This is the html version of the file http://www.duob.org.uk/minutes8.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:jl6dUte18OQJ:www.duob.org.uk/minutes8.pdf+minutes8.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: minutes8 pdf
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Draft 2
Page 1
DRAFT 2
Gulf Veterans’ Illnesses Unit
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Zone A, Floor 7, St Georges Court,
2-12 Bloomsbury Way,
London, WC1A 2SH
Telephone
Direct dial
020 7305 4644
Helpline
0800 169 4495
Fax
020 7305 2374
Draft 2
Our Reference:
D/GVIU/7/1/8/2
Date:
6
th
February 2003
These minutes are published in draft form and are subject to confirmation at
the next Board.
MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH DEPLETED URANIUM SCREENING
PROGRAMME OVERSIGHT BOARD MEETING ON 9
th
JANUARY 2003
Present:
Board:
Observers:
Professor David Coggon
Surg. Cdre Nick Baldock
Mr Ron Brown
Dr Peter van Calsteren
Mr George Etherington
representing Miss Frances Fry
Miss Beverley Green
Dr Len Levy
Professor Malcolm Hooper
Dr David Lewis
Dr Gordon Paterson
Professor Brian Spratt
Mr Shaun Emery
Air Cdre Simon Dougherty
Mrs Brigid Rodgers
Miss Rosie Wane
Wg Cdr Charlie Wilcock
MRC
INM
DRPS
OU
NRPB
RBL
MRC IEH
GVA
INM
BRC
RS
GVIU
SGD
GVIU
GVIU
SGD
Chair
Secretary
Apologies:
Dr Chris Busby
Mr Ivor Connolly
Mr Alan Duncan
Miss Frances Fry
Professor Ian Gilmore
Mr Jim Glennon
Dr Muir Gray
Mr Neville Higham
Dr Margaret Spittle
Dr Hilary Walker
LLRC
NGV&FA
HJA
NRPB
RBL
NGV&FA
NSC
HSE
MH
DH
Page 2
Draft 2
Draft 2
2 of 13
Item
Discussion and Decisions
Actions
(Action date)
1.
Introduction
a) The Chairman welcomed board members to the meeting.
b) The Chairman said that he had spoken to Nick Day who had not been able to
attend a meeting of the DUOB since its inception. Nick Day had offered his
resignation from the board which the Chairman had accepted. It was
considered unnecessary to replace him at this time.
2.
Minutes of Last Meeting
a) Minor changes to the minutes of the last meeting were agreed by all board
members.
Action 8.1. Secretary to amend minutes of 7
th
DUOB and circulate
b) Malcolm Hooper stated that he had sent a version of the questionnaire that
had previously been discussed at the DUOB to the National Gulf Veterans
and Families Association (NGVFA) and Gulf Veterans Association (GVA).
Unfortunately, this had been distributed by those organisations with a header
that erroneously indicated that the questionnaire was from the DUOB.
Malcolm Hooper apologised for this error and stated that he had contacted the
veterans’ organisations to point out the error. The NGVFA website contains
an apology to this effect.
Action 8.2. Secretary to distribute Malcolm Hooper apology email to DUOB
members
c) Malcolm Hooper questioned the post meeting note in Section 10d of the last
minutes stating that the Veterans’ Agency (VA) do not have a database of the
illnesses suffered by Gulf veterans. Brigid Rodgers confirmed that, while the
VA has details regarding pension claims, it does not collect data on the
illnesses of Gulf veterans. Malcolm Hooper expressed concern that such a
database did not appear to exist. Brigid Rodgers pointed out that cases of
cancer in Gulf veterans are identified through cancer registries, but that the
incidence of other illnesses was not routinely reported. It was agreed that
further information was required on this subject and Gordon Paterson
undertook to email the Secretary regarding this.
Action 8.3. Gordon Paterson to provide information on the existence of
disease registers
Secretary
(17/1/03)
Secretary
(17/1/03)
Paterson
(31/1/03)
3.
Matters arising from last meeting
Chromosome Aberration Papers
a) David Lewis stated that he had emailed the papers regarding chromosome
aberrations to the Secretary although these had not been received. He
undertook to resend them. (Actions 7.3 and 7.4 ongoing)
Questionnaire to subjects
b) Malcolm Hooper stated that he had not received any comments on the
questionnaire except from the Chairman. Although the questionnaire is not
Page 3
Draft 2
Draft 2
3 of 13
required urgently, comments on this would still be useful at this time. (Action
7.5. ongoing)
Summary of pilot exercise
c) The Secretary stated that he had not yet completed this action. (Action 7.6.
ongoing)
Mortality Figures
d) The Secretary confirmed that he had circulated the answer to the
Parliamentary Question providing the mortality figures for Gulf veterans.
4.
Update on Extended Pilot Exercise
a) The Chairman reported that a meeting had been held on 12
th
November 2002
with the three laboratories chosen to take part in the extended pilot exercise.
This meeting was attended by the Chairman, Peter van Calsteren, Ron Brown
and Jim Glennon from the DUOB. A long discussion had been held regarding
the Statement of Requirement (SOR) for the extended pilot exercise. The
output of the meeting was a revised SOR which had subsequently been
finalised through email discussions.
Action 8.4. Secretary to circulate final SOR for extended pilot exercise to
DUOB members.
b) The Secretary confirmed that Invitations To Tender (ITTs) had been issued to
the three laboratories and that the return date was 9
th
January 2003.
c) There was some discussion over the target ratios that had been set for the
spiked samples. These had been agreed at the last DUOB meeting but not
included in the minutes. The Secretary agreed to distribute the target ratio
information to the technical members of the DUOB.
Action 8.5. Secretary to distribute target ratio figures to a subset of the
DUOB
d) The Chairman summarised what had been agreed with regard to the extended
pilot exercise:
• Three laboratories had been selected to take part in the extended
study following the initial stage.
• Each laboratory was to produce a batch of urine samples (one
unspiked urine and two spiked to different isotope ratios). These
would be tested by the producing laboratory and then distributed to
the other two laboratories. The distribution would be via a third
party who would re -label the samples. Each laboratory would,
therefore, receive 9 samples for testing, including the three they
produced themselves.
• It was agreed that the sample size would be 500mL which the
laboratory would split into a 100mL aliquot and a 400mL aliquot for
analysis.
• The types of containers and the cleaning process for the containers
had been agreed.
• 10ng/l had been agreed as the maximum uranium concentration for
the unspiked urine to be used in the study. There was some
discussion regarding this, and whether a higher concentration could
be allowed. It was agreed that the three laboratories would report the
uranium concentration of the unspiked urine to the Secretary who
would consult with DUOB members regarding its suitability.
Secretary
(17/1/03)
Secretary
(17/1/03)
Page 4
Draft 2
Draft 2
4 of 13
e) Peter van Calsteren detailed the decision that had been made with regard to
the uranium standard to be used in the extended pilot exercise. The method by
which any high quality laboratory calibrates the isotopic composition of a
metal is to measure it repeatedly against a metal of known isotopic
composition. The most reliable metal for the latter is CRM112, natural
uranium metal rod. Therefore, provided the pilot study referenced its
measurements of isotopic composition to CRM112, a DU metal of less
certain initial composition could be used for spiking the samples.
f) Two main depleted uranium standards were discussed at the meeting of the
laboratories on 12
th
November (names not included in these minutes):
• Standard 1. There has been some disagreement over the composition of
this material as two separate measurements by the laboratory of origin
(one in 1976 and one in 2002) have produced slightly different results.
However, the deviation is small and the composition could be measured
to greater accuracy in the pilot studies using MC-ICPMS. Unfortunately,
there is a delivery time of 3 months for this material
• Standard 2. The exact composition of this DU is unknown. However,
initial tests by one of the pilot study laboratories had indicated that it
would be suitable for the pilot exercise. This material was available
immediately.
The decision was made, because of the timescales, to use Standard 2 for the
pilot exercise. This would be calibrated against the CRM112 standard. Peter
van Calsteren had supplied a quantity of this metal to the laboratory
producing the spiking. As a fallback plan , Standard 1 has also been ordered
and should arrive in three months. If this arrives early there may be the
possibility of utilising it in the pilot exercise in some way.
g) At the laboratory meeting it had been concluded that thymol should not be
added to the urine samples as an antibacterial agent. Brain Spratt undertook to
check with his clinical microbiologist colleagues that this was unlikely to
pose an unacceptable health risk to laboratory staff.
Action 8.6. Brian Spratt to check on the use of thymol in urine samples
h) It had also been agreed at the laboratory meeting that the urine should be
acidified to 1% HNO
3
to prevent precipitation.
Spratt
(31/1/03)
5.
Draft SOR for Main Contract
a) The draft SOR for the main contract had been circulated before Christmas.
The following comments were received:
• The timescale for the testing of the samples should be stated
• The volume of the urine sample should be stated (when known)
• Among other things, the testing laboratory should provide an
estimate of DU concentration in the sample
• Section 3 should be renamed ‘Sample Plan’ and include all
information regarding the sample
• The confidentiality procedures for the laboratory should be
emphasised
• The validation technique should be proven to the satisfaction of the
independent DUOB and the MOD
• The Section on validation of analytical method requires some work
to clarify what is required
Page 5
Draft 2
Draft 2
5 of 13
• Generally, the requirement needs to be quantified
• Other suggestions for minor changes.
Action 8.7. The Secretary undertook to produce a new version of the SOR
and distribute.
b) There was some discussion about how to interpret the results from the
extended pilot exercise, particularly with regard to the need for a specialist
statistician. The Chairman stated that he would consider the issue of
analysing the results and whether specialist advice should be sought. George
Etherington and Peter van Calsteren mentioned a number of contacts who
might be able to offer advice and undertook to investigate this. The point was
made that the method of analysing the data should be clearly defined by the
time the laboratory measurements from the pilot exercise become available.
Action 8.8. Chairman to formulate an analysis method for the pilot study
results.
Action 8.9. George Etherington and Peter van Calsteren to talk to contacts
regarding interlaboratory analysis
c) There was considerable discussion about how a laboratory which had not
taken part in the pilot study would provide validation of its method when
tendering for the main testing contract.
d) There was further discussion about splitting samples, whether this was
required and where it should be done if needed. Among other things, this
would depend on the findings of the extended pilot exercise.
e) Brigid Rodgers asked what would happen if a veteran was unhappy with his
test result and requested another test. It was generally agreed that should a
veteran request a re-test, this would have to be considered on its individual
merits. Each individual would, of course, be free to have another test at
another laboratory at their own expense.
f) There was also discussion regarding the number of laboratories that would be
involved in the main testing contract. The advantage of using more than one
laboratory would be that some samples could be tested by both laboratories to
provide an intercomparison. Members discussed how samples might be
divided between a number of laboratories. It was generally agreed that each
laboratory would receive batches of say 50 samples i.e. Lab 1 gets 50
samples to test and then Lab 2 get 50 samples.
Post meeting note: The number of laboratories taking part in the testing
programme has been discussed a number of times without resolution. The
Secretary will issue an email canvassing further views on this subject so that a
decision can be made at the next meeting.
Action 8.11. Secretary to email board members regarding the number of labs
to be involved in the main contract.
Secretary
(24/1/03)
Chairman
(21/2/03)
Etherington/
v Calsteren
(21/2/03)
Secretary
(31/1/03)
Page 6
Draft 2
Draft 2
6 of 13
6.
Draft SORs for Health Provider and Background Study contracts
a) The Secretary stated that he had produced very rough first drafts of these
SORs some time ago. He had distributed these to DUOB members by email
the day before this meeting to serve as a starting point for discussions. (It was
noted that some members had not received these emails and the Secretary
undertook to re-send them). The Secretary asked for comments on these
SORs within two weeks as these were now his priority following this
meeting.
Action 8.12. Secretary to resend email with two SORs
Action 8.13. DUOB members to provide comments on the SORs for the
Health Provider and Background Study contracts.
Secretary
(17/1/03)
All
24/1/03)
7.
Other Issues For Main Contract
Info to GPs/Veterans
a) The Chairman stated that he had as yet done no further work on these items.
The Secretary said that he had recently spoken to Muir Gray who had lined
up some colleagues who would be able to help produce this information. The
Chairman undertook to produce a new draft of this information so it could be
passed to the relevant people.
Action 8.14. Chairman to produce new draft of information to GPs/Veterans
Epidemiological Studies
b) The Chairman stated that there was little that could be discussed about new
epidemiological studies until a valid test was available. He also pointed out
that there was a meeting of the Military Health Research Advisory Group
(MHRAG) at the MRC at the end of January – this meeting would look at the
state-of-play on Gulf War issues and the need for further research.
Chairman
(14/2/03)
8.
Timescales
a) The Secretary stated that he had only managed to talk to one of the pilot study
laboratories since the Christmas break but the planned schedule was as
follows:
• Creation of spiking solution by end of Jan
• Creation of spiked samples by end of Feb
• Analysis of samples in March
• Report in April
b) The Secretary undertook to produce a more accurate schedule when he had
talked to all three laboratories
Action 8.15. Secretary to produce schedule for extended pilot exercise
Secretary
(31/1/03)
9.
DU Background and Scientific Issues
US Laboratory Performance Paper
a) This paper entitled ‘Impact of Laboratory Performance of Urine Uranium
Analyses on Exposure Evaluations for Gulf War Veterans’ was distributed
with the calling notice for the last meeting. Ron Brown perceived the US as
taking a different approach to the UK in that they were only looking for levels
of uranium that are considered clinically significant by most scientists. They
Page 7
Draft 2
Draft 2
7 of 13
were therefore looking at levels 10-100 times higher than in the work
commissioned by the DUOB. The paper reported work that had been carried
out some time ago and it was generally agreed that the information in this
report was not immediately relevant to the DUOB discussions.
10.
Biological Monitoring Policy
a) The Secretary stated that the MOD Biological Monitoring Policy for DU on
Operations had been discussed at the last DUOB meeting and a revised
version had been distributed based on the comments received.
b) Brian Spratt expressed disappointment that sample collection might take
place up to a year after exposure. Ron Brown pointed out that this was for the
voluntary tests and not for those classified as having potentially higher
exposures i.e. Levels 1 or 2.
Post meeting note: The relevant line in Biological Monitoring policy has been
amended to ‘Collection will take place as soon as practicable but within a year of
exposure.
’
c) Brian Spratt also expressed concern that the results of the monitoring would
be assessed against the results of background uranium in urine levels
determined through the work currently being overseen by the DUOB. He
thought this was inadequate and it would be better to use a military
population. There was a discussion, culminating in a number of ideas for
further research including:
a.
Determination of background urinary uranium levels in military
personal (on the basis that they may be different from background levels
in the general public).
b.
Determination of urinary uranium levels in military personnel
post operational deployment to assess any difference from 'a' in different
working groups (eg Field Hospital staff, EOD staff).
c.
Personal occupational hygiene monitoring in operational
situations to assess actual exposures to dust potentially contaminated
with DU.
It was likely that the Chairman would raise this topic at the MHRAG meeting
hosted by MRC at the end of January when he talked about DUOB activities.
11.
Date of next meetings
a) A prospective date for the next meeting is 11
th
March 2003. The Secretary
will confirm this nearer the date.
14.
A.O.B.
a) Malcolm Hooper mentioned a forthcoming paper on ‘burning semen’ which he
believes affects some veterans. [Malcolm _ Can you please provide a reference
and further details]
b) The Secretary tabled a paper entitled ‘Epidemiology : strengths, limitations and
interpretation. Application to studies of low-dose radiation’ by G Howe, Columbia
University which had been provided by Brian Spratt
Page 8
Draft 2
Draft 2
8 of 13
Distribution:
All members
All observers
Devolved Health Administrations
Page 9
Draft 2
Draft 2
9 of 13
DUOB Action List
Action
Date
pl aced
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
samp le 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
Draft 2
Draft 2
10 of 13
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 summaris ing 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
Secretay
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
Draft 2
Draft 2
11 of 13
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 – distributed on
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 peacekeeper
discussion
Secretary COMPLETE
5.2
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chris Busby to write a short introduction
to the Italian peacekeepers information
Chris
Busby
COMPLETE – tabled at DUOB mtg
on 24/7/02
5.3
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to check on ultrasound diagnoses
of renal cancer at MAP
Secretary COMPLETE – details given at
DUOB mtg on 24/7/02
5.4
17/6/02
28/6/02
Peter van Calsteren to obtain uranium and
zinc concentration data from NEQAS
PvC
COMPLETE
5.5
17/6/02
28/6/02
Secretary to revise and distribute draft
Secretary COMPLETE
Page 12
Draft 2
Draft 2
12 of 13
advertisement
5.6
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to redraft SOR and distribute
Secretary COMPLETE – new draft circulated
on 28/8/02
5.7
17/6/02
24/7/02
Len Levy to investigate if creatinine can
be measured in acidified urine
Len Levy COMPLETE - comments circulated
by email on 26/7/02
5.8
17/6/02
24/7/02
Muir Gray to produce ‘pathway’ for
testing process
Muir
Gray
Ongoing
5.9
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chris Busby to write paper on sample
security
Chris
Busby
COMPLETE – tabled at DUOB
meeting on 24/7/02
5.10
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chairman to provide a more detailed paper
on information for GPs
Chair
Ongoing
5.11
17/6/02
24/7/02
Chairman to produce next draft of
‘information to veterans’
Chair
Ongoing
5.12
17/6/02
24/7/02
Secretary to obtain a copy of the MAP
questions
Secretary COMPLETE – MAP questions sent
to Malcolm Hooper prior to 24/7 mtg
5.13
17/6/02
24/7/02
Malcolm Hooper to draft screening
programme questionnaire
Malcolm
Hooper
COMPLETE – Questionnaire tabled
at DUOB meeting on 24/7/02
6.1
24/7/02
2/8/02
Secretary to distribute full protocol to
DUOB
Secretary COMPLETE - distributed by email
on 25/7/02
6.2
24/7/02
9/8/02
NEQAS to provide full report on pilot
study
Andrew
Taylor
COMPLETE – distributed on
12/8/02
6.3
24/7/02
23/8/02
Secretary to amend minutes of 5
th
DUOB
and circulate
Secretary COMPLETE
6.4
24/7/02
21/10/02
Malcolm Hooper to provide list of
Professor Schott’s relevant publications
Malcolm
Hooper
Ongoing
6.5
24/7/02
30/9/02
George Etherington to investigate NRPB
work on maximum size particle that can
pass through kidney
George
Etheringt
on
COMPLETE – Paper circulated by
email on 2/10/02
6.6
24/7/02
20/9/02
DUOB members to send Malcolm Hooper
suggestions for any further amendments to
the questionnaire
All
Ongoing
6.7
24/7/02
11/10/02
Malcolm Hooper to produce 2
nd
draft of
questionnaire
Malcolm
Hooper
Ongoing
6.8
24/7/02
9/9/02
Members to send comments on Chris
Busby’s ‘Security’ paper to Secretary
All
Ongoing
6.9
24/7/02
30/9/02
Secretary to provide SOR for Health
Service Provider for urine testing
programme
Secretary COMPLETE – Overtaken by 7.10
6.10
24/7/02
16/9/02
DUOB members to write to Secretary with
suggestions for a body to carry out the
‘Background’ study
All
Ongoing
6.11
24/7/02
30/9/02
Secretary to provide SOR for
‘Background’ study
Secretary COMPLETE - Overtaken by 7.11
6.12
24/7/02
31/7/02
Chairman to inform Medical Research
Council of delays in establishment of
screening programme
Chair
COMPLETE – letter sent on 25/7/02
6.13
24/7/02
6/9/02
Secretary to ascertain whether a limited
AMS study was feasible in terms of
laboratory availability and cost
Secretary Ongoing
7.1
21/10/02
8/11/02
Secretary to amend minutes of 6
th
DUOB
and circulate
Secretary COMPLETE
7.2.
21/10/02
8/11/02
Secretary to circulate minutes of
Laboratory meeting on 13/8/02 and the
Chairman’s ideas on the next stage of the
pilot exercise
Secretary COMPLETE
7.3.
21/10/02
15/11/02
David Lewis to forward ‘Chromosome
Aberration’ papers to Secretary
David
Lewis
Ongoing
7.4
21/10/02
15/11/02
Secretary to circulate ‘Chromosome
Aberration’ papers
Secretary Ongoing
Page 13
Draft 2
Draft 2
13 of 13
7.5.
21/10/02
15/11/02
Comments on questionnaire to be sent to
Secretary
All
Ongoing – no comments received
7.6.
21/10/02
15/11/02
Secretary to produce a summary document
detailing what is happening with the pilot
studies
Secretary Ongoing
7.7.
21/10/02
1/11/02
Secretary to redraft SOR/Protocol
Secretary COMPLETE – Distributed before
Xmas
7.8.
21/10/02
1/11/02
Secretary to arrange meeting with labs to
discuss SOR/Protocol
Secretary COMPLETE – Meeting held on 11
th
November 2002
7.9.
21/10/02
15/11/02
Secretary to circulate mortality figures
Secretary COMPLETE – Circulated on
6/11/02
7.10.
21/10/02
15/11/02
Secretary to revise and circulate SOR for
Health Provider contract
Secretary Ongoing
7.11.
21/10/02
15/11/02
Secretary to revise and circulate SOR for
Background study
Secretary Ongoing