Re: May 18th House Resolution on DOE Worker Compensation

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Note what was said very carefully.  BY THE LAW - THE LAW as it has
existed since COMMON LAW - ONLY the first point needed to be alleged.

Go find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and FIRST look up the LEGAL
definition of Ultra-Hazardous Equipment.  The point was NOT loose
speaking OR over exaggeration - it IS indeed a very specific point of
law and quite correctly used in this case.

While reading about Ultra-Hazardous Equipment - NOTE that it NECESSARILY
and WITHOUT EXCEPTION invokes the tenant of Strict Liability.

NOW - for the REALLY bad news - look up Strict Liability.

THEN after you think about it for a while you will see that very much of
what we do comes under Ultra-Hazardous equipment because it is NOT
common to the community - since the legal notion of community is a large
local area and NOT similar industries or similar universities!

It is you AND the neighborhoods around you.

For those of us in DOE - THAT is what 835 is all about!

Sorry - but its true and a very very basic tenant of the law!

Bob Flood wrote:
> 
> >It is the sense of Congress that--
> >
> I will resist the temptation to comment on that statement and just ask ...
> 
> Has the "Sense of Congress" statement been voted on, or is it something now
> to be considered by Congress? Is there any point in selecting specific
> quotes and e-mailing representatives about this issue?
> ============================
> Bob Flood
> Dosimetry Group Leader
> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> bflood@slac.stanford.edu
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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