This is the html version of the file http://www.duob.org.uk/minutes4.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:g0qz5rS6kwkJ:www.duob.org.uk/minutes4.pdf+minutes4.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: minutes4 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:
18
th
June 2002
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH DEPLETED URANIUM SCREENING PROGRAMME OVERSIGHT
BOARD MEETING ON 18
th
April 2002
Present:
Board:
Observers:
Professor David Coggon
Surg. Cdre Nick Baldock
Dr Chris Busby
Dr Peter van Calsteren
Mr Ivor Connolly
Mr Ray Bristow
Miss Frances Fry
Professor Malcolm Hooper
Professor Ian Gilmore
Dr Muir Gray
Miss Beverley Green
Dr David Lewis
Professor Brian Spratt
Mr Shaun Emery
Air Cdre Simon Dougherty
Mr Alan Duncan
Mrs Brigid Rodgers
Mrs Janie Walker
Dr Hilary Walker
MRC
INM
LLRC
OU
NGV&FA
NGV&FA
NRPB
GVA
RBL
NSC
RBL
INM
RS
GVIU
SGD
HJA
GVIU
GVIU
DH
Chair
Secretary
Apologies:
Mr Ron Brown
Professor Nick Day
Dr Len Levy
Dr Gordon Paterson
Dr Margaret Spittle
DRPS
IPH
MRC IEH
BRC
MH

Page 2
Item
Discussion and Decisions
Actions
(Action date)
1.
Introduction
a) New attenders were welcomed and introduced.
b) The Chairman informed members that a radiation medicine exp ert had
been appointed to the Board, Dr Margaret Spittle, Consultant Clinical
Oncologist at the Middlesex Hospital. [ Dr Spittle was unable to attend the
meeting]
c) The Chairman stated that the main aims of this meeting were to:
Examine the six bids received for the pilot exercise contracts
and reach a decision on which laboratories should be given a
contract
Discuss longer-term issues concerning the main testing
programme
2.
Minutes of last meeting
a) These were accepted as a true record of the meeting.
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
website is now up and running and available at www.duob.org.uk (not
www.duob.org as listed in the minutes from the last meeting). The website
contains a list of members and their CVs and the minutes of all meetings. The
layout and presentation of the site is not ideal and the Secretary undertook to
improve the website by the next meeting. Suggestions from Board members
could be given outside the meeting.
Action 4.1. Secretary to improve content and presentation of DUOB website
Action 4.2. OB Members to provide comments on DUOB website to Secretary
c) The Secretary confirmed that the Neil Stradling (NRPB) presentation on
excretion profiles discussed at the last meeting had been distributed to the
Board
d) The Secretary confirmed that he had contacted Dr Durakovic to seek
permission to distribute the slides presented to the Royal Society in
November 2001. Dr Durakovic had stated that he was currently submitting
his results for publication and would be happy for the slides to be distributed
once this had been achieved.
e) It was noted that some members of the Board had not received a copy of
the Royal Society report part II. The Secretary undertook to contact the Royal
Society to establish why this was the case and to ensure that the necessary
copies were distributed.
Action 4.3. Secretary to contact RS re. distribution of RS paper
Secretary
(18/6/02)
All
(7/6/02)
Secretary
(17/5/02)

Page 3
f) Brian Spratt gave a brief summary of the conclusions of the Royal Society
report. The main conclusion was that, for the majority of soldiers on the
battlefield it is unlikely there will have been any adverse effects on the
kidneys from DU exposure. In extreme circumstances there could be an
above normal risk of kidney damage if large amounts of uranium were
inhaled or ingested. However, the Royal Society (and the MOD) were
unaware of any British soldiers to whom this would apply. Brian Spratt
stressed that the work of the OB in establishing a retrospective test was
important as there was uncertainty about the exposures that people had
received. It was considered that there was little information on the long-term
effects of uranium on the kidney. Chris Busby noted his concerns about this,
citing the example of a Granada TV cameraman who had experienced major
kidney problems since filming in Iraq. He was also worried by cancer
statistics for Italian peacekeepers in the Balkans and for Iraqi civilians. Ray
Bristow stated that the Royal Society had declined to consider information on
possible health effects from Iraq in the preparation for their report. Brian
Spratt countered that the RS was aware that people in Iraq have associated ill-
health with exposure to DU but had not so far seen any properly validated
data to support these claims. [The issue of cancer in Italian peacekeepers is
discussed in Section 8 of these minutes]
g) Ivor Connolly asked if OB members were aware of the MOD response to
the RS report and the MOD proposals for research into DU that had recently
been released. Brigid Rodgers stated that the MOD research proposals had
just been released to veterans’ organisations for their comments. The
Chairman asked for this document to be circulated to the Board
Action 4.4 Secretary to circulate the MOD research proposals
h) There was some discussion about whether the protocol detailing the
preparation of the spiked samples for the pilot exercise should be released to
all Board members. David Lewis pointed out that the protocol contains the
exact figures for the concentrations and isotope ratios in the samples and that
the more people with access to this information the greater the risk of it
becoming available outside the DUOB, thus prejudicing the results of the
pilot exercise. It was generally agreed that the protocol should be circulated to
board members with the spiking information removed (with the exception of
David Coggon, David Lewis, Peter van Calsteren and Malcolm Hooper who
had contributed to the creation of the protocol). Chris Busby stated that he
would like to be included on the list of those receiving the whole protocol –
this was agreed.
Action 4.5. Secretary to edit and distribute protocol document
i) Ray Bristow expressed concern that the chosen test for the main testing
programme would not be of sufficient sensitivity to detect DU 11 years after
the exposure. Malcolm Hooper stated that he had discussed the subject with a
number of contacts and the consensus view was that a suitable test should be
possible. [Malcolm Hooper had been involved in the design of the spiking
regime and had attended a meeting with the NEQAS lab along with David
Lewis and Peter van Calsteren. At that meeting, Malcolm Hooper had fully
endorsed the concentrations and isotope ratios that were chosen as reflecting
the needs of the Gulf Veterans].
j) David Lewis stated that he had so far been unable to produce the
promised paper on evaluating laboratories but would update his previous draft
on this subject prior to the next meeting. [This is covered by action 3.7.]
Secretary
(16/4/02)
Secretary
(17/5/02)

Page 4
4.
Programme Plan
Update on Pilot Study Bids
a) The Chairman stressed that the bids for the pilot exercise contracts were
strictly Commercial-in-Confidence and must not be communicated to persons
external to the Oversight Board.
b) The Chairman stated that 7 Invitations to Tender (ITT) had been issued and
six responses had been received.
c) Peter van Calsteren led a discussion on merits of the six bids. Four of the bids
appeared to be reasonably priced and two were very expensive. Agreement
was reached that the four reasonably priced bids should be given pilot study
contracts. Of the two remaining bids one proposed a method that was
considered novel but not ’state of the art’ for uranium isotope detection.
Agreement was reached that this method would not be suitable for the pilot
exercise but should be noted in case the results from the pilot study indicated
that more conventional analytical techniques were unsatisfactory. Peter van
Calsteren noted, however, that the breakdown of this bid also involved
ICPMS testing and it was agreed that the Secretary should approach the
laboratory to see if they would be willing to quote for just the ICPMS work.
d) The sixth bid was considered extremely expensive and David Lewis
expressed concern that they had quoted against their Expression of Interest
proposal rather than the Statement of Requirement issued with the ITT. The
methods they proposed, namely ICPMS and TIMS, were covered by the other
laboratories, however it was considered they had good experience in working
with urine samples. The Secretary noted that among the other chosen bids the
ICPMS method was well represented but TIMS was only being used by one
laboratory. He suggested that he approach the sixth bidder with a view to
asking for a quote based on the TIMS work only and to establish that they
were quoting against the Statement of Requirement. This was agreed.
Action 4.6. Secretary to arrange for the two bidders to requote for pilot
exercise
Action 4.7. Secretary to arrange for pilot study contracts to be placed
e) The Secretary pointed out that a number of the bidders had indicated that they
would require a period of two months to carry out the analyses. It was agreed
that this was acceptable. The pilot studies should therefore finish in early
July.
f) Nick Baldock asked what would happen if the laboratories did not provide
results within the given timescales. The Secretary stated that the necessary
clauses would be included in the contracts to protect against this.
Update on laboratory to supply spiked samples
g) The Secretary stated that he had talked with the NEQAS lab on the day before
the meeting. They had encountered some difficulties with the transportation
of the reference materials from Belgium but were expecting delivery on 19
th
April 2002. Everything else was in place to produce the samples. Peter van
Calsteren was tasked with visiting NEQAS on behalf of the DUOB to ensure
that the work was being carried out to the required standards.
Action 4.8. Peter van Calsteren to visit NEQAS in the week beginning 22
nd
April 02
Secretary
(ASAP)
Secretary
(26/4/02)
Van
Calsteren
(26/4/02)

Page 5
Post meeting note: NEQAS have been notified that the start date for the pilot
exercise will be 7
th
May 02.
5.
Requirements for Main Testing Contract
Advertising
a) There was some discussion about the advertising of the main testing contract.
The Secretary confirmed that it was necessary to advertise this contract as
only the pilot exercise had been advertised so far. Some laboratories may be
interested in bidding for the main contract who were not interested in the
smaller pilot study contract. The Chairman pointed out that any laboratory
bidding for the main contract would have to demonstrate the validity of their
method.
b) The Secretary stated that the main testing contract would be advertised in the
MOD Contracts Bulletin and the Official Journal of the European
Community. As with the pilot exercise, this advertisement would have to run
for a minimum of 40 days. To keep the programme on schedule, the advert
would have to run in parallel with the pilot exercise so that ITTs could be
issued to the appropriate laboratories following the assessment of the pilot
exercise results. The Secretary sought agreement from the Board to advertise
the main testing contract in June 02, pointing out that the advert need not
specify any particular requirements that might hinge on the results of the pilot
exercise. This was agreed.
Action 4.9. Secretary to draft advert for main testing contract for approval
for the DUOB
Numbers
c) Peter van Calsteren suggested that a number of laboratories could be chosen
for the main testing programme. This would enable the testing to proceed in
parallel, allow comparison between the laboratories, and provide back-up
should one laboratory encounter difficulties in delivery. Chris Busby
suggested that samples should be split and sent to two laboratories to provide
re-assurance that the results were accurate. It was agreed that this could be
useful, at least for a subset of samples. A final decision would depend on the
extra costs that would be entailed.
d) The Chairman pointed out that it would be preferable to form an idea of the
number of tests that would be required to enable a value-for-money contract
to be negotiated. A number of sources of information were discussed
including the MOD Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme
(GVMAP), the membership of the National Gulf Veterans & Families
Association (NGVFA) and the Gulf Veterans Association (GVA) and
scientists who were responsible for research in veterans. It was agreed that in
the order of 1000 tests might be needed in the first 6-12 months, although the
demand for voluntary testing would depend in part on the exposure levels
found when the programme started.
e) Malcolm Hooper suggested that it would be important to identify groups most
likely to have had high exposure. Beverley Green asked if those considered
most likely to have been exposed would be notified. Brian Spratt reiterated
that this had been recommended in the first Royal Society DU paper. It was
agreed that this would be discussed further as plans for the testing programme
evolved.
Secretary
(18/6/02)

Page 6
Background Levels
f) There was a discussion about how background levels of uranium isotope
excretion would be determined to aid interpretation of the voluntary tests.
Nick Baldock pointed out that Armed Forces personnel are not typical and
that the background levels of a general population may not be applicable.
David Lewis noted that there are certain areas in the UK from which Armed
Forces recruitment is much higher than others. Nick Baldock suggested that
recruitment training depots, where new recruits spend 8-10 weeks, could
provide samples representative of those entering the Armed Forces. Ian
Gilmore pointed out that there would be little spread of age in this group. The
Chairman clarified that the choice of subjects would depend on the purpose of
the exercise. The main requirement at this stage was to establish how much
variation in uranium isotope excretion occurs in people with no known
exposure to DU, and if variation is found, what factors determine it. These
factors could then be taken into account in the interpretation of results for
individual veterans. For these purposes, a non-military population would be
satisfactory, and the exact source of subjects would not be too critical.
Sample Collection
g) The Chairman mentioned that, at the last meeting, MOD had agreed to fund
regional centres for the collection of urine and the provision of advice on the
results at a reasonable cost. Consideration now had to be given to how this
could be achieved. Muir Gray said there were a number of schemes in
operation that could be valuable reference points including the HSE screening
programme for bladder cancer and the Chlamydia screening pilot in
Portsmouth. David Lewis suggested that a mobile collection centre with an
attached medic may be an alternative. Beverley Green asked what the
arrangements would be for overseas veterans. Muir Gray was tasked with
considering these options and producing a paper.
Action 4.10. Muir Gray to produce a paper on sample collection/ provision of
advice
h) The Chairman said that the following items needed to be considered:
The advice given to veterans in advance of the testing
The advice to be given when an individual's results were available
The information to be provided to GPs
The mechanism for feeding back the results e.g. letter, email,
meeting.
The Chairman took an action to prepare suggestions for the information to be sent
to GPs. Ian Gilmore/Beverley Green undertook to prepare suggestions for the
advance advice to veterans and the advice to be given when the results are known.
Action 4.11. Chairman to produce a draft of information to be given to GPs
Action 4.12. RBL representatives to produce a draft of advance advice to
veterans and advice once results are known
There was a brief discussion on how the results should be fed back to the
veterans. Ray Bristow stated that the Canadian results had been sent by email
and the veterans involved were happy with that approach. Muir Gray
undertook to consider this subject in his paper (Action 4.10).
Muir Gray
(11/6/02)
Chairman
(17/5/02)
Green/
Gilmore
(17/5/02)

Page 7
i) There was a brief discussion regarding the merits of spot samples against 24
hour samples. Malcolm Hooper mentioned a paper by McDiarmid which
considers there is a 95% correlation between the two methods. The Secretary
undertook to circulate this paper.
Action 4.13. Secretary to circulate the McDiarmid paper on spot samples
j) Muir Gray mentioned the possibility that spot samples could be used as a first
test, with 24 hour sampling as a follow-up if they indicated a possibility of
exposure. This had been raised at the DUOB before and will be considered
further when the results of the pilot exercise are known. Ray Bristow
expressed concern that the spot tests would not be sensitive enough to detect
the presence of DU.
Advertising the availability of voluntary testing
k) There was a short discussion about how the testing would be advertised once
it was available. It was agreed that this could be achieved through the
veterans organisations, the DUOB website, the GVIU newsletter and through
MOD internal communication channels. The Chairman suggested that Board
members should write to the Secretary with any further suggestions for how
the availability of the testing programme might be communicated.
Action 4.14. Suggestions for ways of communicating the availability of
voluntary testing
Secretary
(17/5/02)
All
(17/5/02)
6.
Epidemiological Studies
a) The Chairman said that he attended a meeting with representatives of the
Medical Research Council (MRC) on 8
th
March 02 to discuss the
commissioning of epidemiological studies to examine the link between
exposure to DU and ill-health. He had suggested that in the first place it
would be useful to set up nested case-control studies using existing cohorts.
Subject to approval by the DUOB, the Chairman would write to the MRC
asking them to invite proposals from Kings College and Manchester
University for independent scientific assessment. If the results of the case-
control studies or the voluntary testing indicated a sufficient prevalence of
exposure to DU there would then be scope to invite proposals on a wider
scale. The studies would be funded by the MOD but commissioned by the
DUOB after advice on their scientific merit from the MRC. There was some
discussion of the Chairman’s proposals and it was agreed that he should write
to the MRC to initiate the process.
Action 4.15. Chairman to write to the MRC re. epidemiological studies
b) Chris Busby asked if other proposals for research would be considered. The
Chairman said that this was possible although he envisaged this would
happen further down the line. Chris Busby asked if it was possible to gain
access to the data from the current research. The Chairman stated that this
was up to the individual researchers who owned the information and that an
approach would have to be made to the relevant organisations.
c) Malcolm Hooper asked if the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine (LSHTM) could also be approached in the first instance. The
Chairman replied that he would see a researcher from LSHTM at a meeting
the next day and would discuss it then.
Action 4.16. Chairman to discuss research with LSHTM
d) Ray Bristow asked whether MOD research into the health effects of DU had
Chairman
(17/5/02)
Chairman
(17/5/02)

Page 8
been carried out pre-1998. GVIU undertook to check this.
Action 4.17. GVIU to report on MOD research into health effects of DU
GVIU
(17/5/02)
7.
Timescales
a) The Secretary stated that the pilot study should now be scheduled to last two
months which meant it would end in early July. Allowing for assessment time
this would mean that ITTs for the main contract could be issued at the end of
July. The programme was still on target to provide the voluntary testing by
the end of the year. The Secretary undertook to distribute a new time schedule
Action 4.18. Secretary to distribute new schedule
Secretary
(17/5/02)
8.
DU Background and Scientific Issues
Screening for myeloma, kidney cancer and other disorders
a) Muir Gray discussed some of the theoretical background to screening. He
stated there were four main issues that should be considered:
Do we understand the disease?
Is there a good test for the disorder?
Do we have an effective treatment?
Can we organise and deliver it?
Muir Gray noted that screening is today presented as risk reduction rather
than prevention. It must be considered whether the screening would do more
harm than good, e.g. by causing unnecessary worry, and whether the detection
of a problem is actually a good thing.
b) The main diseases that have been suggested as potentially associated with
exposure to DU were identified as :
Myeloma
Kidney cancer
Motor neurone disease
Leukaemia
Lymphoma
Muir Gray undertook to produce a preliminary report on the potential for
screening for these diseases.
Action 4.19. Muir Gray to produce report on the potential for screening for
myeloma, kidney cancer etc
c) Ray Bristow stated that the veterans had moved on from urine tests to
chromosome aberrations. David Coggon stated that this had been discussed at
previous meetings and the decision had been made to focus on the primary
indicators of DU exposure i.e. urine tests. It would be more appropriate to
look at chromosome aberrations and their association with DU exposure as a
research project.
Italian Veterans
d) At the last meeting there had been some discussion about a report from an
investigative commission set up by the Italian Ministry of Defence
(Preliminary Report, Investigative Commission Established by the Italian
Ministry of Defence on the Incidence of Malignant Neoplasia Among
Military Personnel Involved in Operation in Bosnia and in Kosovo,
www.nato.int/du/docu/d010417c.pdf). The report describes a cohort study of
Muir Gray
(18/6/02)

Page 9
www.nato.int/du/docu/d010417c.pdf). The report describes a cohort study of
Italian military personnel from the date of their first mission to Bosnia or
Kosovo until 31 January 2001. Chris Busby stated that he believed there was
a serious issue regarding exposure to DU and cancer, and that the Italian
report provided the most credible evidence for this. He believed that the data
in the report demonstrated that there was a sharp increase in lymphomas in
Italian veterans on their return from the Balkans. He considered it highly
plausible that DU could have caused these lymphomas through a genotoxic
mechanism.
e) The Chairman expressed doubts that a genotoxic mechanism could produce
overt cancer after such a short interval, and also questioned Chris Busby's
suggestion that risk could then be expected to decline after only 30 months.
He reiterated his view that although the findings of the Italian analysis to date
are not a cause of concern, because of inevitable limitations, neither do they
provide much reassurance.
f) Malcolm Hooper stated that he understood three cases of renal cancer had
been detected at the MOD GVMAP. He believed these cases had been
identified incidentally when using abdominal ultrasound for other purposes
and suggested that ultrasound of the kidneys could be used as a screening test.
The merits of this would be covered in Muir Gray’s paper. GVIU undertook
to check if abdominal ultrasound was now a standard test at the GVMAP.
Action 4.20. GVIU to check if abdominal ultrasound is a standard procedure
at the MAP
Post meeting note: Abdominal ultrasound screening is, and always has been, a
standard test at the GVMAP. Two cases of renal cancer have been identified by
ultrasound at the GVMAP.
g) Malcolm Hooper asked about the status of the GVIU work analysing cancer
statistics amongst Gulf veterans in comparison with the general population.
Post meeting note: Results of the analysis are likely to be released before the end
of the year.
GVIU
(17/5/02)
9.
Date of next meeting
a) The date of the next meeting was set for 17
th
June 2002 at 09:45. It will be
held at the Royal British Legion HQ on Pall Mall. The following meeting has
been pencilled in for 24
th
July by which time the results of the pilot exercise
should have been assessed.
10.
A.O.B.
a) The Chairman asked the Board members if they wished to see more
correspondence on DU issues from members of the public such as that
forwarded by the Royal British Legion (distributed with the calling notice for
this meeting). It was agreed that such letters would be circulated to the Board
if they were directly relevant to the screening programme or provided some
new information on the subject.
b) Chris Busby asked if the Secretary could make the board members aware of
the location of the UNEP Serbia/Montenegro report on the internet.
Action 4.21. Secretary to circulate web address of the UNEP report
Secretary
(17/5/02)

Page 10
Post meeting note: The UNEP Serbia/Montenegro report is available online at
http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/dureportsermont.html
c) Peter van Calsteren asked if there had been any follow-up on the MOD
invitation to Dr Durakovic to come over and discuss his work.
Post meeting note: Dr Durakovic has responded to the MOD invitation saying he
would be happy to talk about his work once the results have been published.
d) Malcolm Hooper asked if GVIU was aware of a Dai Williams paper about the
use of DU in Afghanistan. The Secretary confirmed that GVIU was aware of
the document. Brian Spratt stated that the Royal Society had received a letter
from the MOD Chief Scientific Advisor stating that no DU munitions had
been used to date by UK forces in Afghanistan and it was understood that the
US had also not used DU munitions. However, it is known that A-10 aircraft
have been in action in Afghanistan and such aircraft have the capability to use
DU munitions.
e) Ray Bristow stated that the NGVFA had recently had a number of veterans
tested in the UK for uranium isotopes in urine but he was unable to reveal any
details of these tests. He suggested that details may be revealed if the MOD
would make available a number of soldiers in Germany to provide blood tests
to act as a control group for chromosome aberration tests. The Secretary
pointed out that if urine tests were being done then the methods and results
would be of great interest to the DUOB. It was agreed that if Ray Bristow
wished to pursue the availability of control subjects, he should write to the
Surgeon General’s Department.
Distribution:
All members
All observers
Devolved Health Administrations

Page 11
DRAFT
DRAFT
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), Levy
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 justification 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 12
DRAFT
DRAFT
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
Security
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 13
DRAFT
DRAFT
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