[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compensation of survivors



In a message dated 8/16/01 9:21:25 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Michael.Simmons@rfets.gov writes:


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."


You know, I try to quote accurately, and I don't believe I ever said that "no
one should be compensated because
... 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."   Nor do I know
how you can tell if I am being "flippant."  Let me assure you that I am not.

I was responding to the post that said that if you don't want to risk giving
your life for your country, you should just emigrate to another country, and
I merely pointed out that it is easier to go to another job than another
country.

As for the worker, you raise a good question, and it is a question that any
latent health effect raises.  Nor am I making an argument that working
conditions are great, that people injured on the job get good or even
adequate treatment, that they are not lied to.  I believe that those of us
who question this whole compensation business wonder why this particular
group of workers is singled out.  Why is the government being asked to
compensate them beyond ordinary insurance., workers comp, etc, and not the
contractors who ran the facilities?  Why is similar extra compensation not
offered to others whose suffering is more certainly related to their cold (or
hot) war effort?  Why are families of the now-deceased sufferers eligible for
this extra compensation, and under what circumstances?  Was Louis Slotin's
family compensated?  

Why do I "dare" raise these questions?  Why not?

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com