[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: We are killing nuclear workers!
Bill,
Guess you didn't follow. See original msgs. Limited to radiation, not
chemicals; and don't care about compensation.
Premise: Worker studies (including Wing) show lower cancer in workers with
significant dose vs. workers with low/no doses.
Therefore, DOE dishonest "study" under Michaels (from Physicians for Social
Responsibility) misrepresent data to claim radiation deaths, past and future
(use, e.g., Wing, who claims cancer caused by <150mr lifetime occupational
dose - at 1 cancer site, for doses at more 45 yrs old!?)
Do you have other info? How many people will die on your watch?
If it were about trust, first we'd have to stop lying about dose/effects! (by
omission as well as commission - where is HP challenging this $$-generating
scam?)
Regards, Jim
============
William V Lipton wrote:
>
> Let me make sure I follow you. There's a large group of individuals who are
> seriously ill, and that illness may be due to their working conditions. Many
> have been given the bureaucratic run-around. Now you want to deny them
> compensation. Anything I missed? Be sure to make sure that their widows don't
> get any compensation either!
>
> You obviously belong on the HPS Public Relations Committee.
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine. It's not about dose, it's about
> trust.
>
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
> ruth_weiner wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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