Re: Compensation of survivors

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

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