[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADSAFE digest 3076
Radsafers, In response to Sandy Perle comment "then why did so many continue to work there" the answer is
"National Security" DOE and it's predecessors hauled out the old national security and the implied threat of
clearance revocation.
That meant the loss of one position (income). Anyone working in these areas knows that the income levels non
DOE were very low. That is why people continued to work there. People are mostly like sheep. Most are
unwilling to stand up and be counted. It is just much easier to go with the flow. Especially when the threat
is extremely slow acting.
radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu wrote:
> RADSAFE Digest 3076
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Formal NVLAP statement on extended wear periods for film dosimetry
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 2) Re: FACTS ABOUT TENNESSEE ILLNESSES
> by EASlavin@aol.com
> 3) Cell phones interference
> by andrew_mcewan@nrl.moh.govt.nz
> 4) RE: Without Honor in Their Own Country
> by L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov
> 5) Hanford Man Misreads E-mail, Misunderstands All
> by EASlavin@aol.com
> 6) Re: FACTS ABOUT TENNESSEE ILLNESSES
> by Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
> 7) RE: Bill Miller - TN Illnesses
> by Cheryll Dyer <cherylldyer@yahoo.com>
> 8) RE: Bill Miller - TN Illnesses
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 9) Why Didn't They Speak Out Earlier?
> by EASlavin@aol.com
> 10) Why didn't they speak out earlier?
> by EASlavin@aol.com
> 11) Re: Why Didn't They Speak Out Earlier?
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 12) HPs Stayed and Worked Cyanide Issues, Instead of Quitting
> by EASlavin@aol.com
> 13) RE: Sandy Perle - TN Illnesses
> by Cheryll Dyer <cherylldyer@yahoo.com>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:35:06 -0700
> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Formal NVLAP statement on extended wear periods for film dosimetry
> Message-ID: <200004062310.QAA11323@www.icnpharm.com>
>
> I recently posted a question asking for information on which states
> categorically did not permit film to be worn for periods that exceed
> 1 month. Only NY City requires no more than a monthly wear period, by
> regulation. The state of IL doesn't permit, but not by regulation.
> Many state regulators wrote me privately stating that they permitted
> it, as long as NVLAP stated the appropriateness thorough assessment.
>
> I now have a formal statement from NVLAP regarding extended wear
> periods, not only for film but for TLDs as well, and will be happy to
> share it with anyone who writes to me "PRIVATELY". I would have
> posted the statement to Radsafe directly, but in light of recent
> dialogue on Radsafe, I will only send it to private e-mail addresses.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:03:57 EDT
> From: EASlavin@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT TENNESSEE ILLNESSES
> Message-ID: <b4.3ae2a9f.261e71dd@aol.com>
>
> Dear Susan:
>
> First, what "dogfight?" This is a civil discussion among professionals who
> respect each other. You must have us confused with the Oak Ridge City
> Council. Pretty much everyone who has commented (privately and publicly)
> agrees that the sick workers deserve better treatment. No one today defends
> Oak Ridge burghers' attack on sick workers, on this list or otherwise. Those
> days are over.
>
> Second, unfortunately, DOE funds the TDEC regulators, who are forbidden to
> use DOE funds for any permitting activities. It's like a wife-killer footing
> the bill for the policemen who are come to his home trying to get enough
> evidence to charge him with a crime. It's a blatant conflict of interest.
> $17 million (or whatever) a year is paid by DOE to Tennessee to regulate DOE?
> Has someone lost touch?
>
> Third, Earl Leming's a great guy, and was involved in the work on bringing
> DOE to ground on the mercury losses back in 1982-1983. I've been to his
> offices, and they held the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commitee meetings there. I
> don't see that much hard work going on. The Governor's stood up to DOE on
> the TSCA permit. I don't see the local DAs and County Attorneys suing. I
> don't see the Governor suing. Even though the DOE IG recommended shutting
> down the TSCA incinerator, there are those in Oak Ridge who still favor
> burning radioactive and toxic waste in the midst of a Superfund site, in the
> midst of ridge-and-valley topography, underneath the plume of the Bull Run
> and Kingston coal-fired powerplants, without knowing how air moves, without
> putting up the ten towers that NOAA sought.
>
> Again, DOE controls the money, DOE influences the outcome. Same old story.
>
> Ed Slavin
>
> In a message dated 04/06/2000 6:53:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, loc@icx.net
> writes:
>
> << I hate to jump into this dogfight, but I would like to point out that
> there is a very dedicated (though woefully underpaid) staff of state
> regulators who oversee DOE's EM activities in Oak Ridge and who monitor
> the environment both on and off the Oak Ridge Reservation. >>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:20:27 +1200
> From: andrew_mcewan@nrl.moh.govt.nz
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Cell phones interference
> Message-ID: <4C2568B9.0080332F.00@mail.moh.govt.nz>
>
> Peter
> You wrote
>
> Do you have any references on that? Our hospital rather uncritically decided
> to ban cell phones here. It seemed like somebody said they'd seen an
> article. It quickly became a case of "better safe than sorry!" But cell
> phones have become so common and there are so many signs that you see people
> frequently using them. There has been almost no effort, that I know of, to
> enforce the ban and of course no incidents or that would have generated a
> real effort.
> Anyway if you have any references to offer, I'd be interested in getting
> them.
>
> _______
>
> This is not an area I keep up on closely - I have read reports but do not have
> anything at hand. However, I understand that experiments have shown that some
> medical devices, such as infusion pumps, ECG monitors, ultrasound scanners etc
> may suffer interference if cellphones are used within two metres. Tests in
> Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, found that about 20% of equipment tested was
> susceptible. Generally, problems were immediately evident and not
> life-threatening. I have heard a few anecdotal cases from Australia. A person
> who would be able to supply references is Ken Joyner, Motorola,
> (c20471@email.mot.com) but he is overseas at present.
>
> A few pacemakers have been susceptible to interference if the handset is held
> close to the chest. These models reverted to a fixed pacing mode, but did not
> fail altogether. In normal use, with the handset held close to the ear, there
> are no problems. (It is perhaps worth noting that cellphones are not be the
> only source of interference, for example, two-way radios used by security staff
> may pose greater problems.)
>
> A news report of 3 March this year indicated cell phone use on Tokyo sub-ways
> was being banned because of the potential for effects on cardiac pacemaker
> patients. The report stated "The government sponsored study showed pacemakers
> could temporarily stop operating if a cell phone was in use within 22 cm".
> (They pack the passengers in fairly tightly in Tokyo!) The city's
> Transportation Bureau said "they had to institute the ban after receiving many
> reports of passengers with pacemakers getting sick on trains".
>
> Another small point. I understand the magnet in the ear piece of some phones is
> sufficiently strong to demagnetise credit cards.
>
> Andrew McEwan
>
> Andrew C McEwan PhD
> National Radiation Laboratory
> PO Box 25-099
> Christchurch, New Zealand
>
> Ph 64 3 366 5059
> Fax 64 3 366 1156
> Andrew_McEwan@nrl.moh.govt.nz
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:12:45 -0700
> From: L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Without Honor in Their Own Country
> Message-ID: <87101F5DC313D311842000A0C999618A027B0BA6@APEXCH02.rl.gov>
>
> Now you've gone too far. This is exactly why some of us get upset about
> "sick" workers whining for benefits. Invariably, it does not matter whether
> working in nuclear facilities caused them to be sick. All that matters is
> that they are sick and they used to work in a nuclear facility, so the
> government (out of my billfold) better just pay up. That's as wrong as
> dismissing their complaints as having no basis. Its still a case of taking
> an action without investigating whether or not the action is appropriate.
>
> By the way, I've spent 26 of my 33 years as a radiation protection person
> working for DOE contractors, and I don't agree with your opinion that "DOE"
> or "nuclear facility managers" (both groups with no face or personality that
> can be attacked at will) made a pact with the devil or operated with
> deliberate evil intent. In fact, the thing about DOE that infuriates me is
> their tendency to pay off "sick" workers or whining malcontents (some call
> them whistleblowers) instead of standing up to them. And no, I don't
> believe that all whistleblowers are whining malcontents, but I do believe
> that all whining malcontents are rewarded with the title and protection of
> "whistleblower" regardless of their lack of education,experience, or
> knowledge that would qualify them to decide what is safe and what is not.
>
> That's just my opinion.
>
> Les Aldrich
> l_k_ii_les_aldrich@rl.gov
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EASlavin@aol.com [SMTP:EASlavin@aol.com]
> >
> > Dear Steve:
> >
> > perhaps
> > some of you could offer suggestions about how to draft the "interim
> > presumption" for the workers' compensation legislation, so that those who
> > have illnesses can be compensated without having to prove causation.
> >
> > With kindest regards,
> >
> > Ed Slavin
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:09:29 EDT
> From: EASlavin@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Hanford Man Misreads E-mail, Misunderstands All
> Message-ID: <16.254b8e1.261e8139@aol.com>
>
> Dear Mr. Aldrich:
>
> Thank you for speaking out. It was good to hear from you. The compensation
> I propose is basically the one Congress established for Black Lung victims
> (the interim presumption) before medical standards are in place.
>
> Since DOE controlled the data, the epi studies, the science, the health
> physics and the industrial hygiene, why in the name of all that's holy do
> you want to put the burden of proof on the sick and dying victims of DOE?
> How much do you think that would cost per case?
>
> My Friend AL BROOKS of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as well as Senator Fred Thompson
> and other Republican Senators support a system where the burden of proof is
> not on the worker. The first nuclear weapons worker compensation bill was
> proposed by Senator Albert Gore, Sr. in 1958 and 1962. Show some compassion.
>
> Since the polluters would pay the cost of compensating their victims under my
> proposal, why are you so sanctimonious about the cost to your "billfold"? Do
> you mean out of your dividends? Do you work for DOE or a contractor?
>
> And no, I did not say that anyone made a "pact with the devil." I said that
> an enviro from a respected group once said that, and that is part of the bad
> attitudes. Part of the problem with DOE folks like you is that you think you
> know everything, you don't pay attention, and you misquote other people,
> marginalizing them. Go back and read what I wrote and then form an informed
> opinion. Please. Now.Read before you write. Think before you opine.
> Understand first, ask questions, and shoot later. People might think you are
> an anti-literate enegumen, like the ones who attacked the Tennessean and the
> sick Oak Ridge workers.
>
> In one Hanford whistleblower case, a tatterdemalion "malcontent" managers, a
> former Air Force colonel, gathered 15 notebooks full of documents, including
> religious tracts given to a whistleblower's friend. The DOE IG asked the
> friend to wear a wire to get the whistleblower, not to investigate
> retaliation. This was because the whistleblower was suspected of being a
> "mole" for Rep. John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
> Committee. IMHO, Hanford management has no respect for Constitutional and
> civil rights. Possibly Hanford management hates America, and prefers the
> authoritarian models of China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq.
>
> IMHO, DOE Richland Operations management has delusions of adequacy. Do you
> support or defend their actions? Apparently so. What a pity.
>
> You should carefully read my testimony, "DOE's Toxic, Hostile Working
> Environment Violates Human Rights," particularly Chapters 4 & 5. I will post
> the web url soon.
>
> You sir, do sound like a malconent, a whiner, or whatever revealing ad
> hominems you directed in my clients' direction. In short, it sounds like a
> personal problem, maybe even an emotional problem, with protected activity.
> I don't know of any "big" whistleblower settlements by DOE or its
> contractors, anywhere. You sound like you have whistleblower envy. Have you
> been a witness in any Hanford whistleblower cases? What is your title? Are
> you a manager? How many people in your organization? Have you ever sat down
> and talked with any of the Hanford whistleblowers? Have you ever met them?
> Or are you basing your opinion about whistleblowers on what the Hanford
> contractor surveillance crew has told you?
>
> As Robert Kennedy once wrote to Senator James O. Eastland, "repent now,
> there's still time."
>
> With kindest regards,
>
> Ed Slavin
>
> In a message dated 04/06/2000 7:44:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov writes:
>
> << In fact, the thing about DOE that infuriates me is
> their tendency to pay off "sick" workers or whining malcontents (some call
> them whistleblowers) instead of standing up to them. And no, I don't
> believe that all whistleblowers are whining malcontents, but I do believe
> that all whining malcontents are rewarded with the title and protection of
> "whistleblower" regardless of their lack of education,experience, or
> knowledge that would qualify them to decide what is safe and what is not.
> >>
> Subj: RE: Without Honor in Their Own Country
> Date: 04/06/2000 7:44:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
>
> Now you've gone too far. This is exactly why some of us get upset about
> "sick" workers whining for benefits. Invariably, it does not matter whether
> working in nuclear facilities caused them to be sick. All that matters is
> that they are sick and they used to work in a nuclear facility, so the
> government (out of my billfold) better just pay up. That's as wrong as
> dismissing their complaints as having no basis. Its still a case of taking
> an action without investigating whether or not the action is appropriate.
>
> By the way, I've spent 26 of my 33 years as a radiation protection person
> working for DOE contractors, and I don't agree with your opinion that "DOE"
> or "nuclear facility managers" (both groups with no face or personality that
> can be attacked at will) made a pact with the devil or operated with
> deliberate evil intent. In fact, the thing about DOE that infuriates me is
> their tendency to pay off "sick" workers or whining malcontents (some call
> them whistleblowers) instead of standing up to them. And no, I don't
> believe that all whistleblowers are whining malcontents, but I do believe
> that all whining malcontents are rewarded with the title and protection of
> "whistleblower" regardless of their lack of education,experience, or
> knowledge that would qualify them to decide what is safe and what is not.
>
> That's just my opinion.
>
> Les Aldrich
> l_k_ii_les_aldrich@rl.gov
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EASlavin@aol.com [SMTP:EASlavin@aol.com]
> >
> > Dear Steve:
> >
> > perhaps
> > some of you could offer suggestions about how to draft the "interim
> > presumption" for the workers' compensation legislation, so that those who
> > have illnesses can be compensated without having to prove causation.
> >
> > With kindest regards,
> >
> > Ed Slavin
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:41:57 -0700
> From: Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT TENNESSEE ILLNESSES
> Message-ID: <a04310106b512deb5a28b@[63.194.82.153]>
>
> Perhaps a look at the Whistle blower page of the United States
> Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library
> at
>
> http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libwhist.htm
>
> would be of interest to some.
>
> Paul Lavely
> lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheryll Dyer <cherylldyer@yahoo.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Bill Miller - TN Illnesses
> Message-ID: <20000407012717.11884.qmail@web206.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> Mr. Miller:
>
> You should know that even though folks know there is
> something wrong and try to do something about it, it
> is not always cut and dry. As Mr. Slavin stated, I
> did make my management miserable in asking for MSDS on
> jobs, asking for proper protective equipment for
> myself, coworkers and those I covered in my position,
> asking for "my right to know" to be acknowledged,
> asking for equipment that would allow me to conduct my
> work in a safe manner, and so on and so on.
>
> I saw so many times that because "money" was at stake,
> safety and health of the workers were put far back on
> the "to-do list". When I had assessed a particular
> job and found that the levels were too high for the
> workers to be allowed in the area for more than 2
> hours, I was taken off that job and they did it on
> overtime without HP support. Guess what happened?
> Ten workers were exposed beyond the limits and were
> "watched" for over a year to make sure nothing would
> happen.
>
> As for the smears with the IBM cards. The
> acetylnitrile and uranium hexafluoride contamination
> was merely displaced. There was no way to get an
> accurate accounting of the TRUE level of contamination
> either beta/gamma or alpha. AN IBM CARD ISN'T GOING
> TO PICK UP THE CONTAMINATION! I asked for masselin,
> cloth smears and the instrumentation to read these but
> was told that "that's not the way we do things around
> here." Of course it wasn't. Reason being that if
> they conducted the radiological surveys the proper
> way, then it would show high levels of contamination
> where previous methods showed none. I did acquire the
> masselin and cloth smears from other sources and
> conducted the survey on my own. And, indeed, the
> levels were extremely high and well above the limits.
> It has been several years since I was out at the
> facility and having sustained brain damage from my
> exposures, my mind is not capable of remembering the
> exact levels other than that they were extremely high
> and I did have "conversations" with management about
> what I had found only to be told that my survey wasn't
> conducted in the "approved" manner and was rejected as
> faulty. How come it can be that two facilities under
> the DOE in the same town can use different methods of
> performing radiological surveys?
>
> Where this event occurred, the HP department consisted
> mainly of folks brought in off the street (literally)
> and given radiation detection meters with tape at the
> point of "contamination level exceeded". They were
> told that if the meter hand went past this tape mark
> to call a "real HP" and let them know so that
> determination of what to do could be done by the "real
> HP". I did not know this when I applied for the
> position of Senior HP Technologist. I was placed in a
> building with a partner who had never been to school
> for HP. Do you know how that scared me and made me
> realize what trouble this particular facility is in as
> it is an actual operating facility? There are very
> qualified HP personnel in Oak Ridge. However, these
> same folks are not allowed to use their knowledge to
> protect the workers, public and environment. I know
> several who came (at the request of DOE/contractor
> management) to Oak Ridge from commercial nuclear
> power. They presented what should have been
> acceptable and required for safety/health. When this
> was rejected by management from other departments,
> these very capable, educated folks were sent on their
> way. And, so it goes with Oak Ridge DOE operations.
>
> Any time someone with the knowledge and education
> tries to do the right thing, they are bombarded with
> opposition from management and given (literally) the
> cold shoulder and put in dark basements. How can this
> happen? Easily enough at Oak Ridge. Because the
> almighty dollar means more than human health and
> safety! I know because I am one of those people. I
> did not continue my education to receive my CHP but I
> did receive my education as a Certified Health Physics
> Technologist at a qualified and accredited institution
> (sponsored by DOE no less!) and I tried to do what I
> KNEW was right. We were provided the best education
> with our Professor coming from Egypt and having over
> 40 years of nuclear reactor experience. The courses
> were approved by the college as well as the DOE. So,
> I was only trying to do what I had been taught was the
> correct way to handle radiological concerns/issues
> within a DOE complex.
>
> I had the knowledge and education to protect myself
> and others from radiological hazards at the
> facilities I worked in. I was not allowed to use this
> education to the best of my abilities because it
> caused too many problems for the management and cost
> too much money. I was prepared to take the risk of
> radiological hazards because I firmly believe I was
> able to recognize these hazards and protect myself and
> other workers. What I did not know or ask for was to
> be exposed to the hundreds of unknown "CLASSIFIED"
> chemicals, toxins and heavy metals that abound at the
> DOE sites in Oak Ridge. They could have very easily
> provided this information to me and let me decide if I
> wanted to take the risk but I was always told it "was
> not my place", "shut up", "go do the job you're told
> to do", etc., etc. I did ask for protection and I
> knew that I well had the right to "stop work" if there
> was a health/safety concern. What I met with when I
> tried to exercise this right was threat of firing,
> being moved from jobs to meaningless work, put in dark
> basements to work alone, etc. etc.
>
> Now, tell me, what would you do if you tried to do
> your job and protect yourself and the people you
> worked with from harm only to be met with these kind
> of circumstances?
>
> Cheryll Dyer
>
> =====
> Please, "sign" our Petition to the U.S. Government --
> http://che-or.8m.com/10-30-98Petition.html
>
> The Tennessean's articles on toxic exposures: http://www.tennessean.com/special/oakridge/part3/frame.shtml
>
> Coalition for a Healthy Environment --
> http://che-or.8m.com/che.html
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:53:53 -0700
> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Bill Miller - TN Illnesses
> Message-ID: <200004070153.SAA18180@harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> Ms Dyer provides a lot of information. I don't know enough to
> question the validity of her statements, or her memory of the
> occurrences she refers to.
>
> I would ask though, if so many there were so aware of the many
> unsafe practices occurring, and the number of individuals were
> supposedly exposed to levels way above the limits (values not
> provided), then why did so many continue to work there? I can't
> believe that there weren't other jobs in the area that these
> individuals could not have quit, and gone to work elsewhere.
> Nobody held a gun to their heads and said, you MUST work here. If
> there were individuals not trained to perform their jobs, why are we
> only hearing about this now, and not years ago? Were all of these
> workers simply puppets, acting as mindless inanimate objects?
> Why did it take so long for someone to stand up and speak out?
>
> Again, I am not questioning the veracity of Ms. Dyer. It just strikes
> me that there is this hysteria now. One group questions their
> treatment, and all of a sudden, the flood gates appear to have been
> opened. Is this just coincidence? Is it safety in numbers? I don't
> know, but I think some need to address why they took what they
> did for so long, when they believed that they were in danger during
> their entire employment.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:59:28 EDT
> From: EASlavin@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Why Didn't They Speak Out Earlier?
> Message-ID: <b8.41333da.261ea910@aol.com>
>
> Dear Bill:
>
> Do you know a good labor economist in your area? You might want to compare
> and contrast basic economic indicators. There are few goodpaying jobs in East
> Tennessee for people without advanced degrees, except in the nuclear weapons
> plants. It is a fact of life of DOE labor economics that every single one of
> these plants was built outside a major metroplitan area, without strong
> unions, without alternative highpaying jobs. Eastern Washington, Eastern
> Tennessee, New Mexico, West Kentucky, etc. are low wage areas where people
> are tied to their families and cultural heritage, and where people were
> immobile, fatalistic and grateful to get high paying jobs, and to do it for
> their country's national security. DOE profited from the location of its
> plants in areas with docile workforces --- workers did not complain, they did
> not ask questions, and they did not go on strike. People were grateful to
> have a job "at the plants."
>
> DOE/AEC/ERDA knew this. Like clockwork, four times a year, press releases
> have gone out from Oak Ridge for half a century, announging the amount of the
> payroll, county by county, and the number of jobs, as if to say, keep your
> mouths shut, we're all in this together. In addition, no nepotism rules
> exist, as in normal industry. A worker in an Oak Ridge plant knows if they
> blow the whistle on environmental, health and safety issues, they, their
> spouse and their entire family -- to include brothers, sisters, mothers,
> fathers, cousins, uncles, aunts, in laws -- working at the plants could be
> harassed, intimidated, fired, laid off, sent to psychiatrists for fitness for
> duty examinations, and the whole range of control in Oak Ridge. People in
> Appalachia are described by socioligists as very loyal to their families, a
> feature of the Scotch-Irish heritage. See, e.g., Harry Caudill, My Land is
> Dying, etc.
>
> I tried and settled cases in California in the 1990s, and dearly loved all my
> time there. Your State would be one of the largest economies in the world if
> it were a separate country. It is often called the land of milk and honey.
>
> If you have lived in California any length of time and did not grow up in a
> less fortunate area of the country, you may not fully appreciate the extent
> to which this country still has areas that function as less developed
> countries, with low wages, Taft Hartley Section 14(b) (right to work laws),
> outside exploitation of mineral resources and undertaxation, immobile work
> force, underfunded schools, little or no history of worker and environmental
> activism, no unions, and no progressive newspapers. Why, the people of Oak
> Ridge had to go clear plumb to Nashville to find someone who would print the
> news. Would that were alternatives! If Ms. Dyer ahd quit her HP job, where
> else could she go? What would happen to her family? People like Ms. Dyer and
> her colleagues are heroes, whom too few outsiders appreciate.
>
> When husband and wife Delbert Lynn and Linda Jayne Cox co-chaired the first
> public environmental meeting in Oak Ridge in 1996, they were laid off shortly
> thereafter, as were a number of other K-25 workers, in a layoff that affected
> only 300 workers. Workers have always feared to blow the whistle in Oak
> Ridge, a fact that DOE and its contractors are responsible for by their
> actions and inactions. Workers in Oak Ridge were never told of their
> whistleblower rights by DOE and their contractors. It was not until 1991
> that a worker exercised his whistleblower rights, and newspaper articles
> informed local workers that they had them. Thus, the accomplishments of the
> workers in Oak Ridge are a collective act of heroism that the radiation
> protection community should applaud and support in every way possible. We
> appreciate your interest and concern. Please let us know if you have any
> other questions.
>
> With kindest regards,
>
> Ed Slavin
>
> In a message dated 04/06/2000 9:55:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:
>
> <<
> I would ask though, if so many there were so aware of the many
> unsafe practices occurring, and the number of individuals were
> supposedly exposed to levels way above the limits (values not
> provided), then why did so many continue to work there? I can't
> believe that there weren't other jobs in the area that these
> individuals could not have quit, and gone to work elsewhere.
> Nobody held a gun to their heads and said, you MUST work here. If
> there were individuals not trained to perform their jobs, why are we
> only hearing about this now, and not years ago? Were all of these
> workers simply puppets, acting as mindless inanimate objects?
> Why did it take so long for someone to stand up and speak out?
> >>
> Subj: RE: Bill Miller - TN Illnesses
> Date: 04/06/2000 9:55:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: sandyfl@earthlink.net (Sandy Perle)
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
>
> Ms Dyer provides a lot of information. I don't know enough to
> question the validity of her statements, or her memory of the
> occurrences she refers to.
>
> I would ask though, if so many there were so aware of the many
> unsafe practices occurring, and the number of individuals were
> supposedly exposed to levels way above the limits (values not
> provided), then why did so many continue to work there? I can't
> believe that there weren't other jobs in the area that these
> individuals could not have quit, and gone to work elsewhere.
> Nobody held a gun to their heads and said, you MUST work here. If
> there were individuals not trained to perform their jobs, why are we
> only hearing about this now, and not years ago? Were all of these
> workers simply puppets, acting as mindless inanimate objects?
> Why did it take so long for someone to stand up and speak out?
>
> Again, I am not questioning the veracity of Ms. Dyer. It just strikes
> me that there is this hysteria now. One group questions their
> treatment, and all of a sudden, the flood gates appear to have been
> opened. Is this just coincidence? Is it safety in numbers? I don't
> know, but I think some need to address why they took what they
> did for so long, when they believed that they were in danger during
> their entire employment.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
>
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
>
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
>
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:05:34 EDT
> From: EASlavin@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Why didn't they speak out earlier?
> Message-ID: <a3.456d09e.261eaa7e@aol.com>
>
> Dear Sandy:
> I am sorry, I must be tired and I have a sinus headache. I apologize for
> getting your name wrong a few minutes ago. I got your state right but your
> name wrong. Good night.
> Regards,
> Ed Slavin
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:14:59 -0700
> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Why Didn't They Speak Out Earlier?
> Message-ID: <200004070315.UAA10374@scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> Ed,
>
> Thank you for your reply. I am sure you meant the message for
> me, and not Bill. I understand that since I quoted Steve today,
> when in fact it was one of your quotes I was referring to.
>
> While I understand the economics of the situation, and the stress a
> family must undergo to make ends meet, I still have a difficult time
> reconciling that with the specifics Ms Dyer wrote, and then
> comprehending staying in that situation, solely because of the
> better pay. If the situation was as bad, and I am not saying that I
> don't believe that there were problems, just that I don't know the
> real extent, and the accuracy of what Ms Dyer perceived the
> situation to be, that one's safety has to be a prime consideration. If
> the situation was a serious as stated, and economics the primary
> factor, didn't anyone consider their health whatsoever? If they really
> believed that they were in such serious danger, did they not
> consider what would happen if they became incapacitated? Since I
> have never been in that position, I don't know how I would act. I do
> know that during my career, when there were situations I felt
> strongly about, I stood up. Economics wasn't the issue, but the
> welfare of others was. If the situation were a life-threatening
> occurrence, I would hope that I would have spoken out. There aren't
> enough $$ to compensate for one's health, and being there for the
> family.
>
> I do appreciate all of the points you bring to the table. I still see too
> much "lawyering" though, and too much play on emotionalism and
> not enough on facts. Don't get me wrong. My son is an attorney,
> so I am not attacking the profession. I just see too many
> statements working emotions and not much in the way of evidence.
> If there has truly been harm done to any worker, nuclear or
> otherwise, and the root causes were known, then I hope that those
> who caused the problems, are handled in the most appropriate
> way. I would just like to see more facts and less rhetoric.
>
> Regards,
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:38:47 EDT
> From: EASlavin@aol.com
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: HPs Stayed and Worked Cyanide Issues, Instead of Quitting
> Message-ID: <27.3ecd328.261eb247@aol.com>
>
> Dear Sandy:
>
> Cheryll and other HP workers were commited to protecting their fellow
> workers. Generally Oak Ridge HPs and techs are greatly respected by the rank
> and file union members: they know they are there to protect them. Until
> recently, all of K-25 had very few HPs, especially compared to K-25 and Y-12.
>
> Rather than quit, Cheryll and other HPs stayed and fought. In 1996, people
> who could have gone out on disability stayed on and worked the cyanide issue.
> They didn't want to be quitters, and probably would not have been even if
> they were independently wealthy.
>
> This proves everyone's point that most HPs in the DOE complex try to do their
> job, and proves my point that they are often frustrated by management.
>
> There's a lot about these issues that will be web posted soon in the fully
> footnoted/endnoted version of my Senate testimony, which deals with
> compensation, coverup, etc. Cheryll can answer more detailed questions, as
> can other HPs and HP techs in CHE. I will get you the urls as soon as I know
> them.
>
> Management misinformed the K-25 workers, saying there was no source of
> cyanide at the plant. Such was not the case. See chapter 3 of my Senate
> testimony regarding K-25 medical department.
>
> Again, thank you for your interest. Look forward to talk to/maybe meeting
> you.
>
> With kindest regards,
>
> Ed
>
> Subj: Re: Why Didn't They Speak Out Earlier?
> Date: 04/06/2000 11:24:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: sandyfl@earthlink.net (Sandy Perle)
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
>
> Ed,
>
> Thank you for your reply. I am sure you meant the message for
> me, and not Bill. I understand that since I quoted Steve today,
> when in fact it was one of your quotes I was referring to.
>
> While I understand the economics of the situation, and the stress a
> family must undergo to make ends meet, I still have a difficult time
> reconciling that with the specifics Ms Dyer wrote, and then
> comprehending staying in that situation, solely because of the
> better pay. If the situation was as bad, and I am not saying that I
> don't believe that there were problems, just that I don't know the
> real extent, and the accuracy of what Ms Dyer perceived the
> situation to be, that one's safety has to be a prime consideration. If
> the situation was a serious as stated, and economics the primary
> factor, didn't anyone consider their health whatsoever? If they really
> believed that they were in such serious danger, did they not
> consider what would happen if they became incapacitated? Since I
> have never been in that position, I don't know how I would act. I do
> know that during my career, when there were situations I felt
> strongly about, I stood up. Economics wasn't the issue, but the
> welfare of others was. If the situation were a life-threatening
> occurrence, I would hope that I would have spoken out. There aren't
> enough $$ to compensate for one's health, and being there for the
> family.
>
> I do appreciate all of the points you bring to the table. I still see too
> much "lawyering" though, and too much play on emotionalism and
> not enough on facts. Don't get me wrong. My son is an attorney,
> so I am not attacking the profession. I just see too many
> statements working emotions and not much in the way of evidence.
> If there has truly been harm done to any worker, nuclear or
> otherwise, and the root causes were known, then I hope that those
> who caused the problems, are handled in the most appropriate
> way. I would just like to see more facts and less rhetoric.
>
> Regards,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
>
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
>
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
>
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Cheryll Dyer <cherylldyer@yahoo.com>
> To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Sandy Perle - TN Illnesses
> Message-ID: <20000407040122.23916.qmail@web215.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> Sandy:
>
> I probably got a bit too carried away in my last post.
> Please forgive. Mr. Slavin is very correct in his
> statements regarding the entire work force at the DOE
> facilities here in Oak Ridge. There are hundreds of
> workers who are ill but are unwilling to move out of
> their comfort zone. This is typical in this area.
> They fear for their families and for themselves. They
> "need" the money provided by their jobs at the
> "plants" and do not know where they can make this kind
> of money elsewhere. They aren't told of the dangers
> to their health and safety. What they do see as being
> "unsafe" is overlooked because of the money.
>
> I am one of very few who were willing to stand up and
> try to make things right and safe. The reason I
> stayed was not because of the money but because of
> principal. I had worked for the Tennessee OSHA before
> going out to the "plants". I knew right from wrong.
> I knew safety and health hazards. I knew the "Right
> to Know" law. I stayed because I feared for my
> neighbors, my co-workers, my friends, my family. My
> moral obligation was to try to make things right and
> safe.
>
> I did not know I was being exposed to numerous toxins,
> chemicals and heavy metals at the time it was
> happening. Only after individual occurrences did I
> question what was happening. And, after each
> occurrence, I was told lies, presented with false
> sampling and told to "shut up".
>
> The workers who have spoken up about this issue are
> not after the "money". We are after the admittance by
> the DOE that they knew people were being exposed to
> toxins, chemicals and heavy metals and did nothing to
> protect them. We want to make sure future exposures
> do not come about because of lax safety/health
> procedures. Joe Carson, with the DOE, knows all to
> well how things are covered up and pushed aside all in
> the name of money.
>
> This isn't something that has happened all of a
> sudden. It has been happening for 60 years. In 1969,
> there was a group who traveled to D.C. to express
> their concerns about this very thing. Nothing ever
> came of that trip. All these years later, over a
> hundred folks became ill from exposures to substances
> we were not told about. This group of folks ended up
> together and researched what could possibly have
> caused the illnesses. The by-products of the nuclear
> perations were very much suspect. In this group of
> people there are secretaries, engineers, health
> physics, industrial hygiene, janitors, laborers, waste
> management, pollution control, guards, managers,
> firefighters, clerks, cashiers, cafeteria workers, and
> the list goes on. When we all started mapping out
> what was wrong at certain places within the plant, the
> puzzle started fitting. Why would a secretary have
> the same type illnesses as a janitor?
>
> It has been a long five years but we are finally
> seeing some action (at least we hope) in getting
> medical treatments and putting a stop to the exposures
> at the facilities. We just want help for ourselves
> and for those who are still being put in harm's way.
> Five years and we have yet to be "tested" for the
> exposures.
>
> Cheryll Dyer
>
> =====
> Please, "sign" our Petition to the U.S. Government --
> http://che-or.8m.com/10-30-98Petition.html
>
> The Tennessean's articles on toxic exposures: http://www.tennessean.com/special/oakridge/part3/frame.shtml
>
> Coalition for a Healthy Environment --
> http://che-or.8m.com/che.html
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RADSAFE Digest 3076
> **************************
begin:vcard
n:Whybark;Paul D.
tel;pager:510-442-1480
tel;fax:510-486-4776
tel;work:510-486-4020
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:<BR><B>EH&S<BR><B>Projects Team Leader<BR>Radiation Protection Group<BR> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:pdwhybark@lbl.gov
title:<center><img src="http://mercproj.lbl.gov/logo.gif";><br><b>
x-mozilla-cpt:;-7296
fn:Paul D. Whybark
end:vcard