RE: Compensation of survivors

["Simmons, Michael" <Michael.Simmons@RFETS.GOV>]

Ruth and others-



Here is another perspective on the whole compensation issue:



On June 14, 1957 a chemical explosion involving Pu nitrate occurred at Rocky

Flats.  While precipitating Pu metal from nitrate, excessive impurities and

restricted vent lines caused a glovebox to literally explode, sending shards

of pyrex, glass and solution in all directions.  One employee received

uptake by all three methods, ingestion, inhalation and injection

simultaneously, as well as chemical burns to his skin.  His lifetime

exposure for that incident is estimated at 65 rem, with a total body burden

of 4.  Although he underwent surgery the following day to remove Pu metal

from his face, not all of the pieces could be removed because of proximity

to his right eye.  He spent nearly a week at the site undergoing several

skin decons a day.  Because of security concerns, his wife was only told

that there had been an "incident" and that her husband would not be coming

home for awhile. After he was released to go home five days later, he slept

on company sheets and wore company coveralls for a number of months until

contamination could no longer be detected.  



It has taken years for this worker to compile all of the details of the

event, including redaction of classified documents before the individual

could ascertain the significance of the dose he received.  In fact, the

final report of the "incident" included only one reference to the injuries

suffered by the three personnel involved in the event, and nearly 60 pages

detailing the cost of the lost Pu, demonstrating what the priorities for the

AEC were at the time. 



This individual is currently battling prostate cancer.  Was it caused by his

uptake?  Who knows.  And what does all this have to do with your post?  Only

this - I'm positive that this worker didn't give his consent to be involved

in this event.  He did give his consent to EDTA and DPTA in an attempt to

lower the Pu in his body all at the same time being told "it was for

science" and this was a way he could help others that faced the same

exposures.  In some cases he was only the oddity that the health physics

community used to secure grants, and for a few possibly a way to make a name

for themselves at his expense.  The fact remains that throughout the years,

the true extent of his exposure, and the probable health effects from it

have been difficult if not impossible to determine.  So, as you say, should

he have just quit and left the site?  Why would he do that when he was being

told that his exposure represented little risk, therefore not to worry about

it.  Should he be compensated now? That is a decision that he will have to

make for himself. Is it right that any of these workers are being

compensated?  The government has decided that in some cases they should be.

But how dare you flippantly state that no one should be compensated because

in your words they should have just quit because of fear that they were

working in a carcinogenic environment, when it was not known, or more

importantly not communicated to them that the risk existed.  When

interviewed by a local newspaper a number of years ago, this individual was

quoted as saying "Don't be scared if it does happen to you, and try to

understand the person that does have it.  He will travel a long way, along

with his family who suffers the unknown quietly with him."



Regards,



Mike Simmons



My opinion only, and sometimes not even that.



	-----Original Message-----

	From:	RuthWeiner@AOL.COM [SMTP:RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

	Sent:	Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:19 PM

	To:	StokesJ@TTNUS.COM; blc+@PITT.EDU; OGCRegulations@mail.va.gov

	Cc:	radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Subject:	Re: Compensation of survivors



	The cold war atomic workers did not have "experiments performed on

them 

	without their consent."  Moreover, if you count the cold war years

from 1946 

	to 1989, knowledge of and attention to occupational hazards of

working with 

	radioactive and hazardous materials increased dramatically during

this 

	period.  Any worker who found out or feared that he or she might be

in a 

	carcinogenic environment could always leave and get another job.

It's a 

	whole lot easier to switch jobs than countries! 

	

	If it's a duty to die for one's country, isn't it also a duty to

work for 

	one's country if the country needs it?   

	

	Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

	ruthweiner@aol.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.