Thank you Ruth Weiner

[NiagaraNet@AOL.COM]

Dear Ms Weiner : 



My concerns are for the unrecognized atomic worker and not your perception of 

me.



By your very own calculations (mine show ages between 77 to 119 for past MED 

employees), the last remaining of these workers are of an older/elderly age 

group, who have to be suffering a disease within the limits of the definition of 

The Act to even be considered for compensation. The latter age segment are 

already dead.



I suppose to pay these men who made some sacrifice by their very proximity to 

these sites and materials, even after the fact, in your opinion, is 

outlandish or somehow wrong. I beg to differ. If this makes me a "bleeding heart," I'm 

only glad I reside on this side of the compassion fenceline. I sleep at night.



My compassion grows exponentially for these men and their families each time 

I make a foray into this professional "protection" realm. It is exactly these 

sorts of comments, from supposedly "caring" people, that makes me doubt the 

veracity of certain of those here and what amount of safety could be expected 

with anything atomic from folks such as this. The word "protection" gains new 

meaning for me from my experiences here. 



And just what is the definition of Health Physics? Maybe ZMorgan, Pauling, 

Gofman, Knapp, Sternglass, Bertell, Mancuso, Stewart and many others are and 

were correct about the gradual corruption of the Health Physics "profession." 

Science is based on the interaction between scientists and lay people. At least I 

am doing my research and my part in that process. AND, I don't care how many 

alphanumeric suffixes are attached to anyone's name. Many here think their 

opinion somehow superior to these icons of the atomic age. Yep, and I'm sure...



Ms. Weiner, I find your comments very disquieting about any exposures--proven 

or presumed. Pay these people. End of discussion.



Have a wonderful...

Louis Ricciuti



In a message dated 3/26/04 6:01:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ruth Weiner 

writes:

half a century after the exposure?  And in people who if they were 18 in 

1949, are 

> now 73, and have been exposed to lots of carcinogens and various hazards in 

> the intervening 55 years?  How about the cohort who had equal or greater 

> exposure and don't have any disease that can even by extension be correlated to 

> radiation exposure?

> 

> The demands for compensation look a lot like just demands for money.

> 

JUST HOW MANY GUYS DON'T YOU WANT TO COMPENSATE?

How many remain to be paid? Not many. Ruth, what's your opinion(s) on the 

posthumous awarding of military medals? Save the ribbon and pot metal?



Here is a comment made by the AEC's very own Dr. Victor Bond in 1970 at 

Brookhaven Laboratory - that "for the purposes of radiation protection, in the 

absence of well-defined data otherwise, the cautious assumption must be made that 

any amount of exposure carries some probability of harm to a population, 

however small that probability may be."



What a difference 35 years and numerous lucrative grants make.  

NEXT.