[ RadSafe ] More on Chernobyl

[Dukelow, James S Jr]

The DOE Worker Compensation Program has an interesting history.

Someone (I have my guesses, but that's all they are) leaked a
preliminary draft of an Interagency review of epidemiological studies of
DOE worker health to Matthew Wald, a sometimes sensible science reporter
at the New York Times.  He wrote a sensational expose, based on the
preliminary draft, congressmen and senators for DOE lab/contractor
districts jumped on board and stampeded the House and the Senate into
passing the program, well before the final report (after interagency
internal review) appeared.

To put an edge on it: the preliminary draft was a piece of trash;
Matthew Wald was gullible and doesn't appear to have done anything to
test the legitimacy of his preconceptions; and our representatives were
-- well, like they usually are.

The final report wasn't bad, particularly if you took the time to read
the detailed appendices that provided an accurate summary of the results
of the many epidemiological studies.  Those appendices confirmed that
DOE had a "healthy worker" population with many times more statistically
significant decreases in health outcomes than statistically significant
increases.  The number of statistically significant increases was well
below the number that would be expected as an artifact of the use of
hundreds of 95% two-tailed confidence intervals.

In the interim, it appears that both the Clinton and Bush
administrations have sat on the programs and made it difficult for any
workers to received the promised payouts.

Matthew?

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow at pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.

-----Original Message-----
From: jjcohen [mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Dukelow, James S Jr; John Jacobus; Cehn at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Chernobyl


It seems to me that the DOE compensation program is a blatant  taxpayer
rip-off. Just the cost for the elaborate burearocracy to administer the
program is enormous. When you consider the likely dose levels ( below
permissible limits) it is highly improbable that anyone will qualify for
compensation, i.e."causation is more likely than not"). Could there be
any rational justification for the program other than politics? What was
wrong with the preexisting workmen's compensation and other liability
laws???

----- Original Message -----
From: Dukelow, James S Jr <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov>
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <Cehn at aol.com>;
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] More on Chernobyl


>
> John,
>
> You overstate the compensation programs.  Although Congress stampeded 
> over the DOE Worker Compensation cliff several years ago, not much has

> been paid and it never applied to just "anyone" who worked at DOE (or 
> its contractors).  There has been no Hanford downwinder compensation 
> program although many lawsuits have been bumping around in the court 
> system for 10-15 years now.  Trials for the first **six** plaintiffs 
> just got underway.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> jim.dukelow at pnl.gov
>
> These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by 
> my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:51 AM
> To: Cehn at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Chernobyl
>
>
> We also have compensation programs in this country for
> anyone who worked at DOE, was in the military and
> exposed to nuclear tests, and to those who lived
> downwind of Hanford.  The difference is that we can
> pay for our compensation programs.
>
> Maybe we should give everyone in Belarus and the
> Ukraine who wants it a $30,000 cash settlement.
>
> --- Cehn at aol.com wrote:
> > I visited the Cherobyl area 7 years after the
> > accident and was amazed at
> > what low-level radiation exposure can be responsible
> > for.  Every illness  was
> > somehow blamed on the accident.  Come to find out,
> > the government was  paying
> > reparations to anyone harmed by it.  Quite an
> > incentive to draw  victims.  I saw
> > a 5-year old in a hospital with leukemia; caused by Chernobyl of 
> > course.  I inquired how was he exposed to radiation from  the
> > plant, when he wasn't born
> > until 2 years after the accident and 50 miles  away?
> > Never got an answer.
> >
> > Joel I. Cehn,  CHP
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing
> > list
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
> > other settings visit: 
> > http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> >
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not 
> always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought." Hugh 
> Blair, 1783
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list 
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe