RRS#6

News | Focus All EHP content is accessible to individuals with disabilities. A fully accessible (Section 508–compliant) HTML version of this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.122-A44.

THE LEGACY OF URANIUM ON THE NAVAJO NATION

O N C E U P O N A M I N E

Waste outside an abandoned uranium mine on the Navajo Nation, Cameron, Arizona. © Joshua Lott

Focus | Once Upon a Mine

Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 122 | number 2 | February 2014 A 45

On a low, windswept rise at the southeastern edge of the Navajo Nation, Jackie Bell-Jefferson prepares to move her family from their home for a temporary stay that could last up to seven years. A mound of uranium- laden waste the size of several football fields, covered with a thin veneer of gravel, dominates

the view from her front door. After many years of living next to the contamination and a

litany of health problems she believes it caused, Bell-Jefferson and several other local families

will have to vacate their homes for a third round of cleanup efforts by the U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency (EPA).

Decades of uranium mining have dotted the landscape across the Navajo Nation with piles

of contaminated mine waste. The EPA has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the

reservation, ranging from small holes dug by a single prospector into the side of a mesa to large

commercial mining operations.1 The Navajo people did not have a word for “radioactivity”

when mining outfits looking for vanadium2 and uranium3 began moving onto their land in

the 1940s, and they did not understand that radiation could be dangerous. They were not told

that the men who worked in the mines were breathing carcinogenic radon gas and showering

in radioactive water, nor that the women washing their husbands’ work clothes could spread

radionuclides to the rest of the family’s laundry.

Focus | Once Upon a Mine

Bell-Jefferson and her brother Peterson Bell played in and around the mines, splash- ing and swimming in pools of radioactive water that had been pumped out of the mines and then collected on their property. The con- taminated water looked and tasted perfectly clean. Families used it for cooking, drinking, and cleaning. Hogans and corrals were built with mine wastes, as were roads.

All that changed on 16 July 1979. Just about a mile and a half from Bell-Jefferson’s home, a dam broke at the United Nuclear Corporation mill, where workers processed ore from the nearby Northeast Church Rock uranium mine. The spill dumped 94 mil- lion gallons of mill process eff luent and 1,100 tons of tailings—an acidic, radioactive sludge—into a large arroyo that emptied into the Puerco River.4

The Church Rock spill occurred less than four months after the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, and it released three times as much radiation, mak- ing it the biggest nuclear spill in U.S. his- tory, yet it received only a tiny fraction of the news coverage.5 Declared a Superfund site in 1983, the heaps of waste around the mill still cause radiation survey instruments to squeal from the invisible uranium atoms that remain active 30 years later.6

“This area used to be my playground,” Bell-Jefferson says. “Now it’s just a huge wound.”

For the Bells and other Diné (the term by which many Navajo people refer to them- selves), the Church Rock spill was a turn- ing point. When corporate and government officials appeared in the spill’s aftermath and began inquiring into exposure to the slurry and potential health problems, the Navajo people finally learned the truth—far from being harmless, these uranium mines were poisoning people, and researchers say they will continue to do so for decades to come.

Canaries in the Uranium Mines The arrival of prospectors signified the Navajo Nation’s entrance into the modern wage economy.7 Some welcomed the poten- tial income. In 1995 former uranium miner George Tutt recollected, “We were blessed, we thought. Railroad jobs were available only far off like Denver. … But for min- ing, one can just walk to it in the canyon. We thought we were very fortunate, but we were not told, ‘Later on this will affect you in this way.’”7

Yet researchers had noted as early as 1879 that uranium miners in Europe showed sig- nificantly elevated levels of lung cancer.8 By the 1930s, they suspected radiation as the culprit.9 As early as 1951, government scien- tists had begun to work out what made ura- nium so deadly. The answer, as it turned out,

A 46 volume 122 | number 2 | February 2014 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Top: Miners prospecting uranium minerals in New Mexico, 1950. Bottom:

A Navajo miner hauls ore in a mine. Studies of white and Navajo uranium

miners starting in 1950 provided definitive evidence that radiation was

responsible for the lung cancers seen in these workers.

Top: © Peter Stackpole/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images Bottom: © Loomis Dean/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

Focus | Once Upon a Mine

Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 122 | number 2 | February 2014 A 47

wasn’t uranium itself but its decay products, including radium,10 thorium,11 and radon.12

Radon is a gas, but with a half-life of four days, it rapidly decays into solid products, explains Doug Brugge, a professor of public health at Tufts University.13 “Being solids, these are going to want to stick to things like your lungs,” Brugge says. “Both radon and its daughter products emit alpha particles, and this is a very effective way to cause dam- age that can lead to cancer.”

In just over a decade, Navajo miners were being diagnosed with lung cancer,14 a rela- tively rare disease in this largely nonsmoking population.15 Beginning in 1950, workers with the U.S. Public Health Service led by Duncan Holaday and Victor Archer began following uranium miners in the South- west, both Navajo and white, to measure their exposures and assess their specific can- cer risks. To get access to the workers, the researchers had to strike a Faustian bargain with the mining companies: They could not inform the miners of the potential health hazards of their work.2 Seeing it as the only way to convince government regulators to improve safety in the mines, the researchers accepted.16 By 1965, t he inve st ig ators reported an association between cumulative exposure to uranium and lung cancer among

white miners and had definitively identified the cause as radiation exposure.17

In 1984 another team published results of a case–control study that further implicat- ed uranium mining as a cause of lung cancer in Navajo men. The team analyzed 96 con- firmed cancer cases from the New Mexico Tumor Registry, 32 lung cancer cases and 64 cases of other cancers. Of the 32 Nava- jo men who developed lung cancer, 72% had worked as uranium miners, compared with none of the controls. Furthermore, the median age of miners with lung cancer was 44 years, compared with 63 years for non- miners with other cancers.18 Decades after their exposure ended, standardized mortality ratios and relative risks for lung cancer and other respiratory problems were still nearly four times higher in Navajo miners than in nonminers.19

Community Exposure to Uranium Getting the ore out of the ground was only the first step in a long process. Miners then transported the ore to a mill, where it was crushed and soaked in sulfuric acid to extract the uranium.20 More chemicals were added to precipitate out the uranium, leaving behind a radioactive slurry. This

slurry was frequently stored in large, unlined ponds, says Chris Shuey, an environ mental health specialist with the Southwest Research and Information Cen- ter in Albuquerque, who has spent the last three decades working with Navajo commu- nities affected by uranium min- ing and milling.

Mining in t he a rea had mostly ceased by the mid-1960s. Today, after decades of inactivity, the uranium from these ponds, waste and tailings piles, and the mines themselves is still pres- ent in highly chemically soluble forms6,21 that have been leach- ing into the area’s drinking water, according to water testing by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.22

In a small, one-story adobe building tucked into the far edge of the University of New Mexico campus, Johnnye Lewis, a pro- fessor of toxicology, has spent more than a decade studying mining-related health effects in the Navajo people. In 2000 she received an environmental justice grant from the National Insti- tute of Environmental Health Sciences to collect clinical and

survey data from people living on the Eastern Navajo Nation. The DiNEH (Diné Network for Environmental Health) Project was origi- nally started to address community concerns about the high rate of kidney disease in this population, which some community leaders and health professionals suspected was related to drinking contaminated water.

Lewis and colleagues surveyed 1,304 resi- dents, obtaining basic demographic informa- tion, mapping the locations of their homes, and taking samples from the wells where they obtained their drinking water. Of these, 267 provided blood and urine samples so the researchers could look for markers of bio- logical damage.23 The average age of study partici pants was 51.5 years.

The data the team amassed over the last 13 years suggests that health problems from these mines in fact aren’t limited to the miners who worked in them but also extend to those exposed through drinking water or simply living near a mine. “We’re still ana- lyzing data—it generated just an enormous amount of data,” Lewis says. “But what we will end up with is that we now will be able to study three successive generations of Navajos that have been exposed.”

A lt hough t he literature on chronic low-level uranium exposure is still quite

Uranium mining occurred in six major areas of the Navajo Nation, now designated

as AUM (abandoned uranium mine) Regions. This map indicates the 521 sites

mapped by the EPA, but there are estimated to be hundreds more.13 The Church

Rock spill occurred near the “keyhole” of the Eastern AUM Region.

U.S. EPA

Focus | Once Upon a Mine

A 48 volume 122 | number 2 | February 2014 • Environmental Health Perspectives

small, by 2003 researchers knew that the dangers these exposures posed were due not to uranium’s radioactivity but to its chemi- cal toxicity.24 Both animal25 and human26 studies have found uranium to be primarily toxic to the kidneys. One such study, led by Maria Limson-Zamora, head of Health Canada’s Bioassay Section, compared bio- markers of kidney function in the urine of Canadians chronically exposed to high (2 –780 µg/L) or low (0.02 µg/L) levels of uranium in their drinking water. The investigators found signs of kidney damage that increased with higher daily intake of uranium in the drinking water.27

Uranium appears to exert its chemical effects on the kidney’s proximal tubules.28 Arse- nic and cadmium—which, along with other potentially hazardous metals, are sometimes found in uranium tailings29—create similar sig- natures of metal damage in the kidneys.30

Lewis’s early data from the DiNEH Proj- ect suggest that self-reported kidney disease, hypertension, and autoimmune diseases were more prevalent among people who lived closer to mine waste sites.31 Her colleague at the Uni- versity of New Mexico, immunologist Ester Erdei, believes the increase in hypertension and autoimmune diseases might be connected to consumption of contaminated water.

A growing body of evidence links hyper- tension,32 heart disease,33 and autoimmune diseases34 to markers of inflammation such as C-reactive protein and assorted chemokines.35 Erdei hypothesizes that uranium exposure might contribute to these diseases through effects on inflammation. She recently present- ed findings showing an association between increased levels of activated T cells in DiNEH Project participants and greater residential proximity to mine waste sites.36

“If we see any of these activated T cells, we know that the immune system is highly reacting to something,” Erdei says. “We didn’t know what it is. This is the next step

A backhoe dumps radium-contaminated soils into a truck during the first of three rounds of interim cleanup

in the Red Water Pond Road Community in May 2007. The waste came from the nearby Northeast Church Rock

Mine, the largest abandoned uranium mine on the Navajo Nation. The gray hill in the background is a waste

dump for another nearby abandoned uranium mine. Environmental health specialist Chris Shuey says the hill

has been graded and contoured several times in unsuccessful attempts to prevent runoff.

© Chris Shuey/Southwest Research and Information Center

Focus | Once Upon a Mine

Environmental Health Perspectives • volume 122 | number 2 | February 2014 A 49

to find out how it’s really happening on the molecular level.”

Uranium’s Toxic Legacy Human and animal studies elsewhere have indicated the health legacy of urani- um exposure may extend to the children of exposed parents. A study of 266 cases and matched controls among Navajo births over 18 years suggested that children of women who lived near abandoned uranium sites were 1.83 times more likely to have 1 of 33 selected defects. Among these were defects thought to be connected to radiation exposure (e.g., chromosomal disorders, single gene mutations) as well as distinctly non- related defects (e.g., deaths due to obstetrical complications). On the other hand, these outcomes also were twice as common among children whose mothers worked at an elec- tronics assembly plant as in other children.37

Animal studies suggest potential reproduc- tive implications of exposure. A study in rats exposed to uranium found the offspring had a higher body burden of uranium than the dams. These offspring also had higher rates of physiological changes, including atypical sperm formation.38 And a mouse study produced evi- dence that uranium in drinking water caused estrogenic activity even at levels below the EPA safe drinking water level of 30 µg/L.39

To look more closely at the effects of uranium exposure on human reproduction and development, Lewis has recently begun recruiting up to 1,500 pregnant women to participate in the Navajo Birth Cohort Study.40 Besides tracking birth outcomes and infant development, pharmacologist Laurie Hudson of the University of New Mexico is looking at molecular changes that may be induced by exposure to uranium waste.

Arsenic is chemically very similar to zinc and can replace zinc in proteins that are important in DNA repair.41 “Arsenic goes in and kicks zinc out, but the arsenic doesn’t replace the function of zinc. So the proteins become incapacitated,” Hudson says. This creates a hat trick of DNA damage: Uranium’s radioactive42 and chemical43 properties both can harm DNA, and the presence of arsenic may prevent cells from repairing the damage.

Animal and cell culture studies have sug- gested a potential solution: zinc supplemen- tation.44 Hudson and Lewis want to see if zinc supplementation may prevent arsenic from damaging DNA repair enzymes in women enrolled in the Navajo Birth Cohort Study, and they have identified an easy way to do this. Prenatal vitamins, which contain zinc, are generally obtained via a prescrip- tion through the Indian Health Service. Researchers can determine which women are taking their vitamins by who refills their

prescription. Women who don’t take vita- mins will serve as the control group. The investigators will have information on the women’s environ mental exposures and their body burden of metals, so they can start to zero in on how arsenic and uranium expo- sures affect protein function and whether zinc supplementation provides any protection.

The findings will provide a concrete way for the researchers to give back to the com- munity. “We’ve pretty much been clear from the beginning that if we see something that’s wrong, we’re not going to let it stick around just to preserve the data,” Lewis says. “We’re going to make sure people know their risks and can take action.” Carrie Arnold is a freelance science writer living in Virginia. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Discover, New Scien- tist, Smithsonian, and more.  REFERENCES 1. EPA. Addressing Uranium Contamination on the Navajo Nation

[website]. San Francisco, CA:Pacific Southwest Superfund Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (updated 26 September 2013). Available: http://goo.gl/YiX5XI [accessed 15 January 2014].

2. Pasternak J. Yellow Dirt: A Poisoned Land and the Betrayal of the Navajos. New York, NY:Free Press (2011).

3. Zoellner T. Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World. New York, NY:Penguin Books (2010).

4. Millard J, et al. The Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill: A Health and Environmental Assessment. Summary Report. Santa Fe, NM:Environmental Improvement Division, New Mexico Health and Environment Department (September 1983). Available: http:// goo.gl/G8DoWa [accessed 15 January 2014].

5. Brugge D, et al. The Sequoyah Corporation fuels release and the Church Rock Spill: unpublicized nuclear releases in American Indian communities. Am J Public Health 97(9):1595–1600 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.103044.

6. deLemos JL, et al. Development of risk maps to minimize uranium exposures in the Navajo Churchrock mining district. Environ Health 8:29 (2009); http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/29.

7. Brugge D, et al., eds. The Navajo People and Uranium Mining. Albuquerque, New Mexico:University of New Mexico Press (2007).

8. Axelson O. Cancer risks from exposure to radon in homes. Environ Health Perspect 103(suppl 2):37–43 (1995); http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/7614945.

9. Peller S. Lung cancer among mine workers in Joachimsthal. Hum Biol 11(1):130–143 (1939).

10. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Radium, Radon, and Uranium: Health Information Summary [fact sheet]. Concord, NH:New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire (2007). Available: http://goo. gl/4XqunZ [accessed 15 January 2014].

11. Pinkerton LE, et al. Mortality among a cohort of uranium mill workers: an update. Occup Environ Med 61(1):57–64 (2004); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14691274.

12. Bale WF. Memorandum to the files, March 14, 1951: hazards associated with radon and thoron. Health Phys 38(6):1062–1066 (1980); http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004032-198006000-00014.

13. Brugge D, Goble R. The history of uranium mining and the Navajo People. Am J Public Health 92(9):1410–1419 (2002); http://dx.doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.92.9.1410.

14. Archer VE, et al. Hazards to health in uranium mining and milling. J Occup Med 4(2):55–60 (1962); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/13862081.

15. Sievers ML. Cigarette and alcohol usage by southwestern American Indians. Am J Public Health 58(1):71–82 (1968); http:// dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.58.1.71.

16. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Final Report: Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office (October 1995). Available: https://archive.org/details/advisorycommitte00unit [accessed 15 January 2014].

17. Wagoner JK, et al. Radiation as the cause of lung cancer among uranium miners. New Engl J Med 273(4):181–188 (1965); http:// dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196507222730402.

18. Samet JM, et al. Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men. New Engl J Med 310(23):1481–1484 (1984); http://dx.doi. org/10.1056/NEJM198406073102301.

19. Roscoe RJ, et al. Mortality among Navajo uranium miners. Am J Public Health 85(4):535–540 (1995); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/7702118/.

20. NRC. Conventional Uranium Mills [website]. Washington, DC:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (updated 24 May 2013). Available: http://goo.gl/G9mDpr [accessed 15 January 2014].

21. deLemos JL, et al. Rapid dissolution of soluble uranyl phases in arid, mine-impacted catchments near Church Rock, NM. Environ Sci Technol 42(11):3951–3957 (2008); http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ es071738k.

22. EPA. Abandoned Uranium Mines and the Navajo Nation: Navajo Nation AUM Screening Assessment Report and Atlas with Geospatial Data. San Francisco, CA:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (August 2007). Available: http://1.usa. gov/17qJCzj [accessed 15 January 2014].

23. Diné Network for Environmental Health (DiNEH) Project. Update on Blood and Urine Testing. Albuquerque, NM:DiNEH Project (revised September 2011). Available: http://goo.gl/wC51JL [accessed 15 January 2014].

24. Brugge D, Buchner V. Health effects of uranium: new research findings. Rev Environ Health 26(4):231–249 (2011); http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/REVEH.2011.032.

25. National Research Council. Review of the Toxicologic and Radiologic Risks to Military Personnel from Exposures to Depleted Uranium During and After Combat. Washington, DC:National Academies Press (2008). Available: http://www. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=R1 [accessed 15 January 2014].

26. Limson Zamora ML, et al. Uranium in drinking water: renal effects of long-term ingestion by an aboriginal community. Arch Environ Occup Health 64(4):228–241 (2009); http://dx.doi.10.1080/193382 40903241267.

27. Limson Zamora M, et al. Chronic ingestion of uranium in drinking water: a study of kidney bioeffects in humans. Toxicol Sci 43(1):68–77 (1998); http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/toxs.1998.2426.

28. Canu IG, et al. Health effects of naturally radioactive water ingestion: the need for enhanced studies. Environ Health Perspect 119(12):1676–1680 (2011); http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003224.

29. Abdelouas A. Uranium mill tailings: geochemistry, mineralogy, and environmental impact. Elements 2(6):335–341 (2006); http:// dx.doi.org/10.2113/gselements.2.6.335.

30. Huang M, et al. Risk assessment of low-level cadmium and arsenic on the kidney. J Toxicol Environ Health A 72(21–22):1493–1498 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287390903213095.

31. Stark G, Lewis J. DiNEH–Modeling of Survey Results to Predict Medical Outcomes [presentation]. Presented at: Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board Conference, Window Rock, AZ, 16 November 2011. Available: http://goo.gl/XFS9lF [accessed 15 January 2014].

32. Savoia C, Schiffrin EL. Inflammation in hypertension. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 15(2):152–158 (2006); http://dx.doi. org/10.1097/01.mnh.0000203189.57513.76.

33. Pearson TA, et al. Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Application to clinical and public health practice: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association. Circulation 107(3):499–511 (2003); http://dx.doi. org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000052939.59093.45.

34. Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 111(12):1805–1812 (2003); http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/ JCI18921.

35. Stefanadi E, et al. Inflammatory markers in essential hypertension: potential clinical implications. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 8(4):509–516 (2010); http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157016110791330870.

36. Erdei E, et al. Immune System Responses Related to Environmental Uranium Exposures? DiNEH Project Results [abstract]. Presented at: Environment and Health–Bridging South, North, East and West. Basel, Switzerland, 19–23 August 2013. Research Triangle Park, NC:Environmental Health Perspectives, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2013). Available: http://ehp.niehs. nih.gov/ehbasel13/p-2-29-07/ [accessed 15 January 2014].

37. Shields LM, et al. Navajo birth outcomes in the Shiprock uranium mining area. Health Phys 63(5):542–551 (1992); http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1399640.

38. Hao Y, et al. A study assessing the genotoxicity in rats after chronic oral exposure to a low dose of depleted uranium. J Radiat Res 50(6):521–528 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1269/jrr.09052.

39. Raymond-Whish S, et al. Drinking water with uranium below the U.S. EPA water standard causes estrogen receptor–dependent responses in female mice. Environ Health Perspect 115(12):1711– 1716 (2007); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2137136/.

40. UNM. Navajo Birth Cohort Study (NBCS) [website]. Albuquerque, NM:Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico (July 2011). Available: http://hsc.unm.edu/pharmacy/healthyvoices/NBCS/ NBCS_Abstract.html [accessed 15 January 2014].

41. Zhou X, et al. Arsenite interacts selectively with zinc finger proteins containing C3H1 or C4 motifs. J Biol Chem 286(26):22855–22863 (2011); http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc. M111.232926.

42. Jackson SP, Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 461(7267):1071–1078 (2009); http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nature08467.

43. Stearns DM, et al. Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium–DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells. Mutagenesis 20(6):417–423 (2005); http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mutage/gei056.

44. Cooper KL, et al. Reduction of arsenite-enhanced ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage by supplemental zinc. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 269(2):81–88 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. taap.2013.03.008.