This is the html version of the file http://www.duob.org.uk/minutes5.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:_lJjc6SSVe8J:www.duob.org.uk/minutes5.pdf+minutes5.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: minutes5 pdf
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Page 1
Gulf Veterans’ Illnesses Unit
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Room 6/03, St Christopher House, Southwark Street,
London, SE1 OTD
Telephone
Direct dial
020 7305 4644
Helpline
0800 169 4495
Fax
020 7305 2374
Our Reference:
D/GVIU/7/1/8/2
Date:
23
rd
August 2002
MINUTES OF THE FIFTH DEPLETED URANIUM SCREENING
PROGRAMME OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING ON 17
th
June 2002
Present:
Board:
Observers:
Professor David Coggon
Surg. Cdre Nick Baldock
Mr Ray Bristow
Mr Ron Brown
Dr Chris Busby
Dr Peter van Calsteren
Dr George Etherington
for Frances Fry
Professor Malcolm Hooper
Dr Muir Gray
Miss Beverley Green
Dr Len Levy
Dr Gordon Paterson
Dr Margaret Spittle
Mr Shaun Emery
Air Cdre Simon Dougherty
Mr Alan Duncan
Mr Neville Higham
Dr Steven Laitnor
Mrs Brigid Rodgers
Ms Rosie Wane
MRC
INM
NGV&FA
DRPS
LLRC
OU
NRPB
GVA
NSC
RBL
MRC IEH
BRC
MH
GVIU
SGD
HJA
HSE
NSC
GVIU
GVIU
Chair
Secretary
Apologies:
Mr Ivor Connolly
Professor Nick Day
Miss Frances Fry
Professor Ian Gilmore
Dr David Lewis
Professor Brian Spratt
Dr Hilary Walker
NGV&FA
IPH
NRPB
RBL
INM
RS
DH
Page 2
Item
Discussion and Decisions
Actions
(Action date)
1.
Introduction
a) New attenders were welcomed and introduced.
b) The Chairman stated that the main aims of this meeting were to:
• Review the progress of the pilot exercise
• Progress arrangements for the main testing contract
• Develop plans for sample collection.
2.
Minutes of last meeting
a) A number of minor changes to the minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
These were then accepted as a true record of the meeting.
Post meeting note: Amended minutes sent to DUOB members by email on 19
th
June 2002.
3.
Matters arising from last meeting
a) A full list of actions arising from previous meetings and their current status is
attached at Annex A.
b) The Secretary gave an update on progress with the DUOB website. The
layout and content of the website had now been improved, apart from the CVs of
DUOB members which need editing to a standard format.
c) Some members who had not been present at the last meeting noted that they
had still not received a copy of the Royal Society Part II report. The Secretary
undertook to distribute copies to the relevant people.
Post meeting note: Reports sent out on 18
th
June 2002.
d) Ray Bristow expressed concern that the minutes of the last meeting did not
represent the true flow of the meeting. In particular, he felt that a discussion
regarding the Royal Society report part II was not allowed to develop by the
Chairman. The Chairman accepted this point and stated that the main aim of the
DUOB was to implement the DU testing programme. In his role as Chairman of
the DUOB it was his duty to ensure that the testing programme is implemented
quickly to satisfy the needs of those veterans who require a test. He had therefore
curtailed the discussion to enable the main work of the DUOB to proceed.
e) Several members voiced concern over the conclusions of the RS report. The
Chairman stated that if further discussion of the RS report were required it could
be added to the agenda of a future meeting, for discussion after the main business
of the DUOB on that day had been completed.
f) The Secretary said that he had not yet circulated the McDiarmid article on
spot urine samples as he was awaiting permission to distribute the document. Ron
Brown noted an apparent difference in exposures to naturally occurring uranium
between the UK and the US, which would need to be taken into account when
interpreting the findings.
g) There was a short discussion regarding the methods by which the testing
programme would be publicised. Muir Gray stated that he had knowledge of
Page 3
DISCERN, a systematic process of appraising public and patient information
sheets, that may be of use in this matter. Suggestions for advertising the
availability of the testing programme included:
• Gulf Veterans Association website
• National Gulf Veterans and Families Association website and newsletter
• Royal British Legion website and newsletter
• MOD website
• NGO websites
h) The Chairman reported that he had talked to a third research organisation
about the possibility of case-control studies (Action 4.16) and they wished to be
included in any invitation to submit proposals. He had therefore suggested that the
MRC invite initial proposals from three organisations.
i) Chris Busby brought up the subject of the Italian peacekeeper data which had
been discussed at a number of previous meetings. The discussion had continued
by email, but a number of Board members did not have the full correspondence.
The Secretary undertook to collate all discussion on this topic and distribute it to
Board members. Chris Busby undertook to write a small introduction to the topic.
Action 5.1. Secretary to collate and distribute all information regarding
Italian peacekeepers discussion
Action 5.2. Chris Busby to write a short introduction to the Italian
Peacekeepers information
j) Malcolm Hooper questioned the post meeting note in the minutes of the 4
th
DUOB meeting stating that two cases of renal cancer had been detected at the
MAP using ultrasound. The Secretary undertook to check this.
Action 5.2. Secretary to check on ultrasound diagnoses of renal cancer at
MAP
k) Brigid Rodgers reported on developments following Ray Bristow’s
suggestion at the last meeting that the results of the recent NGVFA urine tests
could be made available to the DUOB if the MOD were prepared to provide a
control group for the chromosome aberration work being carried out by Dr Schott.
She stated that the MOD does not enter into ‘deals’. Any request for assistance
with research would be considered on its own merits. Professor Schott had written
to the MOD twice now, but he had not provided a protocol for his study. The
Chairman stated that it was normal practice for research institutions to submit a
protocol when requesting assistance with studies. Brigid Rodgers stated that she
had replied to the first letter on behalf of the Minister, stating that, based on the
limited information supplied by Dr Schott, the MOD would not be prepared to
consider the proposal. MOD is considering its reply to the second letter.
Secretary
(24/7/02)
Chris Busby
(24/7/02)
Secretary
(24/7/02)
4.
Update on Pilot Exercise
a) The Secretary stated that he had talked to the laboratory that had proposed
carrying out testing using AMS and ICPMS and negotiated a price based on the
ICPMS method only. He had also talked with the laboratory who made a very
expensive bid but they had had not been prepared to reduce their price. Contracts
had therefore been placed with five laboratories and the pilot exercise began on 7
th
May 2002. All samples were delivered successfully. He stated that he had checked
the progress of the five laboratories two weeks prior to this meeting and all were
proceeding as planned and were confident of meeting the deadline. The only
problem experienced was that one of the laboratories had broken one of the
samples. The Secretary had arranged for a replacement sample to be sent on the
understanding that the reason for the loss of the sample would be documented in
Page 4
the final report.
b) The Secretary confirmed that the edited version of the protocol for the spiked
samples had been distributed to all board members.
c) The Chairman asked for confirmation that measurements of total uranium had
been carried out and also that the zinc concentrations (used to ensure that the
batch of urine had been adequately mixed) were within the limits specified in the
protocol. The Secretary stated that NEQAS had assured him that all tests had been
completed successfully although he had received no actual figures. Peter van
Calsteren undertook to contact NEQAS to ensure that the tests had been carried
out satisfactorily.
Action 5.3. Peter van Calsteren to obtain total uranium and zinc
concentration data from NEQAS
d) The Secretary confirmed that the pilot exercise would end on 8
th
July 2002.
NEQAS had assured the Secretary that the report on the results of the exercise
would be available before the next DUOB meeting on 24
th
July 2002. The
Chairman pointed out that it would be preferable to circulate the report at least a
few days prior to the meeting so that members were familiar with the results. The
Secretary undertook to contact NEQAS with regard to this.
Action 5.4. Secretary to contact NEQAS w.r.t. delivery of report
e) The Chairman expressed his thanks on behalf on behalf of the DUOB to Peter
van Calsteren, David Lewis and the Secretary for getting the pilot exercise up and
running.
Peter van
Calsteren
(24/7/02)
Secretary
(28/6/02)
5.
Draft Advertisement For Expressions Of Interest in relation to main testing
programme
a) The Secretary tabled a draft advertisement along with comments from David
Lewis and Peter van Calsteren. The text of the advert was discussed and
amendments made. The Secretary took an action to circulate the revised
advertisement for further comments.
Action 5. 5. Secretary to revise and distribute draft advertisement
b) Ron Brown raised the question of testing for other isotopes of uranium e.g.
236U and 234U. Malcolm Hooper stated that this should be looked at if there was
the opportunity. There was a discussion about how testing for 234U and 236U
would be helpful for veterans. There was no general consensus of this apart from
the fact that 236U is a man-made isotope and would demonstrate that non-natural
uranium was present in the urine sample.
c) Ray Bristow stated that tests for 234U and 236U should be included as a)
they have already been detected in veterans, and b) if they are not included he
would report back to the NGVFA that the test chosen by the DUOB was not
satisfactory.
d) Beverley Green expressed concern that the pilot exercise was only looking at
235U and 238U, and there was a danger that the Board was now changing the
parameters of the exercise, in which case, this should have been considered at the
beginning of the pilot exercise. The Secretary pointed out that, at the meeting with
NEQAS to discuss the DU content of the spiked samples for the pilot exercise, he
had explicitly asked if other isotopes should be included. All those present had
believed that the pilot exercise should concentrate on 235U and 238U. Peter van
Calsteren pointed out that this was due to the need to spike the samples with a
known standard.
Secretary
(28/6/02)
Page 5
e) It was agreed that the draft advert would not mention 236U or 234U as it is
an initial trawl to obtain expressions of interest in the testing contract. It was
concluded that the primary purpose of the test was to measure 235U and 238U.
However, the Statement of Requirement for the main testing contract would ask
for 234U and 236U capabilities to be stated, in case these secondary tests were
required.
6.
Draft ITT for main contract
a) The Secretary tabled an initial draft of a Statement of Requirement that had
been produced in the early stages of the Screening programme development. He
stated that some of the contents of this paper had been superseded and it should be
used as a starting draft.
b) A number of items were suggested for inclusion in the SOR:
• The form in which samples would be supplied
• The numbers of samples to be supplied
• Sample security/ Chain of Custody of sample in laboratory
• Information on throughput/ timescales
• Ownership of samples
• Disposal of samples
• Quality Control/Audit
• System of record keeping
• Format of reports
• Who do we want reports to go to?
• U236
• Storage conditions
• Collection and transportation details
The Secretary undertook to produce a new draft of the SOR incorporating the
above points and to circulate for comments.
Action 5.6 Secretary to redraft SOR and distribute
c) Brigid Rodgers pointed out that Ivor Connolly was very keen on having the
samples split.
d) Gordon Paterson stated that it was important for the veterans to receive their
results in writing. He also expressed the view that the results should come from a
central point to ensure consistency.
e) Margaret Spittle asked about the scope for retaining samples after the urine
testing for possible further analysis. Peter van Calsteren explained that a sample is
used completely in the analysis and could not be re-tested for uranium.
f) There was some discussion about the measurement of creatinine in urine. It
was agreed that creatinine would provide the best reference point for the urine
tests i.e. uranium content in the urine should be quoted as nanogrammes/gramme
of creatinine. Peter van Calsteren asked if creatinine can be measured in acidified
urine. Len Levy took an action to investigate this.
Action 5.7 Len Levy to investigate if creatinine can be measured in acidified
urine
Secretary
(24/7/02)
Len Levy
(24/7/02)
Page 6
7.
Identifying Regional Centres
a) Muir Gray discussed the options for the collection of urine samples and
provision of advice to those tested. These included:
• NHS
• Private Occupational Health Provider (OHP)
• Mobile facilities
Muir Gray said that it might be better to use a private OHP as they have dedicated
centres isolated from busy hospitals and are centrally organised unlike the NHS.
There was a general consensus for this approach. Gordon Paterson stressed the
need for consistency in the collection of urine and the giving of advice. Simon
Dougherty expressed concern that national coverage could not be achieved using
one provider.
b) Margaret Spittle asked if it could be minuted that there seemed to be a distrust
of the NHS amongst some members of the DUOB. Chris Busby stated that he did
not feel that this was the case but considered that the NHS was already
overstretched. There was a general consensus that veterans were likely to find it
more convenient to attend a private OHP.
c) Muir Gray stated that a ‘pathway’ needed to be drawn up detailing the whole
process of urine collection, analysis, sending results to the co-ordinating centre
and the provision of advice. He took an action to do this.
Action 5.8. Muir Gray to produce pathway for testing process
d) Gordon Paterson expressed concern over whether there was sufficient
expertise in private healthcare to give advice on DU. Nick Baldock stated that
those who did not have experience in the nuclear field would find it difficult to
provide such advice.
e) Chris Busby asked if the results would be given out immediately or if they
would be held for some time. Gordon Paterson pointed out there were two issues:
the individual result of the urine test and how that test compared with those found
in other veterans and in the general population. Ray Bristow stated that veterans
would want to see the results of their personal test immediately, but obviously
might have to wait for the comparison with others.
f) It was pointed out that the arrangements for serving military personnel would
have to be considered.
g) There was a discussion regarding the coding of the samples. Chris Busby
expressed the view that an independent party should hold the information relating
the paperwork and urine sample to the individual. David Coggon thought that it
would be adequate for the veteran to hold a copy of the paperwork with the code
relating to the urine sample. Chris Busby undertook to write a small paper
explaining his concerns over sample security and what could be done to overcome
this.
Action 5.9. Chris Busby to write paper on sample security
Information For General Practitioners
h) The Secretary had circulated a paper prior to the meeting which had been
produced by the Chairman regarding the information that should be provided to
GPs. There were a number of minor comments on this draft and the Chairman
undertook to produced a more detailed version.
Muir Gray
(24/7/02)
Chris Busby
(24/7/02)
Page 7
Action 5.10. Chairman to provide a more detailed paper on information for
GPs
Information to Veterans
i) The Secretary had circulated a paper prior to the meeting which had been
produced by the Royal British Legion. The Chairman undertook to produce the
next draft of this document.
Action 5.11. Chairman to produce next draft of ‘information to veterans’
paper
l) Ron Brown pointed out that the MAP had a list of questions that veterans
were asked when attending the MAP. This might provide a starting point for a
questionnaire to accompany the voluntary urine test. The Secretary undertook to
obtain a copy of the MAP questions and circulate it to the DUOB. Malcolm
Hooper offered to examine the list and provide a draft list of questions for the
Screening programme.
Action 5.12. Secretary to obtain a copy of the MAP questions
Action 5.13. Malcolm Hooper to draft screening programme questionnaire
Chairman
(24/7/02)
Chairman
(24/7/02)
Secretary
(24/7/02)
Malcolm
Hooper
(24/7/02)
8.
Assessment of Background Levels in General Population
a) At the last meeting it was decided that samples would be taken from several
hundred people who have no known exposure to DU to enable the background
levels in the general population to be determined. There was some discussion
about how these people could be selected. Len Levy suggested that a quick
method might be for veterans to bring along a ‘buddy’. Chris Busby suggested
that the OHP could take samples from other people coming to the clinic. The
Chairman thought that a small contract could be placed with a research
organisation to carry out this work. Len Levy asked if there would be any
feedback on the tests to those who had provided a sample for this purpose. It was
agreed that it was common practice for such tests to be done without such
feedback.
b) There was some discussion about possible variation over time in urinary
excretion of uranium. It was suggested that this could be looked at as part of
the study into background levels in the general population.
9.
Epidemiological Studies
a) The Chairman reported that he had asked the MRC to write to the three
research organisations inviting proposals for case-control studies. A meeting
would be held with the MRC in the Autumn to assess the proposals.
b) Ray Bristow pointed out that if veterans were to be asked about their illnesses
or medications as part of the studies they would need advance notice as many
veterans suffer from memory problems.
Page 8
10.
Timescales
a) Measurements of uranium in the pilot exercise are due to be completed by 8
th
July 2002. The results will be discussed at the next DUOB meeting on 24
th
July
2002. The advert for expressions of interest will be placed in the relevant journals
at the end of June. This means that an ITT could be issued at the beginning of
August. The need to place a contract with a private occupational health provider
may influence the timing of the programme of voluntary testing.
11.
DU Background and Scientific Issues
Screening for myeloma, kidney cancer and other disorders
a) Muir Gray tabled a paper ‘Evaluating The Benefits and Harms That Would
Result from Screening For Myeloma, Kidney Cancer, Motor neurone disease
and lymphatic leukaemia.
b) Muir Gray stated that the diseases being considered were not common and
that evidence of a benefit from screening would be difficult to obtain without
a 10 year or more screening programme.
12.
Date of next meeting
a) The date of the next meeting is 24
th
July 2002 at 09:45. It will be held at the
Royal British Legion HQ on Pall Mall. The main topic of discussion at this
meeting will be the assessment of the pilot exercise results.
13.
A.O.B.
a) Malcolm Hooper again raised the question of DU in fireworks. The general
consensus of the board was that no-one knew whether fireworks contain DU or
not.
Post meeting note: Attached at Annex B is a Parliamentary Question asked by the
Countess of Mar on 22
nd
April 2002.
Distribution:
All members
All observers
Devolved Health Administration
Page 9
Annex A - DUOB Action List
Action
Date
placed
Action
Date
Detail
Owner
Comments
1.1
27/9/01
16/11/01
‘Definitions of Terms’ appendix to be
drafted and circulated for comment
Lewis/
Calsteren
COMPLETE – Definitions attached
to draft protocol distributed at 2
nd
meeting
1.2
27/9/01
16/11/01
Nominations for toxicologist and radiation
medicine experts to be sent to GVIU
All OB
Members
COMPLETE – See actions 2.2, 2,3
1.3
27/9/01
26/10/01
CVs and declarations of interest to be sent
to GVIU
All OB
Members
Still awaiting Hooper (short)
1.4
27/9/01
12/10/01
Secretary to establish if payments can be
made for Board members to attend
meeting
Secretary COMPLETE – Payments will be
considered on an individual basis.
Written justifcation must be
forwarded by Board member to
GVIU for consideration.
1.5
27/9/01
12/10/01
Secretary to create a claim form for
expenses
Secretary COMPLETE - Form distributed on
23/10/01
1.6
27/9/01
26/10/01
Secretary to distribute a copy of the press
release to board members
Secretary COMPLETE – Press release
distributed on 23/10/01
1.7
27/9/01
Ongoing
Board members to write to GVIU with
suggestions for further background reading
All OB
Members
Ongoing
1.8
27/9/01
26/10/01
GVIU to obtain permission and distribute
responses to the 2
nd
consultation paper to
Board Members
Secretary COMPLETE – distributed by email
on 13/11/01
1.9
27/9/01
26/10/01
GVIU to distribute list of email addresses
Secretary COMPLETE – Distributed on
23/10/01
1.10
27/9/01
26/10/01
Board members to suggest suitable
laboratories to GVIU
ALL OB
Members
COMPLETE – 30/11/01
1.11
27/9/01
26/10/01
Secretary to arrange for invitation to
express an interest in the ‘pilot study’ to be
advertised in the relevant journals
Secretary COMPLETE - Advert in MOD
Contracts Bulletin on 21/11 and
OJEC on 13/11/01
1.12
27/9/01
16/11/01
Produce and circulate draft protocol prior
to next meeting
Lewis/
Calsteren
COMPLETE – 30/11/01
2.1
30/11/01
4/1/02
GVIU to send TOR to Minister for
comment
Secretary COMPLETE - Sent on 11/1/02.
Minister has approved the TOR.
2.2
30/11/01
8/1/02
CVs for toxicologist to be sent to GVIU.
GVIU to forward to Minister
Secretary COMPLETE – Sent on 15/1/02
2.3
30/11/01
8/1/02
Suggestions for radiation medicine experts
to be sent to GVIU
All
COMPLETE
2.4
30/11/01
8/1/02
GVIU to consult Royal College of
Radiologists
Secretary COMPLETE – RCR
recommendation received on 24/1/02
2.5
30/11/01
12/12/01
GVIU to notify members of expressions of
interest
Secretary COMPLETE – emailed on 13/12/01
2.6
30/11/01
7/12/01
Draw up Statement Of Requirement for the
sample preparation
Van
Calsteren
COMPLETE – 1
st
draft discussed at
meeting with NEQAS on 18/12/01.
Will be revised in discussion between
LEWIS, van Calsteren and NEQAS
2.7
30/11/01
10/12/01
David Lewis to contact the preferred
supplier of spiked samples (and other
suppliers if required) to assess interest and
costs
Lewis
COMPLETE
2.8
30/11/01
13/12/01
Arrange meeting with supplier of spiked
samples
Lewis
COMPLETE – see 2.9 below
Page 10
2.9
30/11/01
20/12/01
Subgroup to visit supplier
Coggon/
Lewis/
van C/
GVIU
COMPLETE – lab visited on
18/12/01
2.10
30/11/01
28/1/02
Nick Day to review protocol and proposed
statistical methods
Day
COMPLETE – Overtaken by events
2.11
30/11/01
21/12/01
David Lewis to redraft protocol for pilot
study of analytical methods
Lewis
COMPLETE
2.12
30/11/01
21/12/01
David Lewis to draft the SOR for the urine
testing in the pilot study, to be distributed
to the OB by 21/12/01
Lewis
COMPLETE – ITT sent to NEQAS
on 14/1/02
2.13
30/11/01
10/1/02
OB to comment on the SOR for urine
testing by 12.00, 10 Jan 02
All
COMPLETE
2.14
30/11/01
28/1/02
Chairman to appraise MRC of the planned
timetable for the development of the
testing method
Chair
COMPLETE – Chairman talked to
Catherine Moody of MRC
2.15
30/11/01
21/1/02
Chairman to produce paper for next
meeting summarising the different types
of epidemiological study that might be
relevant
Chair
COMPLETE – Paper circulated on
11/1/02
2.16
30/11/01
21/1/02
GVIU to produce a paper on the options
for a chain of custody of urine samples
Secretary COMPLETE – Paper circulated on
25/1/02
2.17
30/11/01
28/1/02
GVIU to identify the position of MOD
funding of regional centres
Secretary COMPLETE – MOD will fund
regional centres but the details of this
need to be decided
2.18
30/11/01
28/1/02
NRPB to obtain advice on the feasibility of
testing for DU in tissue samples obtained
at autopsy
NRPB
COMPLETE – paper distributed on
2.19
30/11/01
14/1/01
GVIU to circulate Annexes A and D (on
the current ICRP models and Organ Doses
from intakes) from the Royal Society
report
Secretary COMPLETE – Circulated on
11/1/02
2.20
30/11/01
21/1/02
GVIU to provide Contracts Branch with
the draft protocol in time for ITT issue on
31 Jan 02
Secretary COMPLETE – ITT issued 26
th
Feb
2002. Response date = 9
th
April.
2.21
30/11/01
21/1/02
David Lewis/ van Calsteren to prepare a
paper on laboratory methods
Lewis/
van
Calsteren
Ongoing
2.22
30/11/01
7/12/01
GVIU to arrange a meeting between
Chairman and US of S
Secretary COMPLETE – Chairman met with
US of S on 16/1/02
3.1
28/1/02
15/2/02
GVIU to distribute NRPB presentation
Secretary COMPLETE – Sent out on 19/202
3.2
28/1/02
15/2/02
GVIU to seek permission and distribute
Durakovic presentation to RS
Secretary Ongoing – Durakovic is seeking
publication of his findings. Will
allow us to distribute slides when this
happens
3.3
28/1/02
15/2/02
Brian Spratt to investigate if advance
copies of urine excretion section of RS
report can be made available to members
of the Board
Spratt
COMPLETE – RS report published
12/3/02
3.4
28/1/02
N/A
GVIU to distribute part 2 of the RS report
when available
Secretary COMPLETE – Distributed by the
RS
3.5
28/1/02
15/2/02
GVIU to contact proposed specialist in
radiation medicine
Secretary COMPLETE – Dr Spittle appointed
to the OB
3.6
28/1/02
15/3/02
GVIU to produce a paper on requirements
for main testing programme contract
Secretary COMPLETE – Discussed at 4
th
DUOB meeting
Page 11
3.7
28/1/02
15/3/02
David Lewis to produce a paper on how
laboratories can be judged against each
other
Lewis
Ongoing
3.8
28/1/02
15/2/02
GVIU to circulate the McDiarmid paper
Secretary COMPLETE – Distributed on
19/2/02
4.1
18/4/02
17/6/02
Secretary to improve content and
presentation of DUOB website
Secretary COMPLETE
4.2
18/4/02
7/6/02
OB Members to provide comments on
DUOB website to Secretary
All
COMPLETE
4.3
18/4/02
17/5/02
Secretary to contact RS re. distribution of
RS paper
Secretary COMPLETE – Missing reports
distributed
4.4
18/4/02
16/4/02
Secretary to circulate the MOD research
proposals
Secretary COMPLETE – Sent 26/4/02
4.5
`
17/5/02
Secretary to edit and distribute protocol
document
Secretary COMPLETE – sent by email
20/5/02
4.6
18/4/02
ASAP
Secretary to arrange for the two bidders to
requote for pilot exercise
Secretary COMPLETE
4.7
18/4/02
26/4/02
Secretary to arrange for pilot study
contracts to be placed
Secretary COMPLETE - 5 contracts placed
on 29/4/02
4.8
18/4/02
26/4/02
PvC to visit NEQAS in the week
beginning 22/4
Van
Calsteren
COMPLETE - Overtaken by events
4.9
18/4/02
17/6/02
Secretary to draft advert for main testing
contract for approval for the DUOB
Secretary COMPLETE – Draft circulated prior
to 5
th
DUOB meeting
4.10
18/4/02
11/6/02
Muir Gray to produce a paper on sample
collection/provision of advice
Muir
Gray
COMPLETE - Papers distributed
on 17/6/02
4.11
18/4/02
17/5/02
Chairman to produce a draft of information
to be given to GPs
Chair
COMPLETE – Circulated by email
on 24/402
4.12
18/4/02
17/5/02
RBL reps to produce a draft of advance
advice to veterans and advice once results
are known
Green/
Gilmore
COMPLETE – Circulated by email
on 20/5/02
4.13
18/4/02
17/5/02
Secretary to circulate the McDiarmid
paper on spot samples
Secretary Ongoing – awaiting permission to
circulate
4.14
18/4/02
17/5/02
Suggestions for ways of communicating
the availability of voluntary testing
All
COMPLETE
4.15
18/4/02
17/5/02
Chairman to write to MRC re.
epidemiological studies
Chair
COMPLETE – letter sent on 24/5/02
4.16
18/4/02
17/5/02
Chairman to discuss research with
LSHTM
Chair
COMPLETE – discussed following
4
th
meeting
4.17
18/4/02
17/5/02
GVIU to report on MOD research into
health effects of DU
GVIU
COMPLETE – post meeting note in
minutes of 4
th
meeting
4.18
18/4/02
17/5/02
Secretary to distribute new schedule
Secretary COMPLETE – circulated by email
on 22/5/02
4.19
18/4/02
17/6/02
Muir Gray to produce report on the
potential for screening for myeloma …
Muir
Gray
COMPLETE – tabled at meeting on
17/6/02
4.20
18/4/02
17/5/02
GVIU to check if abdominal ultrasound is
a standard procedure at the MAP
GVIU
COMPLETE – post meeting note in
minutes of 4
th
mtg.
4.21
18/4/02
17/5/02
Secretary to circulate web address of the
UNEP report
Secretary COMPLETE – post meeting note in
minutes of 4
th
mtg
Page 12
Annex B
Fireworks: Depleted Uranium
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether depleted uranium is present in any fireworks, whether manufactured
in the United Kingdom or manufactured elsewhere and imported.[HL3660]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The Health and Safety Executive's
Explosives Inspectorate has wide experience of licensing and inspecting sites used for
the manufacture and storage of fireworks. It knows of no cases where depleted
uranium (DU) has been used in fireworks, whether they have been manufactured in
the UK or imported from elsewhere. The primary function of DU in an explosives
context is its use in munitions designed to penetrate armour plate. HSE is not aware of
any valid contribution that the material would make to a pyrotechnic composition and
in its view the cost of using it would be prohibitive.