Changes in the workforce during the civil rights movement may have impacted occupational exposures in the United States. We examined Savannah River Site (SRS) employee records (1951–1999) for changes in radiation doses and monitoring practices, by race and sex. Segregation of jobs by race and sex diminished but remained pronounced in recent years. Female workers were less likely than males to be monitored for occupational radiation exposure [odds of being unmonitored = 3.11; 95% CI: (2.79, 3.47)] even after controlling for job and decade of employment. Black workers were more likely than non-black workers to have a detectable radiation dose [OR = 1.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 1.43)]. Female workers have incomplete dose histories that would hinder compensation for illnesses related to occupational exposures. The persistence of job segregation and excess radiation exposures of black workers shows the need for further action to address disparities in occupational opportunities and hazardous exposures in the U.S. South.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HoneyM. K., Black Workers Remember: An Oral History of Segregation, Unionism, and the Freedom Struggle (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).
2.
OlwellR. B., At Work in the Atomic City: A Labor and Social History of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1st ed. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2004).
3.
MinchinT. J., The Color of Work: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Southern Paper Industry, 1945–1980 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001).
4.
RedmondC. K.CioccoA.LloydJ. W., and RushH. W., “Long-Term Mortality Study of Steelworkers. VI. Mortality from Malignant Neoplasms among Coke Oven Workers,”Journal of Occupational Medicine14, 8 (1972): 621–629.
5.
ChavkinW., Double Exposure: Women's Health Hazards on the Job and at Home (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984).
6.
HallJ. D., “The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past,”The Journal of American History91, 4 (2005): 1233–1263.
7.
KossoudjiS. A. and DresserL. J., “Working Class Rosies: Women Industrial Workers during World War II,”The Journal of Economic History52, 2 (1992): 431–446.
8.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88–352, 78 Statute 241 (1964).
9.
LoomisD. and RichardsonD., “Race and the Risk of Fatal Injury at Work,”American Journal of Public Health88, 1 (1998): 40–44.
10.
CragleD. L.McLainR. W.QualtersJ. R.HickeyJ. L.WilkinsonG. S.TankersleyW. G., “Mortality among Workers at a Nuclear Fuels Production Facility,”American Journal of Industrial Medicine14, 4 (1988): 379–401.
11.
RichardsonD. B.WingS., and WolfS., “Mortality among Workers at the Savannah River Site,”American Journal of Industrial Medicine50, 12 (2007): 881–891.
12.
RichardsonD. B. and WingS., “Leukemia Mortality among Workers at the Savannah River Site,”American Journal of Epidemiology166, 9 (2007): 1015–1022.
13.
ReedM. B.SwansonM.GaitherS.JosephJ. W.HenryW.FedorT., Savanna River Site at Fifty (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Energy Supt. of Docs., U.S. Government Printing Office, distributor, 2002).
14.
United States Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population. Volume 1, Part 42, Characteristics of the Population. South Carolina (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981).
15.
United States Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population. Volume 1, Part 42, Characteristics of the Population. South Carolina (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1973).
16.
United States Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population. CP-1-42, General Population Characteristics. South Carolina (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1991), electronic source accessed January 15, 2009.
17.
United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Volume 1, Part 42, Characteristics of the Population. South Carolina. (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1961).
18.
United States Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1950. Volume II, Part 40, Characteristics of the Population, South Carolina. (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1952).
19.
RichardsonD. B.WingS., and DanielsR. D., “Evaluation of External Radiation Dosimetry Records at the Savannah River Site, 1951–1989,”Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology17.1 (2007): 13–24.
20.
Shrader-FrechetteK., “Trimming Exposure Data, Putting Radiation Workers at Risk: Improving Disclosure and Consent through a National Radiation Dose-registry,”American Journal of Public Health97, 10 (2007): 1782–1786.
21.
National Research Council, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2 (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).
22.
WalkerJ. S., Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).
23.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Title 10, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 20-Standards for Protection against Radiation. Subpart C—Occupational Dose Limits (1991): 20.1201-20.1208.
24.
WakefordR., “Childhood Leukemia following Medical Diagnostic Exposure to Ionizing Radiation In Utero or After Birth,”Radiation Protection Dosimetry132, 2 (2008): 166–174.
25.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Protecting Workers Exposed to Lead-based Paint Hazards: A Report to Congress,”DHHS [NIOSH] Publication (1997): Chapter 1, 98–112.
26.
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. Public Law 106–398, [title XXXVI], 114 Statute 1654 (2000).
27.
LightbodyB., The Cold War (New York: Routledge, 1999).
