And the DOE fraud continues

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

If the workers were indeed exposed to doses that exceed recorded doses, with
no difference in health effects as reported in radiation effects studies
(generally showing lower cancer in the high-dose workers vs the no/lowest
dose group), doesn't the dose-response more strongly refute the LNT
presumption?

Does not Michaels' anti-nuclear campaign allege fraud and misconduct by the
health physics community and Oak Ridge management that have claimed that
workers were being adequately protected? It seems that the next step is to
find and prosecute those guilty of the misconduct specified here.

(This based on the article below, with Michaels' quotes. I haven't
downloaded the report yet. I would appreciate any comments by others who
have the time to review the report itself.)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
=======================

October 11, 2000

Report Details Nuke Plant Hazards
 
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 7:58 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Energy Department report for the first time details
the radioactive and chemical hazards faced by workers at an Oak Ridge,
Tenn., nuclear bomb-making plant.

The report, released Wednesday, is based on a six-month investigation into
how practices at the old K-25 uranium enrichment plant may have affected the
environment and endangered workers.

``We've identified important hazards that were present at the Oak Ridge
facility,'' said David Michaels, assistant secretary for environment, safety
and health.

The investigation follows studies into the practices at similar plants in
Paducah, Ky., and Piketon, Ohio.

During World War II and the Cold War, K-25 workers were exposed to radiation
at higher than allowable levels, according to the report. It identifies the
sources of the radiation as uranium, plutonium and neptunium.

The report states workers also were exposed to toxic substances such as
beryllium and fluorine.

Former plant worker Harry Williams said he was not surprised by the report's
findings. ''(The Department of Energy) at that time was a very hard place to
the workers. They didn't respect their working population,'' he said.

Williams, who worked at the plant for 20 years, said the use of protection
devices such as respirators was spotty and considered voluntary, but not
necessary.

He also agreed with former workers who told Energy Department investigators
that people who raised questions about plant safety could expect to be
reassigned to undesirable jobs.

The report also noted that former workers may have been exposed to
contaminated drinking water. Williams says he thinks plant managers were
well aware of the problem.

``Managers drank bottled water for years and years while the rest of us
drank that contaminated stuff,'' he said.

The report also highlighted past environmental practices at the plant.

These included routine and accidental releases of liquid wastes from the
plant into the surrounding waterways and unhealthy emissions into the
atmosphere. And the report indicated that contaminated scrap materials were
probably sold to the public.

The study also examined current practices at the plant, which is now an
industrial park.

Workers there are still exposed to radiation hazards, according to the
study, which urged stronger protections as well as better monitoring of
groundwater contamination and airborne emissions.

Energy Department officials in Oak Ridge are expected to draft a plan to
address those problems within 60 days.

^------

On the Net:

The report is available at:
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oversight/reviews/ettp/ettpvol1b.pdf


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