Re[4]: Radiation Records Being Investigated

[steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)]

     If what you say below is true about chemical hazards and not 
     radiological, and I personally have no reason to doubt your 
     assertions, then why on earth would the criteria for "proving" damage 
     be that you had a TLD? It's an obvious assumption, or at least should 
     be, that if the compensation criteria is having been monitored for 
     _radiation_, then the damage mechanism must have been radiation. If 
     the damage could have been due to chemical hazards, then why not link 
     compensation to some form of chemical monitoring or post-exposure 
     assessment of chemical exposure?
     
     I guess that since I've been monitored for radiation at several DOE 
     sites, if I get ill I should be compensated. Never mind the fact that 
     most of the monitoring returned results of zero exposure. Another case 
     of our tax dollars at work...... From now on, maybe I'll specifically 
     request a TLD when I go to any DOE site for short term consulting 
     work. :-)
     
     Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
     Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
     MACTEC-ERS, LLC
     steve.rima@doegjpo.com
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Radiation Records Being Investigated
Author:  Magnu96196@aol.com at Internet
Date:    3/24/00 4:42 PM


In a message dated 3/24/00 5:04:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:
     
<< Vincent, thanks for posting the specific criteria as contained within 
 the original Bill proposed. As you stated, one only need to have worn 
 a dosimeter, received no measurable exposure, or, exposure within the 
 regulatory limits, and still claim compensation for an illness where 
 no corroboration is required. What a system. >>
==========
     
Hello RadSafers,
     
 Let me toss out one more criteria.   It appears the only criteria needed is 
having worked at a DOE gas diffusion plant.    Why?    Well, one must think 
beyond just radiation having caused these illnesses.     Many process workers 
were exposed to UF-6 releases, where most tend to think internalized uranium 
might be a problem, with radiation and the metal's toxicity.   But don't jump 
into radiation effects too fast, when the bigger issue might be chemical 
oxidant effects, ie, the UF-6 decomposes to HF and even oxy-fluorides to a 
degree.   These are cumulative toxins, which act to a degree like a 
combination of internalized Sr-90 and I-131, because it attacks the bone and 
the thyroid.   
     
    Even the secretaries were exposed to HF blowing in the wind around these 
sites, and there is even extensive vegitation damage around some of these 
sites, suggesting the typical toxic effects of fluorides on the trees, 
particularly pine trees.
     
    So, even though the reporters tend to play up radiation and this list 
tends to think radiation;      at gas diffusion plants-------which are 
chemical processing plants----one should include the more extreme chemical 
oxidation effects----which can appear similar to rad damage health issues.
     
    In discussions of the gas diffusion workers, one must include toxic 
exposures beyond if there was a rad dosimeter packet.    
     
Jim Phelps, DOEWatch
************************************************************************ 
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