RE: Shipyard workers and references

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

Michael Kent wrote:



<< And something you should remember about

the people cleaning up DOE sites; a friend told me this "the light at

the end of the tunnel isn't the exit but the end of their good paying

job".  

	How hard do you really think they are going to work, to put

themselves out of work.  I know this does not apply to all DOE

personnel.>>





That appears to be the reason that DOE contractors are using profit sharing

for goal achievement coupled with early retirement packages and retraining.

They also bring in contractors to replace some of those who retired.



Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer





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

From: Kent, Michael D [mailto:Michael.D.Kent@XCELENERGY.COM]

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:43 AM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Shipyard workers and references









> >It makes no sense that if radiation caused

> > cancer deaths, and the AEC(?) and Navy wanted to set the record

> straight,

> > why would they want to bury the report?

> 

> Same reason you do. Defeating LNT means changing rules and giving up a

> gravy

> train of funding!

> 

	What Gravy Train of Funding......  Be specific please, no

mysterious they, them, or it....



> >Do you think the Navy and DOE want to pay people for

> radiation-induced cancers?

> Small price to keep the $$100s Millions TAXPAYER  funds flowing.

> 

> 

	What extra money for the Navy....  There is an ELT on board to

read the dosimeters, Corpsman to enter the data, and an Executive

Officer to review all that.   Each one of these people would be on board

regardless of if there was dosimetry or not.   The ELT is on board to do

all surveys, sample for chemistry.   So what extra money is the Navy

getting.  I'm sure the Navy would like to know.  At the end of the Cold

WAR and as now it's about budget cuts.  Money is spent to repair and

maintain the propulsion unit, but extra money just to keep LNT alive and

well, please.  The Navy would conduct business the same way with or

without LNT.



	And as far as clean up, the Navy Chops the old reactor

compartment out, seals it up, sends it to be buried.  And the waste, to

the burial ground.  When decommissioning area's on land, not much

different.  



	The shipyard may have a few more people but not many.



	I think your real gripe may be with the DOE, but please do not

lump the Navy in with the DOE.  And something you should remember about

the people cleaning up DOE sites; a friend told me this "the light at

the end of the tunnel isn't the exit but the end of their good paying

job".  

	How hard do you really think they are going to work, to put

themselves out of work.  I know this does not apply to all DOE

personnel.





> > That is certainly not the Navy I served in.

> Seems unlikely "the Navy" figured you had a "need to know."

> 

	The shipyard worker report was published in the Navy's internal

RADCON Manual, NAVSEA 989-0153,  I think about Revision 12 or 13.

Sorry I guess you were not on the distribution list, but then again it

is "Confidential - Noforn". 





	Michael D. Kent



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

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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/