the Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons (Five-Series Study)
|
From page 151... ...
and Original Dose Assigned in 1985 (DO) for Each Dose Assignment Method (individualized and nonindividualized)
|
From page 152... ...
This was done by comparing the dose entered in the data file for the 1985 Five Series Study (NRC, 1985b) with that in the current data file, for all participants whose name had been referred to SAIC for an individualized dose reconstruction and for a comparison group of participants who had not had an individualized reconstruction.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.