National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Participant Cohort
Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×

6
Referent Cohort

GENERAL SCHEME

We decided on a two-stage scheme for selecting nonparticipant controls. For study personnel on ships, we began first by selecting a matching control ship for each participant ship. We then obtained the two quarterly rosters closest to, and bracketing, the dates of the corresponding test. Using these two quarterly rosters, we compiled a roster of all Navy personnel on the control ship who became part of the referent population for the study. In contrast to the process for identifying participants, we did not obtain and key information from the daily personnel diaries for the control ships. Although up to five Army light tugs, manned by Navy personnel, participated in several Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense) tests, their complete personnel rosters were never found by the Department of Defense (DoD) or by us. Because there were relatively few Navy participants on these light tugs and because we had more than sufficient controls selected from other ships in the same tests, we did not select specific control ships for the Army light tugs.

Because we did not sample individuals from the control ships but instead took all persons on a selected ship (i.e., a census), our selection of controls is not strictly speaking a cluster sample. There is, nonetheless, an unmeasured component of variability associated with the sampling of ships. To properly estimate this component of variability would have required a much larger sample of ships than we had.

The process for Marine control units was similar in that each Marine participant unit was matched with a control unit. Finally, because there were so few identified Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard participants and controls (N = 160), we omitted them from most of the analyses.

DETAILED INFORMATION

Stage 1:
Selecting Ships

DoD personnel provided us a list of potential control ships for each participant ship and test, choosing potential control ships of the same type and class. We then developed formal control ship selection criteria that were sent to our expert advisory panel and to members of the Vietnam Veterans of America’s (VVA’s) Project SHAD Task Force for comment. The final control ship selection criteria are shown in Table 6-1. In general terms, we selected control ships to be the same type and class as the corresponding participant ship. We further selected control ships

Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×

TABLE 6-1 The Process of Selecting Control Ships

Step

Procedure

Review the DoD control ships list.

Verify similarity of ship type (the control ship should be of the same type and class as the test ship, or a similar type and class).

Determine size of the complement (the complement of the control ship should be at least as large as that of the test ship, or larger).

Determine operating area (the control ship should have operated in the same ocean area as the test ship [in most cases, the Pacific Ocean]).

Determine operational status (the control ship should have been in an operational status during the test period, meaning it should not have been in an extended overhaul or dry dock status).

Determine home port (the control ship should have had the same home port).

Designate potential control ships.

Remove from consideration ships that do not meet all the criteria (except for home port).a

Rank candidates.

Assign a rank to each potential control ship depending on the similarity of control ship to participant ship (ties are allowed).

Select the control ship.b

Take the control ship with the highest rank; if there are ties, select randomly.

aDeviations from these criteria were avoided when possible, but could be necessitated by factors that prevailed at the time of the tests; e.g., there may have been no similar type ship in the DoD list of potential control ships, all DoD-listed potential control ships may have been in a nonoperational status during the exact period of a test, or the potential control ships may not have had the same home port as the test ship.

bA test ship that served in multiple tests may have more than one control ship selected because of changes in a potential control ship’s fulfillment of one or more of the above criteria; e.g., it may have been operational during the period of one test, but in dry dock during another test.

with a complement, operating area, and home port similar to that of a Project SHAD vessel. When there were multiple possible control ships, we ranked them in order of desirability and selected the closest match. To assist in characterizing potential control ships, we hired Jim Quinn, Commander, USN retired, as a consultant. For the few Marine units, we selected a similar unit in operation at the same time. In general, we tried to select the identical unit in a parallel battalion or division. The final list of control units is shown in Table 6-2.

Stage 2:
Selecting Individual Subjects

Once a control ship had been selected, we used a similar process as was used for participant ships; that is, we obtained the quarterly BuPers reports for the corresponding time periods. However, we did not make use of personnel diaries. We keyed the entries from unit records and produced a list of control subjects, identified by name, military service number, and rate or job title (for officers). The process for Marine control units was similar to that for Marine participants, except that, again, we did not use personnel diaries. In some cases, we selected Marine nonparticipants from the same unit as the participants. We do not think that omitting potential controls who would have been identified solely from personnel diaries is a substantial omission; only 5 percent of Navy participants were identified solely from personnel diaries.

In preparing a participant roster for their own purposes, the DoD supplemented the unit record information on participants with other data from other sources, for example, Social Security numbers (SSNs) from individual personnel records, addresses from other sources, and so on. Because the DoD did not assemble a control roster, we had to begin ab initio from unit records to assemble the control roster for our study, and our controls never had initial identifying information beyond name, service number, and rate. Although we undertook a similar process as the DoD, we began our identification of controls later, and thus our control subjects were typically less well identified than participants and harder to trace, locate, and contact.

Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×

TABLE 6-2 List of Participant and Control Units Showing Selected Characteristics

Participant Unit

Control Units

Test Name and Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

Autumn Gold

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Radar picket ship

Picket Station 1 (Canada), Treasure Island, Portland

  1. USS Navarro (APA-215)

Attack transport

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Talladega (APA-208)

Attack transport

Long Beach

  1. USS Tioga County (LST-1158)

Tank landing ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Vernon County (LST-1161)

Tank landing ship

Japan, Philippines

  1. USS Carpenter (DD-825)

Destroyer

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS John R. Craig (DD-885)

Destroyer

San Diego

  1. USS Hoel (DDG-13)

Guided missile destroyer

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Towers (DDG-9)

Guided missile destroyer

San Diego

VMA 214, Marine Air Group 13

VMA 332, Marine Air Group 14

Big Tom

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Oxford (AGTR-1)

Auxiliary ship

Subic Bay, Philippines

  1. USS Carbonero (SS-337)

Submarine

  1. USS Raton (SS-270)

Submarine

San Clemente, San Diego

Copper Head

  1. USS Power (DD-839)

Destroyer

  1. USS Gyatt (DD-712)

Destroyer

Norfolk, Portsmouth

DTC Test 69-10

  1. USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30)

Dock landing ship

  1. USS Spiegel Grove (LSD-32)

Dock landing ship

Little Creek, VA; Onslow Beach, SC; Morehead City, NC; Vieques

Landing Force Carib 1-69/BLT 1/8

1st Battalion, 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Division

VMA 324, MAG-32

VMA 324, MAG-32

DTC Test 69-31

  1. USS Herbert J. Thomas (DD-833)

Destroyer

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Agerholm (DD-826)

Destroyer

San Diego

DTC Test 69-32

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Jamestown (AGTR-3)

Auxiliary ship

South China Sea, Thailand, Vietnam, Subic Bay, Special Operations

Eager Belle I

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor and maneuvers

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Radar picket ship

Picket Station 1, Picket Station 9, San Francisco

Eager Belle II

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Radar picket ship

San Francisco Picket Stations 1, 3, 9

Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×

Participant Unit

Control Units

Test Name and Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

  1. USS Tioga County (LST-1185)

Tank landing ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Vernon County (LST-1161)

Tank landing ship

Yokosuka, Kobe, Taiwan, Po Hong Do, Okinawa

  1. USS Carpenter (DD-825)

Destroyer

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Agerholm (DD-826)

Destroyer

Subic Bay, Hong Kong, Manila, Yokosuka, Okinawa

USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

USS Interdictor (AGR-13)

Radar picket ship

USS Navarro (APA-215)

Attack transport

USS Noble (APA-218)

Attack transport

Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 161

Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 161

Errand Boy

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Radar picket ship

San Francisco, Picket Station 7

Fearless Johnny

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

  1. USS Oxford (AGTR-1)

Auxiliary ship

Hong Kong, Subic Bay

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Georgetown (AGTR-2)

Auxiliary ship

Hong Kong, Subic Bay

Flower Drum I

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Radar picket ship

San Francisco, San Diego, Radar Picket Stations 1, 5, 7

USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

USS Interdictor (AGR-13)

Radar picket ship

Folded Arrow

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary Ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Oxford (AGTR-1)

Auxiliary ship

Subic Bay, South China Sea

  1. USS Carbonero (SS-337)

Submarine

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Tunny (SS-282)

Submarine

Subic Bay, Special Ops

Half Note

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary Ship

  1. USS Oxford (AGTR-1)

Auxiliary ship

Taiwan, Hong Kong, Special Operations

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary Ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Jamestown (AGTR-3)

Auxiliary ship

Malaysia, Taiwan, Special Operations

  1. USS Carbonero (SS-337)

Submarine

  1. USS Tunny (SS-282)

Submarine

Pearl Harbor, Subic Bay

  1. Light tug 2085

  1. None selected

Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×

Participant Unit

Control Units

Test Name and Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

Unit Name

Ship Type

Operating Area

High Low

 

 

 

 

  1. USS Berkeley (DDG-15)

Destroyer

 

  1. USS Lynde McCormick (DDG-8)

Destroyer

Hong Kong, Yokosuka, San Diego

  1. USS Fechteler (DD-870/DDR-870)

Destroyer

  1. USS John R. Craig (DD-885)

Destroyer

San Diego

  1. USS Okanogan (APA-220)

Attack transport

  1. USS Montrose (APA-212)

Attack transport

San Diego, Pearl Harbor, San Clemente

  1. USS Wexford County (LST-1168)

Tank landing ship

  1. USS Washoe County (LST-1165)

Tank landing ship

Numazu, Yokosuka, Okinawa

Magic Sword

  1. USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Auxiliary ship

Durban, Subic Bay

Purple Sage

 

 

 

 

  1. USS Herbert J. Thomas (DD-833)

Destroyer

 

  1. USS Agerholm (DD-826)

Destroyer

San Diego

Scarlet Sage

 

 

 

 

  1. USS Herbert J. Thomas (DD-833)

Destroyer

 

  1. USS Agerholm (DD-826)

Destroyer

San Diego, Long Beach

Shady Grove

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Interceptor (AGR-8)

Auxiliary ship

Bremerton, Wash; Panama Canal Zone; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Portsmouth, VA

  1. VMA 214, MAG13

  1. VMA214, MAG 13

  1. MWSG 13, Marine Air Group 13*

  1. MWSG, MAG 13

  1. MABS 13, Marine Air Group 13*

  1. MABS 13, MAG 13

  1. HMM 161, Marine Air Group 13

  1. HMM 161, MAG 13

  1. Light tugs 2080, 2081, 2085, 2086, 2087

  1. None selected

Speckled Start

  1. USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Auxiliary ship

Pearl Harbor

  1. USS Oxford (ATGR-1)

Auxiliary ship

Subic Bay, South China Sea

*Original participant files contained personnel in these units who were subsequently removed from the study.

Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"6 Referent Cohort." Institute of Medicine. 2007. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11900.
×
Page 23
Next: 7 Health Survey »
Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense) Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

More than 5,800 military personnel, mostly Navy personnel and Marines, participated in a series of tests of U.S. warship vulnerability to biological and chemical warfare agents, Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense), in the period 1962-1973. Only some of the involved military personnel were aware of these tests at the time. Many of these tests used simulants, substances with the physical properties of a chemical or biological warfare agent, thought at the time to have been harmless. The existence of these tests did not come to light until many decades later.

In September 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) agreed to undertake a scientific study, funded by the Veterans' Affairs, of potential long-term health effects of participation in Project SHAD. In general, there was no difference in all-cause mortality between Project SHAD participants and nonparticipant controls, although participants statistically had a significantly higher risk of death due to heart disease, had higher levels of neurodegenerative medical conditions and higher rates of symptoms with no medical basis.

Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD focuses on the potential health effects of participation in Project SHAD. It is a useful resource for government defense agencies, scientists and health professionals.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!