 |
 |
National Center for Environmental Health
Radiation Studies Branch
Radiation Studies Branch | NCEH | Contact Us
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
National Center for Environmental Health Radiation Studies Branch Radiation Studies Branch | NCEH | Contact Us |
|
|
||||||
Public Comment
Received to Date by CDC on the Draft Final Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) Report
(updated 12/1/99)
*Some of these documents below are
.PDF files. To view these documents, Adobe Acrobat Reader™ software is required.
Download a free copy of the
Adobe Acrobat Reader™.
CDC has received a number of written comments on the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, which are presented below. In order to maintain the privacy of individuals submitting comments we have transcribed their letters verbatim, deleting only personal identifying information. We recognize that some individuals may prefer that their names are publicly associated with their comments. As people provide comments, we are asking if they would like for their comments to be publicly identified. When an individual tells us they would like their name listed with their comment, we will do that.
Persons who would like to provide written comments on the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report are encouraged to do so by writing:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Radiation Studies Branch (Attn: HTDS)
MS F-35
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
In order to begin work on the final Hanford Thyroid Disease Study report, we request that comments be sent by July 1, 1999. CDC will respond to all questions on individual basis. All comments will be given consideration in preparation of the final report. Again, please let us know if you would prefer that your name be publicly associated with your comment(s).
February 27, 1999
D.N.
Ione, WA 99139-9611
CDC, Radiation Studies Branch
Attn: HTDS
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
Good Morning
It is not just the 'down-winders' that were affected by the Handford’s release. All the animals and crops were also affected. A lot of those crops, particularly alfalfa, were marketed in western Washington State. This alfalfa fed the dairy herds of western Washington and probably contaminated all milk products. The government subsidized the school lunch milk program which made it abundantly available for everyone. I think my wife and I were in school at that time were affected. We were born and raised in Snohomish County and we both have hypothyroidism.
D.J.B.N., dob 1943
J.E.H.N., dob 1944
I think a wider study is called for and a control area is needed that is outside the reach of the farmers market.
Sincerely,
D.N.
February 23, 1999
CDC
Radiation Studies Branch
Attn. HTDS
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
Dear colleagues:
Please send a copy of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study to me at the address below.
Is there an email list regarding updates of the study and/or discussion about it? If so, please add my name to that list, also:
I am a former member of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, a community health nurse and the author of a Guide that might be of some interest to you that was funded by DOE: "Communities at Risk: How to Plan and Conduct Community Health Needs Assessments around DOE Nuclear Sites."
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
B.A.L.
San Geronimo, CA 94963
17 February 1999
TO: CDC
Radiation Studies Branch
(Attn: HTDS)
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
FROM: S.R.H.
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
I am writing this letter in response to the publicizing of the results of the radiation emissions study involving the Handford Reservation in southeast Washington state.
A few years ago I received a letter offering me a chance to be part of the thyroid study. If I understood the requests in the letter, I would have to travel to Seattle’s Fred S. Hutchinson Cancer Clinic and have a piece of my thyroid removed for tests. Needless to say, I declined to participate for three main reasons...
1. Even though I was born in Benton County in 1941, we moved to San Diego a couple years later. Except for an occasional visit to grandparents, I did not spend much time in that geographical area. And, Benton County is not normally ‘downwind’ from Hanford anyway. Which brings the sampling into question in my opinion.
2. There was no provision in the study to cover lost wages during the testing. I just couldn’t afford to take off from work.
3. The thought of government people chopping pieces off my thyroid sent a cold chill up my spine.
I did relate the following incident to the study people:
In the winter of 1964, my ex-wife, who was 19 years old at the time, was becoming more and more ill. We had our first baby that September, and she was not bouncing back. Our family doctor finally put her in the hospital in Spokane for tests, and they found out that she would have to have her thyroid removed. When they saw it, they were totally shocked. I believe it was described as a "Hashimoto Thyroid", deformed and fibrous and inoperative. This thyroid condition had been discovered in survivors of the atomic bomb blasts in Japan. In 1964, except for government people, nobody had any idea what could have caused it, since the Hanford situation was still a secret. My ex-wife was born in southern Idaho, but her family moved to Cheney, Washington, when she was very young and she had lived there until adulthood. The study people refused to accept this information since she was not born in the counties they were sampling. This told me that they just didn’t want to hear the truth, and that a vast number of "downwinders" would not have a chance to be a part of the study.
It makes me furious that our government again refuses to take responsibility for the harm it has caused our own people...in this case, an innocent child probably playing in her own backyard when the radiation blew through. It took 40 years for the government to apologize to the Japanese-Americans and offer them some reparation for the pain caused during internment. Hanford "downwinders" have waited that long also. How about some fairness before all the "downwinders" are gone?
S.H.
Liberty Lake, Washington
February 22, 1999
J.T.
Seattle,Washington 98116
Mike Donnelly; Paul Garbe
QUESTION REGARDING THE HTDS REPORT RELEASE
Mike and Paul,
Given the following quote, how could you justify releasing the HTDS draft report when you knew that not all of the final analysis plan had been completed, namely the incorporation of the dose uncertainty into the dose-response analysis?
The Study Management Team (SMT) "consider that incorporating the adjustment for dose uncertainty is an essential requirement for the study. That this is indeed a matter of practical importance can be seen from the results of the Utah thyroid study, in which the magnitude of the estimated dose response was roughly tripled by the adjustment for dose uncertainty."
The quote appears on page10 of the attachment to the 06/30/97 analysis plan. The attachment is titled "Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Analysis Plan: Summary of Revisions of 1/27/97 Draft, June 30, 1997.
Sincerely,
J.T.
Seattle, Washington 98116
February 1, 1999
E.B. H.
Airway Heights, Washington 99001
Center for Disease Control
Radiation Branch
Attention HTDS
mailstop F35
4770 Buford Highway
Atlanta, GA 30341
Dear Sir:
It was with great dismay to learn that studies conducted have found no link between thyroid disease and emissions from the Hanford reactor and operations during the years following World War II. My wife, Mary, is a litigant in an ongoing court case because she, I and the attornies believe she was damaged by the Hanford operation.
Mary was born in 1947 in Dayton, Washington - just a few miles downwind from Hanford. She spent most of her early childhood in Dayton constantly being exposed to contamination in the air, food chain, and water. She likely was injured by radiation while still in her mother’s womb. Mary was born with an under-active (practically non-active) thyroid gland. This did not become apparent until it was obvious that her growth was stunted, she didn’t walk until around age 4, and her learning skills were such that she did not do very well at all in school. She was also born with a seizure disorder and has been under medication for both conditions since she was diagnosed. In 1995, Mary was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease (Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and underwent a year’s worth of chemotherapy. Thank God she is still in remission.
How a bunch of so-called "experts in their field" can make the sweeping statement that there is no cause-and-effect between the Hanford emissions and thyroid disease is beyond my understanding. Nobody studied Mary or the year she was born in. How can Mary’s case be so cavalierly dismissed when she was never studied or examined as an individual? Evidently, those doctors and scientists that came to the conclusion that there is no cause and effect are not downwinders and do not suffer thyroid disease the way Mary has. If even just one of them had to watch daily a sufferer of thyroid disease, especially if the victim is a downwinder, he or she would change their mind .I think the whole study was flawed in that there were too many general assumptions made.
How do we know that Hanford emissions, as well as emissions from other nuclear projects and testing, did not contaminate the entire food chain nationwide, thereby causing thyroid disease on a large scale? If this were the case, then of course a select few Hanford downwinders thyroid problems would not stick out, or be obvious. A nationwide contamination could have taken place- especially in the food chain. Washington wheat is sold everywhere, as are Washington apples. Washington chickens are another example.
I also think the study was skewed in favor of those that would ultimately have to take present-day responsibility for radiation connected illnesses. Most of the people affected by the mistakes and accidents of nuclear research and testing are getting older now and will probably die of some other disease and then - voila!- no more victims to worry about. After all, why worry too much about a problem that is apparently self-solving? Thyroid disease caused from radiation isn’t communicable so won’t cause a big epidemic to worry about. Thyroid disease isn’t a headline-grabber, so there’s not that much media attention attached to it like some of the more "popular" diseases. I think some folks in authority would just as soon ignore the true facts and wait for all this to go away.
I believe in my heart that Mary has been severely affected by Hanford’s nuclear activities. I believe that Mary, as an innocent victim, deserves some individual examination of her child-hood environment and that whoever is culpable for her radiation-caused illnesses admit it.
Regards,
E.B. H.
Pasco, Washington 99301
February 9, 1999
HTDS
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Avenue North, MP-425
Seattle, Washington 98109-1024
HTDS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
4770 Buford Highway, F-35
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Comments on Summary Final Report of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, January 1999
Dear Sirs:
The following suggestion are presented as a means for significantly improving the quality of the conclusions in this study. Failure to adopt these suggestions could result in significant criticism by the technical community and a severe reduction of your reputation as unbiased medical analysis organizations. In particular the analysis and conclusions appear to have been selected on a political basis to comply with the political agenda of the federal bureaucracy rather than on the basis of getting the correct answer.
The suggested changes in your analysis and conclusions are as follows:
1. Comply with Section 161 of Public Law 100-607.
The excerpt on page 7 states that ‘the Director shall conduct a study of thyroid morbidity of the population.’ A morbidity study determines the number of cases of a particular disease occurring in a given number of population. You chose to go further and add the objective of determining whether disease was increased. You should either not make that conclusion or should also address the other two possible conclusions of a morbidity study by also forming conclusions on whether there was no effect or that there was a decrease in disease as the radiation dose increases.
Failure to address these latter two aspects leaves the impression that you politically did not want to address the conclusion that the releases were beneficial as is apparent from analysis of Figures 1 and 2.
2. Use a least squares analysis of the data.
A least squares analysis would show the actual relationship between the dose and the effects. It is obvious from analysis of Figures 1 and 2 that a least squares analysis would show that the frequency of cancer decreases with dose.
If you publish the basic data in the final report, there undoubtedly will be a least squares analysis made by others and you could be subject to severe criticism for not making one to reveal the actual correlation. If you do not publish the basic data, someone may obtain it under the freedom of information act. A least squares analysis obviously would not support your statement on page 13 that the occurrence of thyroid cancer among the study participants was not related to the radiation doses to the thyroid.
3. Publish the confidece levels for the results.
Because of the large number of participants, HTDS achieved a high level of statistical power. The final report should describe the statistical analysis and the confidence levels for the conclusions based on the least squares analysis.
4. Explain in the summary how the HTDS participants were selected.
Did you include all persons that could be found and who volunteered to be included? The statements on page 10 are too vague. Why were 909 potential participants not included? Explain what effect not including those 909 persons might have had on the results.
Conclusion
It is hoped that you adopt the above suggestions. It would be a shame if your reputations are sullied by criticisms that the objective and analysis were politically motivated rather properly performed to get the correct answer.
Sincerely yours,
J. R. Y
J. A.
Shoreline, Washington 98177
February 16, 1999
It is incomprehensible that the Hanford thyroid study did not include 25,000 students at Washington State University for that period of time.
My wife has it, as well as many of her friends that were students at WSU during 1946-1950.
The F. Family
Spokane, Washington 99206-2321
Attn: HTDS;
It must be as frustrating to other Hanford Downwinders as it was to us to read the preliminary report that found no relationship between Thyroid disease and exposure to radioactive Iodine-131 released at the Hanford site. Our family of four lived in North Richland in the years of 1949 to 1953 and three of us have Thyroid problems, one had to have surgery. The fourth member was allergic to milk and certain vegetables and does not have the problem. And we don’t have a family history of Thyroid disease.
How can you explain away a problem that effects so many people? This is an unexcusable situation that has cost an enormous amount of money, seemingly to be ignorant of cold facts. Wasted money that could have helped many of these persons now afflicted or those who did not survive such a lengthy study. Many of us consider this a blatant waste and deliberate disguise of the TRUTH.
Thank You,
F. L. F.
J.S., M.D.
Spokane, Washington 99204
February 18, 1999
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
By Public Notice, comment on the Hanford study has been requested by your office.
Attached is a guest column from The Seattle Times, together with the text of a talk I gave before the Washington Chapter, American College of Surgeons, June 17, 1996.
I would appreciate being informed of developments.
Sincerely,
J.S., M.D.
Attn: Hanford Thyroid Disease Study
Radiation Studies Branch
Centers for Disease Control
4770 Buford Hwy NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
NUCLEAR FALLOUT AND THYROID CANCER*
J.S., M.D., F.A.C.S.
Has radio-active material as measured by its yardstick of an increase in thyroid carcinoma created a public health hazard? Such potential for increased malignancy is of continuing public, political and media concern because of the atomic energy center in south-central Washington at Hanford.
Furthermore, a plaintiff’s dream unfolds because much media and political attention has been paid to the so-called "downwind" effect, reportedly carrying radioactive material north-easterly from Hanford, 150 miles toward the major population center of the area, the greater Spokane area.
At the 1995 meeting of the Washington State Chapter, American College of Surgeons, Dr. Don Williams of Yakima focused attention on these matters, reporting 107 cases of thyroid carcinoma in the Yakima Valley over the 20-year period 1974-1993. Grouping both follicular and follicular variant of papillary with the papillary group, he found that there were 9 cancer-related deaths, 1 from the papillary follicular, 1 from the medullary, and 7 from the anaplastic carcinoma group.
His conclusions were that while almost all thyroid cancers are curable, anaplastic cancer was incurable. Furthermore, there was no deleterious "Hanford" effect in the Yakima Valley, some 60 miles northwest of Hanford itself.
This paper enlarges upon several aspects of Dr. Williams’ paper: Were the statistical findings valid on a wider sampling from Eastern Washington? What were the findings in other areas of the state, particularly in the counties immediately adjacent to the Hanford project? Was there meteorological confirmation for a prevailing "downwind", northeasterly drift toward the greater Spokane area vis-a-vis the potential heightened risk of radioactive materials from Hanford?
To answer such questions, the records were collected for an additional 387 patients in the same 20-year period from Spokane’s two regional hospitals, Deaconess Medical Center and Sacred Heat Medical Center. Thus, the combined patient population is not quite 500 (Table 1).
The new material paralleled that of Dr. Williams, except for the fewer numbers of lethal, anaplastic carcinomas, for which the combined numbers are still too small for valid conclusions. It would have been fascinating to know if there was a state-by-state variance in anaplastic carcinoma, but unfortunately neither the National Cancer Institute nor S.E.E.R. was able to provide such a breakdown.
Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, of course, is almost always a disease of the elderly, although the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology records the youngest patient with onset and death at only 22 years of age. Three to four times more common in women, it presents as a rapidly enlarging neck mass, often with dyspnea or dysphagia, then death in a few months.
Fortunately, considering all types of thyroid carcinoma, the lethality is minimal (Table2). In this combined series, only 1 patient a year, on average, died from thyroid carcinoma.
In reviewing the Spokane material, the county-by-county distribution of patients with thyroid carcinoma would appear to reflect only normal referral patterns to Spokane surgeons. There was no discernible increase in counties near Hanford.
A more accurate view of a possible relationship between past I-131 emissions at Hanford as it affected several parts of the state can be found by reviewing thyroid mortality on a regional basis,
utilizing material obtained from the Washington State Department of Health (Figure 1) . Over the past 20 years there were 356 deaths, 89 in Washington east of the Cascade Mountains, 267 in the more heavily populated area of western Washington. Over 20 years there were 12 deaths in the three counties immediately adjacent to the Hanford atomic energy complex. The numbers are small. However, one would be hard pressed to confirm a relationship between I-131 release from Hanford in the 1940's and 1950's and the incidence of thyroid malignancy in the several regions of Washington State.
Turning to another subject, much has been made by the media of the Hanford "downwind" emissions and their possible affect on thyroid carcinoma. Congress has appropriated some $20 million for the study of the problem. Most of the grants have gone to the Fred Hutchinson Research Center in Seattle, with a present work-force of over 40 people. The study there was to have been completed in 1993, but postponed, now with possible conclusions in 1998 (Table 3).
In addition, Congress has appropriated over $2.7 million for the Hanford Health Information Network, covering three states and nine Indian tribes. The network provides a cornucopia of publications for any anxious caller interested in his or her possible relationship between Hanford and their particular health concern (illustration).
Little attention has been paid to the 1996 statement, Cancer Facts and Figures, of the American Cancer Society:
"Nuclear power plants: Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear facilities are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near such plants. Although reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population."
Ignoring such statements, a crusade has been under way for years by the flagship newspaper in this part of the Pacific Northwest. Several times a month suppositions are printed, fueling public concern.
It is of interest that in a state-by-state review on the incidence of thyroid carcinoma, the two pivotal nuclear states of the nation, Washington and Tennessee, are found to be only average in the incidence of thyroid malignancy. The states surrounding those two states are largely average or below average (Figure 2).
Our major population center in Eastern Washington, Spokane, is repeatedly advised by media that the public is subject to a prevailing wind from Hanford, thus being "downwind". What is the prevailing wind?
In truth, studies from 28 weather stations at Hanford indicate the opposite direction, the prevailing wind from Hanford passing much more often from north-west to south-east, into southern Idaho (Figure 3).
Has the wind had an adverse effect for southern Idaho? The incidence of thyroid malignancy fails to confirm this.
SUMMARY
The incidence of thyroid carcinoma, 1974-1993, fails to support the theory that radioactive fall-out from the Hanford, Washington Nuclear Energy Center has increased the incidence of thyroid cancer in the State of Washington.
The patient population for Washington and particularly the area more immediately adjacent to Hanford, parallels national material in its incidence of thyroid carcinoma. There is no evidence of radiation drift causing malignant charge.
Fortunately, thyroid carcinoma is uncommon, and except for the anaplastic type, rather indolent.
Weather studies from Hanford fail to confirm a dominant, prevailing wind from Hanford northeasterly toward the greater Spokane area.
J.S., M.D., F.A.C.S.
Spokane, Washington 99204
February 16, 1999
Dear Sir,
I am a down winder & I can not tell you how disappointed I was with the January 28th release of findings. All I could think is what a bunch of baloney & a total lack of understanding as to what all of us have been subject to .
Your findings basically say, hey if you "lived off the land" as our family did in North Idaho, you received no radiation-nothing to be concerned about. If you happen to have thyroid problems or any other problems health wise there is no way it could be tied to the Hanford releases.
Say what you may I for one & my family do not believe you. When I was 16- I am now 54- I had a problem with my thyroid. As a result one side has shrivel up & doesn’t function. I suffer from low thyroid. My sister, who also drank the milk, ate the cheese and butter from that, ate the beef and eggs and chicken, all ground feeders, has low thyroid. She takes medications for this. As does her oldest daughter whose thyroid ceased to function at 11 or 12. Her second daughter has Graves disease. She has had quite a time with this & now is on medication also. Coincidence, I think not. Please reevaluate the data. This are not just something that happen. While our family has not suffered as some, we would still like the truth; the facts to be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
K.J.S
3-29-99
G. G.
Bothell, WA 98021
To: Those in charge of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study
The Hanford Health Information Network advised me to contact you. I have a possible explanation for the high mortality rate in the Hanford area. I have an unusual neck deformity, which is only detected by an x-ray. You can not tell I have this dangerous deformity by how I move or how I look.
I have 3 completely fused neck vertebrae, at C-2, 3, and 4. My condition is called Klippel Feil- Syndrome. There is information about this Syndrome on the Internet, but there is no known cause for this Syndrome. I believe that the cause is environmental. If radioactive particles could cause problems in the Thyroid, in the neck, it could cause structural problems in the neck.
This problem occurs at 3-8 weeks gestation, so affected people would have had to be conceived in the Hanford area, or there just after conception.
I urge you to consider neck x-rays for people who were conceived in the Hanford area. There are many problems associated with the Klippel-Feil Syndrome–many are hidden symptoms because we do not communicate the symptoms. Since we are born with this problem many of the symptoms are normal to us, so we do not communicate them to a Doctor, until it is too late. Then we have paralysis, nerve problems, stenosis.......
My Father worked for the Hanford Nuclear Plant in 1955.
My Mother picked fruit, while she was pregnant with me.
I was born in Kennewick, Washington September 1, 1955 (G. A. S.–maiden name).
My parents lived there for only 1 year, but that was enough to create problems in me. I also have Hypothyroidism, diagnosed when I was 18 years old.
Please help the people in Hanford area.
There are simple preventative measures, that a person with Klippel-Feil can do, to avoid problems, like never bending their head backwards. I have had severe head pain for 42 years, which is now nearly gone because I now understand this condition. I want to help the others.
I am certain the people in the Hanford area would co-operate with you, since they want to know what is making them so sick. A simple neck x-ray would answer some questions.
Sincerely,
G. G.
3-29-99
To those in charge of the Hanford Situation:
I am the child of a worker from Hanford. I have Juvenile Hypothyroidism (extremely different from Adult onset Hypothyroidism) I was born with half of my neck fused solid. I was also born with a disconnected coccyx. The 2 spine deformities have caused me great pain my whole life (I am actually feeling great now, because I just had the coccyx removed and have gone through 2 years of physical therapy, to learn how to manage with such a deformed neck).
Both of my spine deformities have gone unnoticed, untreated for 42 years because you can not tell I have them, unless you do an x-ray. I am the lucky child of a Hanford employee. I know and understand my deformities. There are many who do not know. I would think that the government might consider helping the children of the Hanford workers, at the very least. It is unconscionable that they are not getting help.
I have talked to the people from NRHA and HHIN. I have looked at the Fred Hutchison reports. Everyone seems to be doing studies throughout Washington, and including many parts of Idaho and Oregon. But, there is no comprehensive studies on the very specific area where it truly would have affected people– namely the unborn babies, and newborns of the workers at Hanford. (The workers took home a higher concentration of radioactive particles) There was one study, only looking for Cancer. I find this very illogical. The thyroid gland "stimulates almost every tissue in the body", according to Merck Manual. It is a growth hormone." The age at which the deficiencies start also influences which symptoms develop." The effects on a fetus are different from those on a newborn or an older child" (Merck Manual). In my case, the affected thyroid gland affected the growth pattern of my spine.
They should be looking for spine deformities, mental retardation, and growth pattern problems specifically of the children of the workers of Hanford, or those conceived in the Hanford area. But, first study the children of the workers–they got the highest dose. The spine is formed at 3-8 weeks gestation period. The thyroid gland is formed in the first trimester. If the thyroid gland is damaged in any way, at this time, it will affect the spine. The greatest number of problems will be in those who were conceived in the Hanford area.
Narrow the studies to just the children of the workers at Hanford.
The government hired the people to work there, it is the responsibility of the Government to help the people who they injured. Do a more specific study. This makes sense. I cry everyday for the people who are not getting help there. I am the lucky one, I at least understand my deformity and what it will take to live relatively pain free. (I am in danger of breaking my neck, and spinal cord injuries, though ). I cry for the others, who do not know and understand.
Demand another study, please.
Ask to continue the funding for the Hanford Health Information Network.
I write to you, again, because I am shocked by what I recently learned
Sincerely,
G. G.
Bothell, Washington 98021
7 April 1999
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Radiation Studies Branch (attn: HTDS)
MS-F-35
4770 Bufford Highway
Atlanta, GA 30341
Dear Sir:
This is written in response to your call for comments concerning the HTDS Final Report on the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. I have been a recipient of the newsletters from the Hanford Health Information Network for several years and I am concerned about the Study.
I was stationed at the Naval Air Station at Geiger Field in Spokane WA from January 1949 to May of 1952, the entire time there being within the times of release of the radiation and within the geographic area of the fallout.
My wife and first two children were with me the whole time. My third child was born there in June of 1951. While still in the navy I was transferred to NAS St. Louis. In January 1956 my wife was operated on for a thyroid tumor. WE were transferred to NAS Denver in 1956 and my fourth child was born there in November 1956.
I believe it is of interest that daughter Sara has thyroid disease. She was in Spokane for the entire period. Daughter Mary Jane, born in Spokane has thyroid problems. My wife has thyroid disease. And son Stephen, born in Denver in 1956 has just recovered from thyroid disease. This seems an inordinate amount of thyroid disease for one family. None of the diagnoses are indicative of a familial thyroid condition.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
E. S.
Chapel Hill NC 27514-7524
Is anyone Human? Can anyone listen?
No, I forgot you are government workers.
3/28/99
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Radiation Studies Branch
Hanford Thyroid Study Draft Final Report:
W. I.
Seaside, OR 97138
My comment:
This is unfair, and degrading to know I am a U.S. citizen and not included in the I.D.A. I was in the exposed area as a child, I have a book. I was an infant and a young child, and children and infants soak up more radiation than that of an adult.
Why can’t the CDC include people such as myself? This is very unfair. I had an hyperactive thyroid.
I didn’t deserve to be around radiation. I didn’t ask for it, all I ask is to be included and get all the Naturopathic help I can get to detox myself at the governments expense since I am unable to receive compensation. I guess I’ll go to a Hypnestherapist to see if what I remember is true or not, then once that is documented, maybe the government will help me then. I haven’t wanted to be sick with medical problems my whole life.
I was there, I was exposed. I’m just not included, and I am a U.S. citizen
Thank You
W. I.
Mar 29
Attn: HTDS
Dear Sir,
I received your letter and information today on the Hanford Study. I do appreciate the information and hope to get to the meeting at Gonzaga in Spokane.
While I agree it is difficult to say "yes the radiation you received caused your thyroid problems", I think you would probably agree that "living off the land" as we did would probably expose the four children in our family to higher doses than some.
We raised our own beef, pork, and chicken. We drank the milk ate the cheese and butter enjoyed the eggs etc.
Most our food was home grown and home canned for nearly all of my 18 years at home. I would be interested in any more information in the future. Thank you.
Most Sincerely,
K S
Newport, WA 99156-613
April 30, 1999
Mike Donnelly
CDC - NCEH - Radiation Studies Branch
4770 Buford Highway, NE
MS: F35
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724
Steve Simon
NAS - BRER
Room 342
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Dear Mike and Steve,
The following are my comments on the draft final report of the
Hanford
Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS), dated September 30, 1998, and released to
the public on January 28, 1999. These comments are my own and do not
necessarily represent the views of my employer (Short Cressman & Burgess
PLLC) or any of the scientific experts that have been retained by the
plaintiffs in the In re Berg litigation. They are largely based on my
familiarity of the HTDS that I gained while I served as a member of the
HTDS Advisory Committee (1991-1997).
1. The study's dose-response analysis is incomplete because the
dose
uncertainty has not been fully incorporated, as called for in the HTDS
final analysis plan. The HTDS Study Management Team (SMT) "consider that
incorporating the adjustment for dose uncertainty is an essential
requirement for the study. That this is indeed a matter of practical
importance can be seen from the results of the Utah thyroid study, in
which the magnitude of the estimated dose response was roughly tripled
by the adjustment for dose uncertainty" [p. 10 of the attachment to the
6/30/97 analysis plan. The attachment is titled "Hanford Thyroid Disease
Study Analysis Plan: Summary of Revisions of 1/27/97 Draft, June 30,
1997."].
2. The final report should include a discussion that addresses
why the
loss of correlation (among the CIDER realizations) was not considered to
be a problem when most of the dose-response analyses relied on only one
value of each participant's dose estimates (i.e., the median).
3. I have heard from colleagues that a number of scientists
consider
HTDS to be inconclusive because of its low statistical power. One of
these scientists, Geoffrey Howe, acknowledged his concerns at the recent
meeting of ACERER. The final report should unequivocally state that HTDS
is a low power study and, therefore, inconclusive. The NRC Committee on
an Assessment of CDC's Radiation Studies has been concerned in the past
as to whether HTDS would have sufficient statistical power (Letter from
William J. Schull, Chairman, to James M. Smith, Chief, Radiation Studies
Branch, November 16, 1994, p. 4).
4. Both CDC and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
(FHCRC)
should offer a prominent public apology for their inappropriate
characterizations of the power of the study's conclusions during the
January 1999 briefings and announcement (see previous comment). This
apology should be of the same magnitude with which the announcement of
the findings were made.
Dosimetry
5. NTS doses for Stevens, Ferry, Okanogan counties are generally higher
than for Benton, Franklin and Adams counties. Perhaps more
significantly, the GSD is much higher for Stevens, Ferry, Okanogan
counties. It would be useful to include a section that describes how
these higher NTS exposures in the HEDR low-dose counties were taken into
account and why they were not considered to have constituted a
confounding factor.
Comparison of NTS (NCI) Dose Estimates in rad (All Series,
1951-1957)
for Possible HTDS Participant (Female, born 10/6/44)
95% Confidence Interval (GM)
County average milk high milk backyard milk
Franklin 0.20 - 6.12 (1.1) 0.41 - 15.1 (2.5) 0.37 - 6.85 (1.6)
Benton 0.19 - 7.81 (1.2) 0.38 - 13.9 (2.3) 0.31 - 9.46 (1.7)
Adams 0.22 - 6.67 (1.2) 0.53 - 13.8 (2.7) 0.33 - 8.70 (1.7)
Okanogan 0.09 - 13.5 (1.1) 0.14 - 18.6 (1.6) 0.17 - 16.6 (1.7)
Ferry 0.10 - 19.2 (1.4) 0.13 - 24.6 (1.8) 0.18 - 22.0 (2.0)
Stevens 0.15 - 23.4 (1.9) 0.20 - 30.8 (2.5) 0.27 - 29.1 (2.8)
Walla Walla 0.37 - 24.2 (3.0) 0.64 - 132. (9.2) 0.65 - 27.3 (4.2)
6. Considering the HTDS use of surrogate dosimetries, there is an
error
in how the second alternative representation of exposure is described in
the draft final report. In section C.3 of the Discussion (IX). This was
confirmed via a telephone conversation with Ken Kopecky on February 26,
1999. The final report should include an accurate description of how
this analysis was performed.
7. Because of including Richland residents (see the previous
comment),
the HTDS analysis could have been confounded by a significant
contribution from the inhalation pathway. It is my understanding that
HEDR did not estimate a source term for methyl iodine. It would be
useful if the final report included a discussion of this factor.
8. In doing the geostratum surrogate, was it adjusted for
residence
location in 1945? If not, this should be considered for inclusion in the
final report.
9. Did HTDS perform any dose-response analysis based solely on
those
participants with CATI-derived dose estimates? If not, perhaps this
could be included in the final report.
10. It would be appreciated if a section could be added to the
final
report that discusses to what extent HTDS used the HEDR default
parameters in place of missing data for CATI-derived dose estimates.
This should also include a description of the differences/similarities
between the HEDR default values and the values averaged from the
composite CATI responses. Repeated commitments were made to the HTDS
Advisory Committee that this information would be made available.
Additionally, the NAS committee reviewing HTDS for CDC wrote that
HTDS
"investigators are urged to evaluate further the use of some of the
interview data to corroborate the HEDR exposure estimates and the
default options" (Letter from William J. Schull, Chairman, to James M.
Smith, Chief, Radiation Studies Branch, July 27, 1998, p. 5).
Other Suggestions for the Final Report
11. I would like to see the final report discuss at some length the
possibility that the HTDS study missed a link between the Hanford
emissions of iodine-131 and thyroid disease. Dr. David Becker stated in
his December 1998 peer review comments that the levels of thyroid
disease were substantially higher than he would have expected in a
unexposed population. I found it quite troubling that there was no
consideration of possibly missing an actual radiation effect in the
draft final report.
12. The report would be improved if more complete reporting
regarding
the mortality data was included. Perhaps a table presenting the number
of deaths per year and in which birth cohort and geostratum the deaths
occurred.
13. It would be interesting if dose response analyses for thyroid
nodules and hypothyroidism would be performed using only those
participants from the 1941 through 1946 birth cohorts and/or the 1942
through 1946 birth cohorts. This might reveal that people who were first
exposed at younger ages were more at risk than those who were age 5 at
time of first major exposure. The NAS panel made similar suggestions
"because there is a steep gradient of risk per unit dose according to
age at exposure (relative to risks posed by irradiation at ages 0-4, for
example, the data show risks only 50% as high for irradiation at ages
5-9...)" (Letter from William J. Schull, Chairman, to James M. Smith,
Chief, Radiation Studies Branch, July 27, 1998, p. 5).
14. Please include two additional tables similar to Table V.2,
one to
present the same data for actual participants, and the other to present
the same data for participants with CATI-derived dose estimates.
15. On p. 92 of section VIII, there should be a more detailed
description of how exposure modifiers were considered. It would also be
helpful if some of this information was presented in a table.
16. Since two of the five out-of-area thyroid cancer cases were
within
about 10 miles of the HEDR modeling domain, a dose-response analysis
(including NTS dose estimates) should be performed that treats those two
cases as in-area ones.
17. For nodules, hypothyroidism and autoimmune thyroiditis,
tables
should be provided in the final report that present similar information
as Table VIII-46 did for thyroid cancer. I am aware that this will
require many additional pages to display, but given that taxpayers have
already invested $18 million, I think the public has a right to this
more complete information.
18. There seem to be a number of errors in VIII-46. Case 3
appears to
have been born in 1948. Case 5 appears to have been born in 1947. Some
of the diagnostic information for case 19 in the third column is in
error. It is possible that other information in this table is incorrect
and should be checked prior to the publication of the final report. It
would also be helpful if the estimated dose be included for cases 21 and
22, as well as adding the range of each cancer case's dose estimate
(using the 95% confidence interval).
19. Given the number of errors in the draft final report, one
wonders if
there were similar errors in the data used for dose calculations and
statistical analyses. It would be reassuring if the final report
included a section that demonstrates the level of compliance with the
quality control measures.
20. Concerning the analysis of potential confounders that was
mentioned
in Section VIII.D.20, the final report should provide a much more
detailed discussion of how these factors were analyzed and the results.
This would be especially desirable for the factors pertaining to a
history of medical and dental radiation exposure and exposure to I-131
from the Nevada Test Site.
21. In section IX.D, please explain the basis for the statement,
"Attempts to estimate radiation doses on a population basis suggest that
the doses were generally much higher [around Chernobyl] than those
around Hanford." I was not aware that HEDR had calculated population
dose estimates.
22. Also in section IX.D, it would be appreciated if more details
could
be provided for the comparison to the Utah study referenced in the
following statement, "Specifically, we defined thyroid neoplasia to
include benign thyroid nodules and thyroid carcinoma. The results of
this analysis provided no evidence of a significant dose response."
Please contact me if either of you have any questions concerning
my
comments.
Sincerely,
Jim Thomas
Seattle, WA 98116
cc: Scott Davis, FHCRC
HHIN
Tim Connor
Trisha Pritikin
Seth Tuller
Judith Jurji
To whom it may concern:
I lived in Pasco 1959-1965 and then Richland 2 more years. I was raised as a child in the Tri-Cities. In March 1991 I had a biopsy done on my thyroids. In April I had surgery due to thyroid cancer diagnoses in March, during surgery the surgeon found cancer on lymph nodes. I then was treated at Sacred Heart Hospital with radio-active I-131.
I had to have a scan done every year to check on any possible cancer spots still remaining. Then in 1993 I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. My adopted father had M.S. for 38 years prior to him expiring. I firmly believe the reason for MS being highest in the nation in the Northwest because of Hanford. And also a high number of thyroid problems is also noted because of the Hanford downwind. After living in the Tri-Cities I then lived in Spokane, Washington. The downwind is known to go as far as Western Montana. I recently married a gentleman whom also has M.S. from Spokane Washington.
5-6-1999
Dear C.D.C.;
The thyroid study at Hanford WA. was in my opinion, a total waste of taxpayers money.
I do not know one person who was in the study and I have lived here since 1947. I have a thyroid disease as does almost every one I know, and none of us were interviewed. What other community do you know of that has this high a rate of thyroid disease? I don=t see how you cannot relate it to Hanford, pure logic without scientific data would tell you Hanford was the cause. The problem is far more wide spread than your study indicated.
I realize this letter will mean nothing and have no effect; however it helps me. I have been inspired to join the fight, excuse my shaky pen I have a thyroid disease!
S.L.
outraged thyroid disease citizen
Kennewick, WA 99336
31 March 1999
Mr. Michael Donnelly
Attn Dr. Paul Garbe
CDC MSF-35
Atlanta, GA 30341
Dear Paul:
In trying to make sense of the HTDS epi-study I focused on the bottom line as put forth in Table 1 App. The enclosed commentary is an attempt to visualize the findings by making a comparison of observed versus expected thyroid cancers using a baseline that assumes no excess thyroid cancer cases. I then take a risk indicator of 2.5 x10-6 [from the study] and distribute the 5 excess cases according to the TYR for each dose interval. This is a technique that permits visualization of the dose response or lack thereof.
I have included some observations about other epi-studies in Utah and Sweden.
Please let me know if I may be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
R.E.L
NOTE ON HANFORD STUDY
REFERENCE: Table 1 Appendix page 1 of CDC Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (Jan. 1999).
+ + + + + + + + + +
The above tables for male and female subjects are summed below for thyroid cancer cases as a function of thyroid dose (rads):
[1] The collective dose to the childhood thyroid is 68,800 T-rad and the mean dose per subject is 19 rad. This yields a thyroid rad year [TYR] of 2 million. The HTDS risk of 2.5 x 10-6 TYR is stipulated. A relative biological effectiveness of 1 is assumed. This reckoning yields a projection of 5 excess thyroid cancers. The distribution of the observed 19 thyroid cancer cases is given in column 4 (base) assuming zero excess cancer cases. Column 5 shows the projected 5 excess cases added to column 4. The number of observed cases appears in column 6. The divergence of the observed and projected cases is given in column 7.
[2] An excess of 5 thyroid cancer cases is within the range of the statistical power stipulated by the HTDS epi-study but the absence of a dose-trend is notable.
[3] A negative dose-trend may be the result of:
(a) Overestimation of assigned thyroid doses due to a breakdown of the dose reconstruction model.
(b) A low dose threshold effect.
(c) Variation in the RBE [gamma-beta ratio].
[4] The 65,809 thyroid-rad collective dose in the above table may be compared to the 42,000 thyroid-rad found by Kerber et al [JAMA, 270, 2076 (1993) for 2,473 Utah children in A-test fallout areas. Using a dose-trend based on very small numbers the JAMA paper estimated 5 or 6 thyroid cancers were radiation-linked. (Revised).
The HTDS observed 8 thyroid cancer cases [TCc]-- a very skinny statistic on which to make a risk assessment. Critical to the assessment of the risk indicator is the uncertainty in the number of "expected" TCc. This depends on the choice of the comparison cohort. In the Kerber study one can take the 0 to 5 rad exposed group as the baseline. When this is done 8.7 TCc are projected.
[5] The Lundell et al study [Rad. Research, 140, 344 (1994)] of 14,341 infants treated externally for hemangioma yielded a mean thyroid dose of 27 rad. This estimate was based on use of TLD phantom studies. A total of 17 TCc was observed. A risk of 0.9 X 10-6 TYR was deduced. Applying this risk to 2 X 206 TYR for the HTDS collective dose yields less than 2 excess TCc. This would not be ascertained in the HTDS epidemiology.
[6] Thus one may infer a risk indicator of less than 1 X 10-6 TYR if one were to disregard the applicability of the dose-trend.
5-12-99
Dear People
Re: Hanford Thyroid Disease Study
I am writing to indicate an interest in reviewing the Draft Final Report. It can be sent to me via email at: . That ought to save some paper.
I was in Richland from ‘51-‘66 & swam in the Columbia River a lot. My daughter, born ‘68, has hypothyroidism. I want to know if there is any data on hypothyroidism OR the effects in offspring.
Please respond.
C.B.H.
Omak, WA 98841
Comment:
Spokane’s directly NE-Downwind- from Hanford. Why wasn’t sampling done from a larger, concentrated population?
Lincoln County, with the highest Multiple Sclerosis incidence on the planet, should’ve been look at too.
What about long-term effects?
My thyroid problems started in ‘95 @ age 55...as of this date my thyroid gland has disappeared- my doctor can’t find it!!!
J.L.P.
Spokane, WA 99212
Thank you for your letter in response to mine. I am the one with thyroid cancer. My husband and I both have M.S.
M.S. is the highest in the nation in the beautiful North West, which is where Hanford Nuclear Reservation is located. I grew up as a child in Pasco and Richland. I know the downwind went as far as Western Montana.
Construction of Nuclear Reservation began 1944 and first reactor started 1945. My adopted father had MS for 38 years when he expired. As a child I lived in Pasco 1959-1965, then Richland another 2 years. I also have been in a class-action lawsuit since my diagnosis of 2 cancers in 1991, I then was diagnosed with M.S. in 1993. I met my current husband because we both have the M.S. Any further information would be much appreciated.
Thank you,
V.P.H
Mr. & Mrs. H
Spokane, WA 99202
C. J. St. Maries, Idaho 83861 National Research Council Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) 515 W. Sprague Ave Spokane, Washington
I have been a victim of the Down winder Disease for years. What good does this continuous (wordy) meetings do anyway? When will there be a settlement or retro active check coming thru the mail. Money or peanuts!
We all have Thyroid problems. Cancer, MCS=Multiple Chemical Syndrome, etc etc! Some of the words you use only you @the scientist understand. Is it necessary?
We have been, family @ myself, friends etc, lied to about environmental poisoning. We, I, have suffered emotional @ physically for years. You still are talking, at least the woman in Montana is telling us something, are you??
Can we understand it? (No!) What you tell us. I do understand we are being used. So does our toxic times, Cynthia Wilson. Have you seen the cementarys lately? There full. So much sadness @ grief. We are supposed to feel sorry for Europe @ Asian victims.
Keep it at home @ care about us.
Sincerely,
C.J.
Bend, Oregon 97701
June 22, 1999
Dear Dr. Simon and Committee Members,
Thank you for your time and presence at the public meeting on June 19, 1999 in Spokane. We appreciate the National Academy of Science coming to the northwest to hear the perspective from the Downwinders and others regarding the results of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. This study has many implications for this population and it is important that results are translated accurately. Your attentiveness and consideration to each testimony is appreciated.
Enclosed is a copy of the comments I made regarding the study to the committee. I have also included the testimony of Gordon Hilderbrand, a Downwinder and Advisory Board member to the Hanford Health Information Network in Oregon.
Again thank you for your time. I hope you enjoyed the sights in Spokane and we would be happy to welcome you back at anytime.
Sincerely,
S. K. D.
Public Hearing before the National Research
Council review of Hanford
Thyroid Disease Study
Ridpath Hotel, Spokane, Washington
June 19, 1999
My name is S.K.D. and I am a nurse and health educator for the Hanford Health Information Network in Oregon. I have held this position for 6 and half years and would like to share with you my experience with Downwinder population exposed from the Hanford Nuclear Site.
In April of 1994, the Oregon Hanford Health Information Network created and conducted an advertising campaign to encourage those persons exposed to radiation to call the Network for information regarding health effects. During the month of April there were 11,752 incoming calls responding to the advertisement. The callers reported health effects, which they believe to be related to the radiation releases from Hanford. It is important to note that these thousands of callers were interested in information about their health effects and had no information about dose of radiation they had received. They were calling because they had health effects that they believed were related to the Hanford emissions.
As we responded to their questions and concerns, a picture of the illnesses of this population began to emerge. Primarily we heard of thyroid disease; thyroid disease in 20 year olds, thyroid disease in larger number of males than seemed usual, thyroid cancer in children, hypothyroidism with secondary effects to the reproductive system, the immune system, and the nervous system.
The callers shared that their thyroids were dysfunctional, that their thyroids had nodules, that their thyroids had been removed, and that they would have to take mediation for the rest of their lives because their thyroids were not operable.
The dose of radiation to their thyroid was not part of our discussion because we had no information on dose. The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project did not release their findings until April 21, 1994 and only then for representative doses, not individual doses. It is my opinion that chronic long-term exposure to Iodine 131 in the air, in the water, in the soil, in the food, in the milk, in whatever dose, resulted in thyroid disease.
The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study was eagerly awaited by the Downwinder population and myself. When the results of the study were announced I was astounded! This study does not affirm my experience with the thousands of Downwinders with whom I have spoken who call the Network to talk about their thyroid and other diseases.
I question why the study looked for a dose-related effect? The information I have from this population is that there is disease, with a wide variation in exposure and dose and dose. Science may appreciate knowing how dose-response to disease was found by the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. The Downwinders I have spoken with, know that the study does not reflect the disease they have experienced.
No study has been done with a population exposed to constant radiation in varying amounts over a long period of time. Neither has there been a study that can account for each individual response to a stimulus. Two people can stand in the sun. One person gets a tan. The other person gets burned. The effects of radiation to the body over time and in varying amounts has not been tested, and probably will never be, as who would consent to such an experiment?
It is not possible to say that the thyroid disease in this population is not related to the Hanford emissions. There are health effects in this population that the design of the study does not address. The Downwinders are not reassured that the emissions from Hanford did not contribute to their thyroid disease.
With all due respect to the researchers, the results of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study are not conclusive, and do not accurately reflect the numbers of persons with thyroid disease and other diseases in the Hanford population.
Thank You for your time.
I am submitting some of the sign-in sheets from the community meetings the Hanford Health Information Network held to indicate some of the health problems experienced by the Downwinders.
Respectfully Submitted,
S.K. D.
Bend, OR
June 24, 1999
Letter from the Director of Washington State's Department of Health to the Director of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study.
June 25, 1999
M.L.C
Scottsdale, Arizona
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Radiation Studies Branch
ATTN: HTDS
MS_F-35
4770 Bufford Highway
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Gentlemen:
Attached is my statement of disbelief about the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. I greatly appreciate your openness and hope you will consider the points I have brought to your attention. However, I do not give you permission to put my name and/or address on the Internet but I would appreciate my message on the Internet.
There appears to be a lack of good science in the material provided to us by the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. I am dubious of the study’s age group an d geographical mix when selecting participants for the study. Were they even aware that a portion of Grant county is within the boundaries of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? Many aspects of the study were based on criteria from the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction project which is flawed. For example that study computed the radiation amount from butter using its half life. This is very short sighted of them considering rural eastern Washington (state) farms did not have electricity in the forties. How could home made butter possibly be edible in August of 1945 if kept un-refrigerated for that time period?
Can’t the taxpayers and the citizens directly effected by the radiation emissions from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have a more scientific and accurate study? We certainly paid for one.
Sincerely,
M.L.C.
June 29, 1999
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Radiation Studies Branch (Attn:HTDS)
MS F-35
4770 Burford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
I am commenting on the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study. I have followed the study with great interest particularly after I was diagnosed with papillary thyroid carcinoma in April 1998. My thyroid was located behind the sternum. Therefore the carcinoma had not shown up as a nodule in the neck during routine physicals.
My first symptom was persistent hoarsness. By then the carcinoma had paralyzed one set of vocal cords. It was invasive into my esophagus and larynx.
I am looking for every opportunity to highlight my situation as a warning to others. Did the HTDS collect information about the location of the thyroid? Did such information show a greater incidence carcinoma and other thyroid diseases? If so, I would like to see this information highlighted In the study or in a separate finding. Are there other studies that address the location of the thyroid?
Please advise.
Thank You,
G.F.
M.N. 1938-1999
Medical History
Spokane, Washington
1938- Had a rigid physical before going into nurses training in
St. Mary’s Hospital in Walla Walla. Showed no problems.
Middle 1940's- Worked at Hanford Project as a telephone operator in Hanford and the outlying areas.
1948 Dr. stated on examination, especially on the skin of my legs that my thyroid was low. Was trying to have a child. Had minor surgery. Was married in 1946. Lived on an 8000 acre wheat ranch in the Horse haven. During this period, prior to had slowly gained weight.
1949- Family physician had prescribed a suitable thyroid dosage when he learned that my thyroid was low.
1950 Adopted a baby girl, unable to conceive. Continued thyroid dosage, Still gained Weight.
1961- Had major abdominal surgery. Unable to work. Weight ballooned to 225 lbs could not afford mediation. Finally, back to work and weight dropped with proper thyroid dosage.
1999- Have had yearly physicals with proper supervision. Weight now has stabilized at 134 lbs. Retired in 1990 as a nurse.
Dear Sir:
Please assist me in registering with the correct people or agency involved with the Hanford Thyroid Study. Richland Washington is my home and place of birth. I have recently been diagnosed with an under active thyroid. Currently, I am undergoing medication treatment and I'm in the stage of identifying the correct dosage of levothroxine I will need to control this condition.
I was born in the Kadelac Hospital in Richland Wa. on April 13, 1957. My father was a nuclear operator at Hanford. I lived here in Richland until graduating from high school and enlisting in the Air Force in1976. After retiring from the Air Force in 1996 I moved back to Richland Wa.. Five months ago I learned of my thyroid condition and the Hanford Thyroid Study.
My medical records are complete and available at the Veterans Hospital in Walla Walla Wa. My doctor is practicing at the Veterans Clinic Here in Richland.
I am a veteran and served my country with pride. Please help me
to be involved in a positive way.
Sincerely yours,
D.K.F.
June 30, 1999
In March 1999, Dr. F. Owen Hoffman conducted the following evaluations under contract to attorneys involved in Hanford litigation. He provided these comments to CDC as part of a presentation to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Health Effects Subcommittee meeting held in Idaho Falls, Idaho on March 18, 1999.
Radiation Studies Branch | NCEH | Contact Us
CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z
This page last reviewed August 4, 1999
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Environmental Health
Radiation Studies Branch