Re: Uranium Workers Used in Experiments

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Kerembaev@cs.com wrote:

> Morally, it will be the right step to pay to those who was exposed to the
> levels definitely harmful by today's standards.

What levels (numerical values, please) are those that are "definitely harmful" to
all persons?  And what references do you have that demonstrate that fact?

> Second.
> If a political environment is for the restitutions it is better to pay off,
> that will eastablishe the industry as a responsible subject, may be for the
> first time in its history it will get a RESPONSIBLE image.

That's like giving in to hostage takers.  The pay off just cements in the
public's mind that radiation truly is harmful at low doses.

> Tobacco setllement not a direct but a given idea case.

The tobacco case is not relevant here.  The medical evidence for harm from
tobacco is overwhelming.  Not so for low doses of radiation (unless, of course,
it is the polonium that causes all the harmful effects from smoking; it would be
interesting to know for sure that it wasn't).

> Third.
> Even more to that, if I were a DOE, I would my self initiate the restitution
> process.

Well, it's not their money so why should they not do that?  If it were your
personal money, would you still do it?  In the US it is the taxpayers personal
money so, as a taxpayer, I am vitally concerned about how my government spends my
money.  In this case I am certain it is unjustified on a cause-effect basis.

> The auto industry recalls did help its image, today most of the consumers do
> not care about those safety recalls at all.

Yup, and the autos really did kill and harm people.  No question about it.  Not
so with low doses.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard