This is the html version of the file http://www.duob.org.uk/minutes6.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:9KgrjTfYctYJ:www.duob.org.uk/minutes6.pdf+minutes6.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: minutes6 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:
30
th
October 2002
MINUTES OF THE SIXTH DEPLETED URANIUM SCREENING
PROGRAMME OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING ON 24
th
JULY 2002
Present:
Board:
Guest speaker
Observers:
Professor David Coggon
Surg. Cdre Nick Baldock
Mr Ron Brown
Dr Chris Busby
Mr Ivor Connolly
Dr George Etherington
Professor Malcolm Hooper
Miss Beverley Green
Dr David Lewis
Dr Margaret Spittle
Professor Brian Spratt
Mr Shaun Emery
Mr Andrew Taylor
Air Cdre Simon Dougherty
Mr Alan Duncan
Dr Steven Laitner
Mrs Brigid Rodgers
Mrs Janie Walker
MRC
INM
DRPS
LLRC
NGV&FA
NRPB
GVA
RBL
INM
MH
RS
GVIU
NEQAS
SGD
HJA
NSC
GVIU
GVIU
Chair
Secretary
Apologies:
Mr Ray Bristow
Professor Nick Day
Miss Frances Fry
Professor Ian Gilmore
Dr Muir Gray
Mr Neville Higham
Dr Len Levy
Dr Gordon Paterson
Dr Hilary Walker
NGV&FA
IPH
NRPB
RBL
NSC
HSE
MRC IEH
BRC
DH
Item
Discussion and Decisions
Actions
(Action date)
1.
Introduction
Page 2
a) The Chairman welcomed Andrew Taylor from NEQAS who was attending to
discuss the results of the DU pilot exercise.
b) The Chairman informed the Board that he had asked Peter van Calsteren not
to attend this meeting. Peter had written to him indicating that his laboratory
was going to bid for the main testing contract. It was therefore inappropriate
for Peter to take part in this meeting and discuss the results of potential
competitors. There was a short discussion regarding Peter’s future role on the
DUOB. It was agreed that his expertise was an asset to the Board and that he
could be involved in future meetings. He should not, however, be involved in
any discussions that would compromise the integrity of the screening
programme.
2.
Pilot Exercise Results
a) Andrew Taylor gave an introduction to the DU pilot exercise. He said that
five laboratories had each been sent a set of coded, spiked samples. This set
consisted of seven 100mL samples and seven 1L samples. Of the seven
100mL samples, one was unspiked urine, four were urine spiked with varying
amounts of DU or natural uranium, and two were aqueous samples spiked
with DU or natural uranium. The 1L samples contained the same material as
the 100mL samples. One laboratory had not produced any results. The
results of the other four laboratories were summarised in an interim report
which was distributed at the meeting. It was agreed that the full protocol for
the preparation of the samples (giving details of the spiking regime) could
now be distributed to all DUOB members.
Action 6.1. Secretary to distribute full protocol to DUOB
Post meeting note: Protocol distributed on 26/7/02 by email.
b) Andrew Taylor answered a number of questions on the preparation of the
spiked samples. He confirmed the following:
• That the 100mL and 1L samples came from the same flask, and hence
should have been identical.
• That the preparation and mixing of the samples took place in a single
day.
• That the samples were labelled with the pool number, sent off for
irradiation over the weekend and then labelled individually on their
return.
• That the samples were in plastic bottles and were sent out by mail.
• That the samples had been kept in a secure place and would have been
very difficult to tamper with.
• That the laboratories had reported on uncertainties but, because of the
short time available before this meeting, that information had not been
included in the interim report.
• That NEQAS was not used to preparing solutions in the ng/L range-
microg/L was the usual range they dealt with
c) Andrew Taylor also stated that the uranium concentrations in the individuals'
urine that had contributed to the pool had been tested and were in the range
10-20ng/l. This had been tested by a second laboratory using a very simple
method with no reference. Chris Busby asked why 5ng/L had been taken as
the natural level in the interim report. The Chairman stated that 5ng/L had
been used as this was the average of the laboratories’ results for the unspiked
urine sample.
Secretary
(2/8/02)
Page 3
d) A detailed discussion of the results was held. It was agreed that one
laboratory was consistently out of line with the others. There was some
consistency between the results of the other three laboratories although these
did not accord with the results that had been expected. Malcolm Hooper
stated that the pilot study had been designed to see if a test could discriminate
between ratios as close as 139 and 141 and that from the evidence on display
that was not the case. The Chairman stated that this was an important point
and, while the results were disappointing, they supported the DUOB decision
to run the pilot exercise.
e) Ron Brown pointed out that all the isotope ratio results tended to be on the
high side i.e. indicating a greater DU content in the samples than expected.
f) George Etherington asked if the volunteers who provided the urine had ever
been occupationally exposed to uranium. Andrew Taylor confirmed that they
had not. The volunteers were people from the laboratory but were not
involved in this work.
g) Brain Spratt pointed out that the aqueous samples indicated a very high level
of uranium in the water, with a concentration approx. 8 times higher than
expected. This led to a discussion about whether the samples could have
been contaminated. Andrew Taylor stated that he did not see how this could
have happened. Chris Busby expressed concern over the de-ionisation of the
water and considered this to be a possible factor. Andrew Taylor stated that
tests had been carried out on the de-ionised water, though not on the same
batch that had been used to make the samples. The Chairman stated that Peter
van Calsteren had been involved in putting together the spiking protocol and
had seen no problem with using de-ionised water.
Post meeting note: Peter van Calsteren has confirmed that he uses de-ionised
water in his laboratory and has never had any problems with it.
h) The Chairman suggested that by working back from the reported results it
would be possible to calculate what levels of natural and depleted uranium
were present in the samples over and above what was expected, to see if there
was evidence of contamination from a single source. Andrew Taylor
confirmed that there were still 3-4 sets of the samples available if further tests
were required.
i) It was agreed that a meeting should be held bringing together representatives
from the 5 pilot exercise laboratories and the technical experts from the
DUOB. The discussion would cover the methods used and possible
explanations for the results obtained. Andrew Taylor undertook to complete
his report prior to this meeting and to do the calculations of how much
DU/NU would have to be present in the samples to get the results obtained.
Post meeting note: Pilot exercise meeting arranged for 13
th
August 2002.
Action 6.2. Andrew Taylor to provide full report on pilot study
j) Chris Busby suggested that the laboratory who had offered the AMS method
at the pilot exercise bid stage should now be considered. The Chairman
proposed that the meeting of pilot study laboratories should take place before
this was considered.
k) It was agreed that it was not possible to proceed with the main testing
contract at this time and that a way ahead would be formulated following the
meeting with the pilot exercise laboratories. It was likely that the pilot
exercise would need to be extended in some form.
Taylor
(9/8/02)
Page 4
(Andrew Taylor left the meeting at this point)
3.
Minutes of last meeting
a) One change was required to the minutes of the last meeting. These were then
accepted as a true record.
Action 6.3. Secretary to amend minutes of 5
th
DUOB and circulate
Secretary
(23/08/02)
4.
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 McDiarmid article comparing spot samples to 24 hour samples had now
been circulated. The article showed the level of correlation between the two
types of sample. Malcolm Hooper pointed out that the correlation was not so
great for lower uranium levels.
c) The Secretary stated that he had not yet had time to collate the
correspondence regarding the Italian peacekeeper data. Chris Busby had
produced a brief introduction to the topic. This will be an agenda item for the
next meeting.
d) The Secretary stated that he had talked to Professor Harry Lee of the Gulf
Veterans’ Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) who had confirmed that
two instances of renal cancer had been detected at the MAP using ultrasound.
Steven Laitner provided the Secretary with a paper entitled ‘ Incidence and
Properties of Renal Masses and Asymptomatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Detected by Abdominal Ultrasonography’ for circulation to the Board.
e) The Secretary stated that he had not yet had time to produce the next draft of
the Statement of Requirement for the main testing contract.
f) Chris Busby had produced a short paper on the security of samples. This is
discussed under Section 8.
g) The Chairman stated that he was still working on the latest drafts of the
Information to GPs and Information to Veteran papers.
h) Malcolm Hooper had produced a draft questionnaire for the screening
programme. This is discussed under Section 7.
i) The issue of chromosome aberration testing was raised. Brigid Rodgers stated
she had talked to Professor Schott but he had not yet provided a protocol for
his proposed study. The Chairman stressed that the protocol should be seen
by the DUOB. Ron Brown wondered whether there could be confusion as to
what should be included in a protocol. The Chairman stated that production
of a protocol was a standard part of any research study and any good scientist
would be familiar with the requirements. Brian Spratt stated that he had been
unable to track down any peer-reviewed publications by Professor Schott and
asked Malcolm Hooper if he had any details of these. Malcolm Hooper said
he would see what he could establish.
Action 6.4. Malcolm Hooper to provide list of Professor Schott’s relevant
publications.
j) The Secretary confirmed that the advert for expressions of interest in the main
testing contract had been placed in the MOD Contract Bulletin and the OJEC
with a close date of 12
th
August. This would now have to be reconsidered in
light of the pilot exercise results.
Hooper
(21/10/02)
Page 5
Post meeting note: The closing date has been extended to 16 September.
5.
Spot Samples
a) Ivor Connolly stressed the need to check for diurnal variation in urinary
uranium excretion. He stated that most veterans have a preference for 24 hour
samples as this is what previous tests had been done on. The Secretary said that he
had talked to Ray Bristow on the day prior to the meeting who had asked him to
stress the veterans’ desire for 24 hour samples. Beverley Green pointed out that
not all veterans felt that way and she would prefer the decision to be made on
scientific grounds.
6.
Arrangements For Testing
a) The Chairman stated that in previous discussions regarding who could offer
the collection and advice services, there had been no mention of NHS Plus, an
occupational health provider within the NHS. They should also be
considered. Nick Baldock asked if they covered Scotland. Simon Dougherty
suggested that information about geographical coverage might be available
from their website.
b) There was a short discussion about whether the sample collection could be
carried out by mail rather than through attendance at a clinic. David Lewis
was against the idea of postal collection, pointing out that even low level
contamination of samples would cause problems. The Chairman suggested
that there was an advantage in the veterans coming to a clinic where they
could talk to someone. It was generally agreed that collection of urine should
be achieved by veterans attending regional clinics.
c) The Chairman outlined a plan for the process as follows:
• The veteran would apply to a central co-ordinating office
• The veteran would be sent information on the testing process and an
application form
• After applying the veteran would be given an appointment at a regional
centre (if eligible)
• Veteran would attend centre, give a sample and fill in a questionnaire
• The coded sample would be sent to the testing laboratory
• The questionnaire would be sent to the co-ordinating office
• The laboratory would carry out the analysis of the sample
• The laboratory would send the result to the co-ordinating office
• The co-ordinating office would then provide feedback to the patient and
the GP along with a helpdesk phone number.
d) There was a short discussion regarding the acidification of the urine samples.
Chris Busby was concerned that 2% nitric acid would not dissolve all
uranium particles in the urine, hence there was a possibility that not all of the
uranium in the sample would be measured. There was a short discussion
about the maximum size particle that could pass through the kidney. Chris
Busby believed this to be 100nm to 1 micron. George Etherington said that a
colleague at NRPB had done some work on this in the 1970s and undertook
to check on this.
Action 6.5. George Etherington to investigate NRPB work on maximum size
particle that can pass through the kidney.
Etherington
(30/9/02)
7.
Questionnaire
Page 6
a) Malcolm Hooper presented a draft questionnaire to be completed by the
veterans who come forward for urine tests. He explained that he had
designed the questionnaire to be as simple as possible while still eliciting
information that could be used for subsequent epidemiological analysis. The
questions covered a history of military service and health status. The main
points from a lengthy discussion are summarised below.
b) Beverley Green felt that, for an initial questionnaire, it was very detailed. She
wondered whether there were any data protection issues. The Chairman said
that the exercise would need to be registered under the Data Protection Act
and use of the form would imply consent from an individual to his/her data
being used.
c) On the issue of whether the data could be used for studies of health effects,
the Chairman said that the voluntary urine tests were not part of a research
project but part of a clinical service. The voluntary nature of participation
meant that it was unlikely to provide useful information on associations
between health outcomes and exposure. That was the role of the
epidemiological studies which were to be established. The programme could,
however, provide useful information about determinants of exposure to DU.
d) Chris Busby and Malcolm Hooper thought data from the voluntary testing
would be useful to gain a first impression of links between exposure and
health – Chris Busby felt the more information, the better. However, the
Chairman and Brian Spratt were emphatic that this would not be appropriate,
given that the veteran volunteers might not be typical of veterans as a group
and there would be no control group.
e) The Chairman suggested the following should be included in the
questionnaire
• Serial number (to provide link with sample)
• Permission to contact GP
• Date of sample collection
• Military service (This could be a “stem” question leading to different
parts of the form depending on the answer)
• Operational service by non-military
• Other potential sources of exposure to uranium eg residence in the
vicinity of nuclear facilities/work with radio-active materials
• A health section (using a few open questions rather than a long list of
closed questions about specific illnesses).
f) Other suggestions were to ask whether:
• Veterans had undertaken sightseeing on the battlefield (MH)
• Veterans had entered a vehicle hit by a DU round (DC)
• Veterans suffered from renal disease that might affect their excretion of
uranium(DC)
• There was anything further they wanted to add (IC).
g) Nick Baldock stated that some service personnel would not know their NHS
number, so the utility of that question was doubtful. Malcolm Hooper
pointed out that that question was included on the MAP questionnaire.
h) It was agreed that Malcolm Hooper would redraft the questionnaire in the
light of the discussion and that members would send him any further
comments in writing.
Action 6.6. DUOB members to send Malcolm Hooper suggestions for any
further amendments to the questionnaire
All
(20/9/02)
Page 7
Action 6.7. Malcolm Hooper to produce 2
nd
draft of questionnaire
Hooper
(11/10/02)
8.
Security of Samples and Associated Information
a) Chris Busby tabled a paper on this topic, but as members had not had an
opportunity to read it in advance of the meeting, they were asked to consider
it out of committee and send any comments to the Secretariat. There was a
discussion over whether the samples needed to be anonymised and, if so, how
this should be done. Chris Busby said that, in his view, which reflected that
of several veterans, pseudonymised copies of the results for each individual
should be passed to a third party. There was much discussion over who this
should be; it was agreed that both MOD and veterans’ groups needed to be
happy with the repository. Ron Brown suggested that information could be
copied to the veteran and to a repository such as a solicitor.
Action 6.8. Members to send comments on Busby “Security” paper to
Secretary
b) There was a further discussion over what information the co-ordinating centre
would need apart from the name of the veteran, the serial number and the
result. The Chairman pointed out that they would need to see the whole
questionnaire in order to formulate the correct advice for the veteran.
c) Some concern was expressed about the possible introduction of errors in
transcribing information into a database. David Lewis suggested building in
an audit process, for example by checking 10% of entries.
d) David Lewis said that the security and chain of custody of the sample itself
needed to be considered. Both MOD and the veterans would need to be
satisfied that it had not been tampered with.
All
(9/9/02)
9.
Information to GPs
a) Covered at 4 g).
10.
Information to Subjects
a) The Chairman stated that feedback to veterans should preferably be provided
by a doctor with expertise in radiation medicine and toxicology. The person
providing feedback would need to explain the significance of the result for the
veteran. This should be part of the contract with the health provider who was
going to co-ordinate the collection of samples and reporting of results.
b) Brian Spratt expressed concern as to how the significance of the result would
be explained, particularly because there was not a consensus view. He suggested
that the expert would need to explain that some people thought the result might
mean one thing, some another. Chris Busby and Malcolm Hooper felt it would be
acceptable to say that there were different interpretations of the result, whereas
Ron Brown felt this would be unsatisfactory and he personally would like an
unambiguous explanation. Ivor Connolly said that he believed most ill Gulf
veterans thought there was a “cocktail” of reasons for their illness. He stressed
that this issue must be resolved so that the programme could proceed. Brian
Spratt suggested that a table could be produced giving risks by level of exposure
to DU.
c) The Secretary was actioned to provide a Statement of Requirement for the
health service provider. This should include a requirement to state what expertise
would be provided to communicate test results to veterans.
Action 6.9. Secretary to provide Statement of Requirement for Health
Secretary
Page 8
Service Provider for urine testing programme
(30/9/02)
11.
Background Levels of Uranium and DU in urine
a) The Chairman suggested that the study to determine background levels of
uranium excretion in the UK population should include 6-8 centres with repeated
samples taken at at varying times of day from 20-30 volunteers at each centre.
Participants should be given a short questionnaire including questions on factors
which might influence uranium exposure such as residence near a nuclear facility.
A small contract would be required to produce a protocol for the study, collect
samples, and a produce a report. (Analysis of the urine samples would be by the
laboratory(ies) who won the main contract, and would also need to be costed.)
The Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh was one possible contractor.
Members should send other suggestions to the Secretary. Ron Brown pointed out
that the British Geological Survey paper which had been distributed to the DUOB
had indicated marked variation in environmental levels of uranium in the UK.
This included measurements in drinking water.
b) Brian Spratt said the participants in the “Background” study should be aged
18- 39 to correspond to the ages of most veterans. Nick Baldock suggested that
recruitment depots might be a good source of volunteers, although it was pointed
out that this would not meet the age requirement.
Action 6.10. DUOB members to write to Secretary with suggestions for a
body to carry out the “Background” study.
Action 6.11. Secretary to provide Statement of Requirement for
“Background” study.
All
(16/9/02)
Secretary
(30/9/02)
12.
Epidemiological Studies
a) The Chairman said he would write to the Medical Research Council to let
them know that the epidemiological studies would necessarily be delayed as a
result of the problems with the pilot study.
Action 6.12. Chairman to inform Medical Research Council of delays in
establishment of screening programme
Chairman
(31/7/02)
13.
Timescales
a) The programme was likely to be delayed by at least two months. The final
extent of delay would depend on whether it was decided that further pilot
work should be carried out, and if so, what.
b) Ivor Connolly asked what he should say to the veterans. The Chairman
advised him to explain that it was probable that further pilot work would be
needed, with a consequent delay.
Page 9
14.
Laboratory Methods
a) Chris Busby again stated that he believed the laboratory who had offered the
AMS method at the pilot exercise bid stage should now be considered. He
was supported by Malcolm Hooper and Ron Brown. It was agreed that the
Secretary should contact the AMS laboratory to see whether they would be
prepared to carry out 4-5 assays and how much this would cost. He should
also investigate whether funding would be available.
Action 6.13 Secretary to ascertain whether a limited AMS study was feasible
in terms of laboratory availability and cost
Secretary
(6/9/02)
15.
Date of next meetings
a) The date of the next full DUOB meeting is 21
st
October 2002 at 09:45 (venue
to be advised).
b) Post meeting note: The date of the extraordinary technical meeting with the
pilot study laboratories is 13 August 2002 at 1100 in the Royal British Legion, 48
Pall Mall, London.
16.
A.O.B.
None.
Distribution:
All members
All observers
Devolved Health Administrations
Page 10
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
30/11/0
1
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
30/11/0
1
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
30/11/0
1
8/1/02
Suggestions for radiation medicine
experts to be sent to GVIU
All
COMPLETE
2.4
30/11/0
1
8/1/02
GVIU to consult Royal College of
Radiologists
Secretary COMPLETE – RCR
recommendation received on 24/1/02
2.5
30/11/0
1
12/12/01
GVIU to notify members of
expressions of interest
Secretary COMPLETE – emailed on 13/12/01
2.6
30/11/0
1
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
30/11/0
1
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
30/11/0
1
13/12/01
Arrange meeting with supplier of
spiked samples
Lewis
COMPLETE – see 2.9 below
Page 11
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
Ongoing
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 12
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
COMPLETE – circulated by post
16/7/02
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
5.1
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to collate and distribute all
information regarding Italian peacekeepers
discussion
Secretary
ONGOING - postponed to next
meeting 21/10/02
5.2
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to check on ultrasound checks
for renal cancer at MAP
Secretary
COMPLETE
5.3
17/6/02
24/7/02
Peter van Calsteren to obtain total uranium
and zinc concentration data from NEQAS
Van
Calsteren
COMPLETE
5.4
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to contact NEQAS w.r.t.
delivery of report
Secretary
COMPLETE
Page 13
5.5
17/6/02
28/5/02
Secretary to revise and distribute draft
advertisement
Secretary
COMPLETE
5.6
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to redraft SOR and distribute
Secretary
ONGOING
5.7
17/6/02
24/7/02
Len Levy to investigate if creatinine can
be identified in acidified urine
Levy
COMPLETE – for discussion at
October meeting
5.8
17/6/02
24/7/02
Muir Gray to produce pathway for
screening process
Muir Gray
ONGOING
5.9
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chris Busby to write paper on sample
security
Busby
CONPLETE
5.10
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chairman to provide detailed information
to GPs
Chairman
ONGOING
5.11
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chairman to produce next draft of
‘information to veterans’ paper
Chairman
ONGOING
5.12
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to obtain a copy of the MAP
questions
Secretary
COMPLETE
5.13
17/6/02
24/7/02
Malcolm Hooper to draft screening
programme questionnaire
Hooper
COMPLETE