Porton Down veterans not at greater health risk - Military personnel exposed to chemical warfare...

Nature News ^ | 25 March 2009 | Natasha Gilbert

[neverdem]

Military personnel exposed to chemical warfare agents should be "reassured".

Chemicals such as as sarin were tested on military personnel at Porton Down.Chris Ison/PA Archive/PA Photos

The first ever studies of veterans exposed to chemical warfare agents in controversial experiments at the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Porton Down laboratory has found little evidence that they suffered any long-term health effects, despite a small increase in mortality in the test group.

Nearly 500 different chemicals, including nerve agents such as sarin and blistering agents such as sulphur mustard (mustard gas), were tested on military personnel at the Porton Down laboratory near Salisbury between 1941 and 1989. Controversy surrounded the experiments after veterans who had taken part claimed that they were not informed about the nature of the chemical agents to be tested on them or the risks associated with them.

The government apologized for "short-comings" in the experiments and awarded £3 million (US$4.4 million) in compensation to 360 veterans in January 2008.

The first study¹, which looked at mortality and its causes (including cancer), found the Porton Down veterans had a 6% higher death rate compared with a control group of 17,600 similar veterans who had not taken part in the tests. But the authors say that while mortality was "slightly higher" in the Porton Down veterans, it is "not possible to attribute the small excess mortality to chemical exposures" at the MoD laboratory, as the studies lacked lifestyle information such as whether the subjects smoked or served overseas.

The second research paper² looked specifically at cancer mortality rates, but found no difference between the two groups of veterans.

The MoD-funded work looked at 18,276 male members of the UK armed forces who had undergone tests at least once at Porton Down. Published today in the British Medical Journal, the studies used archive data from the Porton Down laboratory, UK military personnel records and national death and cancer records covering a 43-year period ending in December 2004.

Unsurprising?

Katherine Venables, an expert in occupational medicine at the University of Oxford, UK, and lead author of one of the studies, told Nature News, "One important message is that the veterans should feel some sense of reassurance. Even though they were exposed to some very toxic substances there was no great difference between them and the control group."

"The fact that we have been able to pull all this information together is a significant and important result. We are pleased this information is now in the public domain," she adds.

Alan Care, a personal injury lawyer for Thomson Snell & Passmore, one of the legal firms representing the veterans, says he's pleased the results have been published. "The findings are unsurprising," he says. "The veterans initially had reservations about the effectiveness of the study, and had considered not participating, but in the end they did assist."

Care, who has represented Porton Down veterans for 15 years, told Nature News that the MoD is currently processing around 200 further claims for compensation from veterans who participated in Porton Down tests.

In a statement the MoD says, "The MoD welcomes the research findings, which concluded that the vast majority of participants … suffered no lasting damage to their health. The nation owes a debt to those who took part in the trials at Porton Down. The studies played a key role in ensuring the protection of the UK and its Armed Forces against the very real threat of chemical or biological attack".

• References

  1. Carpenter, L. M. et al. Br. Med. J. doi:10.1136/bmj.b655 (2009).
  2. Venables, K. M. et al. Br. Med. J. doi:10.1136/bmj.b613 (2009).

[neverdem]

Resolve A DOI Name

[neverdem]

Methane-producing mineral discovered on Mars

Astronomy: The rock that fell to Earth

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.