RE: Compensation of survivors

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

Bernard-



Workman's compensation award -- <$200.00 in 1963, for facial disfigurement.



My point was that there's more to the argument than workers should have

"just quit" because in this case and others the risk was not known OR

communicated to the workers, as well as the emotional and psychological (and

possible physiological) impact that this event had on this individual. 



Regards,



Mike Simmons



Only my opinion and sometimes not even that. 



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

	From:	BERNARD L COHEN [SMTP:blc+@pitt.edu]

	Sent:	Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:21 AM

	To:	Simmons, Michael

	Cc:	'RuthWeiner@AOL.COM'; StokesJ@TTNUS.COM;

OGCRegulations@mail.va.gov; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Subject:	RE: Compensation of survivors





	On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Simmons, Michael wrote:



	> 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



		--No one is saying that a worker injured in an occupational

	accident should not be taken care of. They are covered by Workman

	Compensation, which has been the law of the land for many decades.

There

	are about 10,000 deaths every year in U.S. from work-related

accidents,

	and these are normally well compensated, to the best of my

knowledge. What

	is the point of the story of the worker injured in a Pu explosion 44

years

	ago?

		Incidently, there is no reason to believe that prostate

cancer is

	caused by plutonium in the body. Nearly all the plutonium deposits

in the

	liver and bone where it is retained for many years - that is the

risk from

	plutonium.

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

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.