HSE investigation of leukaemia and other cancers in the children of male workers at Sellafield : review of results published in October 1993.

  • Great Britain. Health and Safety Executive.
Date:
1994
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: HSE investigation of leukaemia and other cancers in the children of male workers at Sellafield : review of results published in October 1993. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/8 (page 1)
    INTRODUCTION cf The report of the HSE investigation was published on 20 October 1993 after 3% years of work. Until the final few weeks when the report had been sent for printing, and during which the Sellafield workforce were briefed on the results, contact with BNFL and AEA was kept to the minimum. In accordance with the protocol, all of the data were obtained in a manner which ensured that the identities of the study subjects were kept secret from all but the few people within the HSE team who needed to know them. x Since publication, BNFL has had the opportunity to examine the report, and has queried two of its conclusions which were each heavily influenced by the estimated dose received by particular individuals. These conclusions were: (i) the association with cumulative pre-conception external radiation dose when treated as a continuous variable for those resident outside Seascale at the time of the child's birth; and (ii) the weak association with 12-week pre-conception external radiation dose for those resident in Seascale at the time of the child's birth. The report attaches a caveat to each of these conclusions (see Main Report, paragraph 114 and Appendix 3 paragraph 103 respectively). oe Through previous work on the radiation exposures of employees, BNFL considered that it could identify the two study subjects concerned, and questioned how the data supplied had been translated into the doses used in the HSE study. HSE, in accordance with the protocol, indicated that it was not prepared to discuss particular individuals, but only the general methodology which had been used. This is described in Appendix 2 of the report. mrad re Cw Wellcome Centre for Mectical Science 4. The team translating the original dose data into modern-day units were faced with many problems, the two which were relevant to the BNFL queries being: (i) how to handle apparent gaps in the dose records, and (ii) what to do about doses recorded on special badges, ie. badges worn in addition to routine badges whilst undertaking special tasks where high doses might be expected. It should perhaps be pointed out that in the course of its normal regulatory activities, when HSE investigates dose records and is able to reveal the identity of the person concerned, such questions can almost always be resolved. In this study however, because of the undertakings given in the protocol that the identities of study subjects should not be revealed, it was not possible to make the usual inquiries. Appendix 2 of the report therefore explains how such situations were handled. BNFL argued that, particularly for the two cases which they considered they could identify, the procedures described in the report were not appropriate. > In the light of the case put forward, HSE agreed to review the treatment of gaps' and special badges, publishing any alteration to the report's findings if these were changed. In the course of this review, we have re-examined the records of all of the 10 study subjects (shown ringed in Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix 2 of the original report) whose doses were adjusted significantly as a result of the treatment used for handling both gaps and special badges. Of the instances where dose had been significantly adjusted, 4 were because of apparent gaps in the dose records, and 6 were because of special badges being worn. This note summarises the outcome of that review.