IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1997875833-838_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethnic differences in the prevalence of nonmalignant respiratory disease among uranium miners

Author

Listed:
  • Mapel, D.W.
  • Coultas, D.B.
  • James, D.S.
  • Hunt, W.C.
  • Stidley, C.A.
  • Gilliland, F.D.

Abstract

Objectives. This study (1) investigates the relationship of nonmalignant respiratory disease to underground uranium mining and to cigarette smoking in Native American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White miners in the Southwest and (2) evaluates the criteria for compensation of ethnic minorities. Methods. Risk for mining-related lung disease was analyzed by stratified analysis, multiple linear regression, and logistic regression with data on 1359 miners. Results. Uranium mining is more strongly associated with obstructive lung disease and radiographic pnuemoconiosis in Native Americans than in Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Obstructive lung disease in Hispanic and non- Hispanic White miners is mostly related to cigarette smoking. Current compensation criteria excluded 24% of Native Americans who, by ethnic- specific standards, had restrictive lung disease and 4.8% who had obstructive lung disease. Native Americans have the highest prevalence of radiographic pneumoconiosis, but are less likely to meet spirometry criteria for compensation. Conclusions. Native American miners have more nonmalignant respiratory disease from underground uranium mining, and less disease from smoking, than the other groups, but are less likely to receive compensation for mining-related disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Mapel, D.W. & Coultas, D.B. & James, D.S. & Hunt, W.C. & Stidley, C.A. & Gilliland, F.D., 1997. "Ethnic differences in the prevalence of nonmalignant respiratory disease among uranium miners," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(5), pages 833-838.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:5:833-838_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbara L. Harper & Brian Flett & Stuart Harris & Corn Abeyta & Fred Kirschner, 2003. "Response to Letter to the Editor," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 861-864, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1997:87:5:833-838_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.