[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: We are killing nuclear workers!
Seriously, I believe this stuff should get intensive Congressional scrutiny.
The precedent set is that any worker (present or former) who worked for
anybody and was in any way exposed to anything and gets sick (or just gets
the little infirmities that come with age) can claim compensation. The
ultimate end of this may be to make getting deserved compensation for real
work-related health damage much harder. Why aren't we writing to our
members of Congress about this?
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: We are killing nuclear workers!
>An exemplary list! But: How do we justify ANY rad exposure, or ever
defend a
>lawsuit, for any nuclear/radiation activity, when worker lifetime doses
below
>1 year avg. background (US) are said by DOE to cause cancer.
>
>What effect on rad technologies when this takes hold (2-5 years?) Like
nuke
>plants, etc., added any cost/profit to be stuck to customers til the
"system"
>balked, and we end up with high-cost dinosaur designs and limited ability
to
>engineer for cost-effectiveness.
>
>Anybody care? Competition is working to displace rad technologies because
of
>the threat. Some companies will do well by diversifying, while nukes and
hp's
>are on the street.
>
>Regards, Jim
>============
>
>JHageman@swri.edu wrote:
>>
>> Are all the possible responses from the "nuclear industry/health physics
>> community," regarding providing adequate radiation protection:
>>
>> (A) I was only doing what I was told to do (i.e., following Govt.
>> Regulations).
>> (B) They were protected, but Clinton lied (But, he claims he never has
lied
>> before).
>> (C) The mixture of science and politics of the situation are beyond
human.
>> comprehension (I throw my hands up in the air).
>> (D) It wasn't my fault, I wasn't there (I wash my hands).
>> (E) Monetary payment compensates for death and illness (isn't that, what
>> Clinton is saying).
>> (F) Don't rock the boat, keep quiet, this too shall pass.
>> (G) The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. (to quote Spock).
>> (H) All of the above.
>> (I) None of the above.
>>
>> Just my opinion, alone. John P. Hageman, CHP, RSO
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> What is the nuclear industry/health physics community response to this as
a
>> failure of "radiation protection," killing (past and future) nuclear
workers
>> that we told were protected?
>>
>> Regards, Jim
>> muckerheide@mediaone.net
>> ========================
>>
>> EXECUTIVE ORDER FINALIZES PROMISE TO NUCLEAR VETERANS
>>
>> WASHINGTON, DC, December 11, 2000 (ENS) - President Bill Clinton has
issued
>> an executive order outlining the framework for compensating thousands of
>> current and former nuclear weapons plant workers, or their survivors,
whose
>> service to the country has left them sick or dying. "This is one of the
most
>> meaningful new federal programs in decades, impacting the lives of
thousands
>> of Americans," said Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. "President
Clinton's
>> executive order ensures that the compensation program will remain on
course
>> for years to come and that all weapons plant workers - past, present and
>> future - can rely on their government to do the right thing, even after
the
>> sites where they worked have closed."
>>
>> The order begins implementing the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
>> Compensation Program Act of 2000, which was enacted in October as part of
the
>> National Defense Authorization Act. The Act provides for compensation of
>> Energy Department workers, or their survivors, who have occupational
illnesses
>> from exposure to the hazards associated with building nuclear weapons.
The
>> order establishes a Worker Assistance Program within the Energy
Department
>> that will help workers with occupational illnesses apply for benefits
under
>> state compensation programs. An interagency working group will develop a
>> legislative proposal and address program implementation. "These
individuals,
>> many of whom were neither protected from nor informed of the hazards to
which
>> they were exposed, developed occupational illnesses as a result of their
>> exposure to radiation and other hazards unique to nuclear weapons
production
>> and testing," said Clinton. "While the nation can never fully repay these
>> workers or their families, they deserve fair compensation for their
>> sacrifices. I am pleased to take the next critical step in ensuring that
these
>> courageous individuals receive the compensation and recognition they have
long
>> deserved."
>> * * *
>> ************************************************************************
>> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - End of Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html