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

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

Good points, and there were other routine exposures to potentially toxic
materials.  When I was growing up in rural northern California, we routinely
used gasoline to clean bicycle and automobile parts, almost always with bare
hands.  Gasoline was also used to clean grease and oil from our skin.  Since
most driveways and many streets and roads were unpaved, used motor oil was
routinely used as a dust control agent.  I remember once I reached into a
bucket of carbourator cleaner in high school to retrieve a valve lifter.  My
hand temporarily wrinkled and turned yellow.  We also had fun playing with
liquid mercury whenever we could get our hands (literally) on some.  One of
the most coveted jobs in town was working in a service (gas) station, which
at that time involved a lot of time pumping gas for customers (no
self-service).  There was also no concern with dust from vermiculite, which
apparently has killed a lot of people in Libby, Montana (asbestos).  In the
late 1980's a gas station about 6 blocks from my house in Ohio used waste
motor oil in a space heater with a 15 foot high stack.

Don Kosloff mailto:dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St, Perry OH

----- Original Message -----
From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Check out U.S. Acknowledges Radiation Caused Cancers in Workers


> 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
>

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