Re: Check out U.S. Acknowledges Radiation Caused Cancers in Workers

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Hello RADSAFERs:
1.  Please note new address in the signature block.  I am changing jobs and
beginning at the end of February will try to get all email except internal
Sandia email at this new address (my home).  The change will be complete
April 1 (no, it's not an April Fool!)

2.  Re the "draft report" on worker exposure.  I am as mystified as anyone,
and I kind of think this is mostly about money.  When I started doing
laboratory chemistry in my father's lab in 1950, and for many years
afterward, we did things that are prohibited today.  They are certainly
things that if done in a production mode MIGHT cause some chronic health
effect (e.g., we pipetted almost everything by mouth; I used gallons of
benzene and butanol for extractions, without a hood, etc.).  This was long
before OSHA and many practices, though deplorable, were common.  I am sure
that if there were a wave of demands for reparations, every heavy industry
in America would be considered culpable -- not just DOE and not just the
nuclear industry.

I suggest that we ALL write to our members of Congress that before any
compensation is made, a clear, unequivocal causality be shown between the
disease or health effect and the exposure.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
7336 Lew Wallace NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-856-5011
fax 505-856-5564
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 29, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Check out U.S. Acknowledges Radiation Caused Cancers in Workers


>Hi Mort, Group,
>
>Mrtgoldman@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Without more information on the "draft report" cited here, I find this
>> difficult to swallow whole..  it smells more of politics than science..
>>
>> Mort Goldman
>> Retired Troublemaker
>>
>>  <A
HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/nuclear-cancer.html";>
>> Click here: U.S. Acknowledges Radiation Caused Cancers in Workers</A>
>
>Group,
>
>Who knows anything about this "study"? Funny thing: Our reviews of the
nuclear
>worker studies didn't find this result!!
>
>There's no author or other responsibility identified that did this "most
>comprehensive review," and no identification of "researchers," just
>politicians, starting with Clinton and Richardson. Were the "researchers"
just
>Richardson's staff?, lawyers?, just doing what they are told? No
culpability
>for manipulating data for those people. Or nat'l lab people given a few $$
to
>do "research." Any integrity in that?
>
>If they found previous scientific failures, they aren't indicated here.
Does
>the report identify people to be investigated?
>
>Is this real?  Or junk science, or just more junk leaders?
>
>The writer buys the whole thing without a qualm that this is refuting
>everything done for 50 years that show no adverse health effects to nuclear
>workers. (With a few small studies that are contrary, and IARC, that have
been
>shown to be the result of misrepresenting the data.
>
>There are no commenters except "worker compensation interests." The writer
>couldn't find one of those (criminals) responsible for previous studies and
>who defended the AEC/DOE in lawsuits from workers to comment?
>
>Junk media?
>
>The gov't willingness to screw the public to pay local/political interests
is
>increasingly unbounded. Are the labs speaking? will speak? or being
paid-off
>to keep silent? Will we ever hear anything from them? Like Brookhaven: paid
>off to bleed the public for $$ to cleanup nothing, sacrificing all science,
>and scientific integrity.
>
>What about ANS? does this relate to ANS leaders misrepresenting the data?
>
>And NEI? Will they speak up? ever? They should need to respond. This DOE
>"position" opens the door for all nuclear workers (~30% will get cancer,
and
>~20% will die from it - less than the general population - at older ages)
to
>credibly sue for compensation!! Or like the UK, the industry will agree
with
>the unions, etc., to "save money" by just compensating without lawsuits,
but
>locking another cost that makes nuclear 'uneconomic'.
>
>And we blame the anti's for trashing nuclear?  They don't hold a candle!
>They're just DOE's coat holders - on the payroll, funded at cleanup sites
to
>maintain public 'concern.'
>
>Thanks.
>
>Regards, Jim
>============
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html