Deadly denial: Shifting rules drowning sick nuclear workers
By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Javier Manzano © The Rocky
Charlie Wolf, a former manager at Rocky Flats, takes one of the injections used to treat his brain tumors. In his battle for compensation, he has had to enlist the aid of a lawyer, a scientist, a doctor, his Congressman and his insurance company.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
At the height of the Cold War, hidden away in the nation's heartland amid grazing cattle and glistening cornfields, a top-secret installation bustled with hundreds of workers assembling nuclear warheads.
Denny Daily worked for 14 years as a security guard at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in rural Des Moines County. He had the highest level of security clearance and guarded the clandestinely named "Line 1," where the warhead work took place, and the "igloos" where the warheads were stored in earthen and concrete bunkers.
When Daily was diagnosed with prostate cancer eight years ago at age 65, he suspected that his old job had put him at risk. In 2002, he applied for federal compensation that Congress had created two years earlier for Cold War workers such as himself.
But Daily was denied. The U.S. Department of Labor, which runs the compensation program, put prostate cancer on its list of 77 conditions that it said had no known link to toxic exposure.
Sick workers came to call this the "no pay" list. They view it as another tactic that bureaucrats have devised to deny them the benefits congress intended for them.
The list was issued in 2006, exactly one decade after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found evidence of prostate cancer's link to toxic exposure so convincing that the VA added the cancer to its presumptive list for its own compensation program.
In other words, the veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to certain chemicals are compensated automatically by the VA. But the cold war workers exposed to some of the same chemicals are not.
Daily and his wife, Pat, discovered this and argued with labor department officials that Daily's cancer should at least be given a closer look, rather than summarily rejected.
They never heard a word back.
The Dailys, who now live in Waterville, Maine, have not received any response from the labor department about the "no pay" list or on Daily's request to reopen his original claim, which he made in October of last year.
"They ignored our evidence, they ignored our letters, they ignored us," Pat Daily said. "It's been a horrible, horrible trip."
The Dailys are not alone. Their attempts to negotiate the shifting sands of government rules and regulations have left them in a quagmire of frustration and despair with thousands of other former nuclear weapons workers from around the nation.
Dodging the law
Federal law says that the process of compensating sick nuclear weapons workers must be fair and consistent, but the Bush administration's labor department has fallen short of those standards. Indeed, the department has found multiple ways around the law, sometimes just flat-out ignoring it, a Rocky Mountain News review of scores of workers' cases, government documents, program data and internal communications found.
The Rocky found a pattern of ongoing decisions and rule changes within the 8-year-old program that consistently made it more difficult for sick and dying workers — or their survivors — to be compensated.
"There have been many individuals involved with administering or overseeing this program who have not accepted that these workers were exposed to harmful radiation," said Sen. Barack Obama, who began pushing program officials to help his constituents in Illinois long before he became the Democratic presidential candidate. "As a result, many have tried to limit the possibility of payments, even in the face of strong scientific evidence."
Through a spokesman, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential candidate, decried "any waste and inefficiency" in getting benefits to deserving claimaints.
The Rocky made repeated requests during the last two months to interview labor department executive Shelby Hallmark for this series, and sent him a detailed list of the series' findings more than a month ago. DOL never delivered on repeated promises of a response.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was warned three years ago by a bipartisan group of powerful Senators — including Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lamar Alexander and Orrin Hatch — that her department was "not at liberty to modify" the law. But the labor department ignored many of the congressional concerns.
Since then, the Bush administration has been under fire for exploring how to rein in costs by cutting the number of sick workers who qualify for compensation. According to internal e-mails, this discussion peaked in 2006 — the same year that the "no pay" list was created. Hallmark was the main labor department contact for the White House Office of Management and Budget during internal deliberations on cost cutting that year.
Hallmark testified before Congress last year that the ideas to cut costs by aggressively rejecting workers from the benefits never was implemented. Critics say the same ends have been achieved by different means, such as the "no pay" list.
"They have imposed their own will on this," said Richard Miller, a former union policy analyst who helped write the original compensation law and testified before Congress about the labor department's plans to cut costs.
The Dailys agree.
"Denny's claim shows very clearly that they did implement those (cost-cutting) plans," Pat Daily said. "It's not a coincidence."
Moving the goal posts
Included in the evidence that workers are being squeezed out of compensation:
* Labor department officials said they were trying to expedite claims when they issued the list of medical conditions that they said had "no known" links to toxic exposure in 2006. But the Rocky found multiple scientific studies that show links to at least seven of the "no-pay" listed diseases.
Some of those studies were funded by the government itself, including studies on workers at some of the weapons sites. One such study was actually sponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — the same agency in charge of scientific oversight of the compensation program. A NIOSH study of 12 weapons plants in 2000 found an increase risk of breast cancer, which is on the "no pay" list. And, while prostate cancer is also on the list, NIOSH's own "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards" lists the prostate as a cancer target for cadmium, a common bomb ingredient.
* Congress decided that the Department of Health and Human Services was taking too long to consider petitions for help from ill workers, so in 2004 it set a six-month time limit for those decisions. But the department simply changed the definition of a petition — saying it wasn't a true petition until the department "accepted" it for consideration. The department gave itself no deadline for making that decision, thereby thwarting Congress.
After congressional complaints, NIOSH changed its tune again. Now it starts the 180-day clock when it receives a petition, but it doesn't count any time spent "revising" the petition for "deficiencies" NIOSH identifies.
* While a large number of sick workers have radiation-induced cancer, many suffer from other diseases linked to toxic exposures. In both cases, sick workers must prove a link between their exposures and their illnesses, but Congress intentionally made the standard of proof lower in the case of toxic exposure than in radiation-only cases. The labor department continues to use the higher bar for both.
The law says that compensation for harm by radiation can happen only if it is at least as likely as not that radiation caused a worker's cancer. For harm done by toxic exposure, the law says it must be at least as likely as not that toxic exposure was a "significant factor in causing, contributing to or aggravating" a worker's illness. But when cancer victims claim harm by toxic exposure, the labor department still uses the higher standard of causation.
The law's requirement that compensation be fair and consistent has been thwarted by both the federal health and labor departments' changing of program rules and scientific methods midstream. The effect has been to deny compensation to more sick nuclear workers or their survivors, the Rocky found.
The bureaucracy built to implement the law gets to write its own rules about how that is accomplished — a common process in Washington. But the results for sick bomb workers have been devastating, as well as occasionally ludicrous. At one point, for example, a rule writer publicly bemoaned the unfair results of a rule that he helped write.
Larry Elliott directs NIOSH's compensation work. When it appeared last year that some Rocky Flats workers would be given special status to streamline processing of their claims, he lamented what would happen to other claimants because of his agency's rule.
"I hope the rest of the public understands that if a (special status) is awarded, there's going to be a group of people who aren't going to be as well off" when they try to get compensation, Elliott said then.
NIOSH had lost its argument that it could estimate radiation doses for some Rocky Flats workers. So those workers with certain cancers would be covered automatically. Workers with other cancers still had to go through a years-long process of having their total radiation doses estimated based on old records.
But Elliott's office decided that if records weren't good enough to reconstruct radiation doses for one of the automatically-covered cancers, they surely weren't good enough for the other cancers. Those workers were out of luck.
For some of the bomb makers, this meant that the government was saying the only radiation they absorbed at their nuclear weapons plant came from chest X-rays at their annual physical.
The government scientists acknowledged that those workers likely had been irradiated at higher levels, but the exposures would not be counted when it came time to determine whether they deserved compensation.
Cutting radiation estimates
Daily, the Iowa security guard, got mired in this catch-22.
The White House Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health said that the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant was one of more than 20 sites in the U.S. where the government at times had failed to document workers' radiation exposures.
Daily's co-workers from Line 1, the top secret assembly effort where he worked, persuaded program officials that they deserved automatic aid for certain cancers because government scientists could not accurately calculate their radiation doses. But Daily wasn't eligible because of the type of cancer he had.
The government's new estimate of how much radiation Daily faced at the plant now recognizes only a fraction of the radiation he likely absorbed. The scientists recalculated Daily's radiation dose, but sure enough, the only radiation they counted for him at the nuclear warhead assembly plant was what he received from the chest X-rays he got at his annual physicals.
"It's very unfair," he said.
Daily said he recognizes that prostate cancer is common in men his age, but he says he has none of the other risk factors, such as family history, obesity or smoking. When he decided to apply for federal compensation, he applied for both parts of the program. One covers radiation-induced cancers, the other any disease related to toxic exposures.
The labor department first notified Daily that it had determined that the chance of his cancer being related to his estimated radiation exposures was 37.9 percent, below the 50 percent threshold for getting compensation.
After NIOSH dropped his dose estimate and counted only his chest X-rays, program officials said the chance that his cancer was caused by his work was actually only 2 percent.
Daily pinned his hopes for compensation, which includes medical coverage, on the part of the program that governs toxic exposure. But then came the 2006 rule saying that the department could find no "readily known" link between prostate cancer and toxic exposures.
The rule was issued by program director Peter Turcic. The Dailys said they asked Turcic whether the labor department had reviewed the same evidence that led the VA to make prostate cancer automatically covered for veterans who faced chemical and radiation exposure. He didn't answer.
They asked Turcic to explain the scientific sources on which he based the "no pay" bulletin.
"I asked them to share their source of evidence," she said. "They wouldn't."
Earlier this year, Hallmark, Turcic's boss, defended the "no pay" list as a way to "expedite a backlog of cases." He told the Rocky then that claimants such as Daily are given 30 days to come up with their own scientific evidence that their illness is linked to toxic exposure.
"Claimants still have the opportunity to come back and say, wait, what about the VA?" Hallmark said. "We're saying, 'We've searched for evidence, now, claimant, you tell us.'"
"He's full of baloney," Pat Daily said. "We sent them the evidence. We sent them all the VA evidence, but they didn't look at it."
Hallmark said in an interview with the Rocky in February that he had talked to Turcic about the discrepancy between the labor department and the VA on prostate cancer.
"We need to get to the bottom of why our experts are saying there's not evidence and the VA says there is," he said five months ago.
Hallmark has never explained the discrepancy.
The Rocky Mountain News sent Hallmark details of its investigation of the "no pay" list last month. Less than two weeks ago, on July 10, the DOL suddenly rescinded the two-year-old list, saying that improvements to its own database of diseases linked to toxic substances — which also has existed for two years — made it obsolete.
But while the "no pay" list was publicly available, DOL's database is not. Claimants such as the Dailys cannot have all the data DOL says it will now use. Claimants can go to a DOL Web site and see a list of hundreds of toxic substances confirmed to be at certain weapons sites. And they can see a list of diseases on another Web page. But they can't know whether the government has evidence they were exposed to the substances that are linked to specific diseases, or exactly where those substances were found.
That, government officials say, would be a risk of national security.
The workers and the families of those who labored under top-secret conditions to defend the national security find that an ironic excuse.
"See the game?" Pat Daily said. "They got caught with a bogus list. This does nothing but get the pressure off them. We still can't get the information that can help us."
frankl@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5091
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 22, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
jtriska writes:
Weren't these people working on bombs that were designed to wipe out millions of other people? I guess karma really is a beotch. How many times were these workers in their little work room laughing about how many people this one might take out? You chose your profession, you thought it would be cool to build weapons of mass destruction to wipe out humanity. So now you have to deal with the consequences.
How worried were these people about the pain, sickness and death that their little product would inflict on others?
July 22, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Buckwheat writes:
Yea, I agree. Let other countries have the Nukes and WMD's. We'll all go like lambs to the slaughter. No need to defend ourselves. The meek shall inherite the earth right?? Yea, and all those people who work in Neuclear Medicine who get sick. That's Karma..Oh well, And lets not forget the Pilots who fly those planes 24/7 to protect your sorry azz, so you can post your little hate mongering. Yea Bro, right on.
July 22, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
jtriska, only one way to put it, you are an idiot. These weapons have saved countless lives, only because we have them. The invasion of Japan would have taken thousands more lives. This Government has lied to the people on hundreds of issues. The Government is doing the same to the Military now, cutting benefits, not taking care of wounded Vets, passed a law that says they can't draw military retirement and full amount of Social Security. They want kids to join, and yet screw them when it comes time to do what's right. Look up the Hanford facility in SE WA state, scary, millions of gallons of nuke waste sludge stored in tanks that are starting to leak. And it's on the Columbia river...
July 22, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
glock27 writes:
Most of these cancer claims are a crock. For example, I doubt that Denny Daily, the security guard, was exposed to anything that caused his prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer occurrs naturally in males who do not work in hazardous environment. My father died of prostrate cancer and never worked in a bomb plant..
As the old saying goes...correlation is not causation. After controlling for all the environmental factors such as smoking, diet, and background radiation, I suspect that the incidence of cancer among defense workers is no different than the general population.
July 22, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
33 writes:
Jtriska, I think your comments are totally insensitive. I want you to know that my father is one of the workers that got cancer from working at these dangerous sites. . . . and no he wasn’t making bombs and plotting to kill millions of people. He was cleaning up these sites so that Americans were safe from the aftermath of the Cold War weapons build-up.
As for the workers who did help manufacture weapons, they did so for the safety and protection of this country.
I think you need to have a heart Jtriska and I think you just brought some bad karma upon your self with your ignorant comments!
July 22, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
What law are you talking about that denies Veterans their retirement or even cuts Social Security. The Social Security Administration has WEP and GPO but it does not nor will it ever offset or decline compensation to Veterans. Not sure what you're referring to but your're dredfully wrong.
July 22, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
CLAIMS / CASES from 2001-2007
Applications Filed 165,382 / 115,620*
Covered Applications Filed 124,436 / 92,055
Total Compensation Paid Payments
42,351 / 31,221
Total Dollars
$3,738,254,138
Total Medical Bills Paid Total Dollars
$236,029,498
Total Compensation + Medical Bills Paid $3,974,283,636 Since 2001
Now tell if you think that no one is being paid. Try again. Keep in mind that the difference between a claim and a case is that a claim is just that a claim. A case has been determined to be legit and possibly entitled. Now look at who is actually covered, 124,436 of the 165,382 and 92,055 of the 115,620. This story won't cover that because there is a hidden agenda. Right Laura? Why don't you cover the amount of claims that have been paid to these claimants?
July 22, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
YLG writes:
I think that before you say anything that is insensitive about those who are sick, and those whom are deceased, do some research on your own. All of the former employees at these sites were told that they would be safe. These employees also had top security clearance, which meant they could not speak about any accidents pertaining to exposure or any other incidents that had happened.
Don't place undue blame on those who quitely keep you safe from dangers to the US. These people did this because they were patriots and love this country that gives you the freedom to bash the type of work they did, as well the peace of mind that they gave to you.
July 22, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
YLG writes:
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout, you really have no clue as to what you think you know about! I invite you to navigate this process with me and my mother. You can look at the incomplete files that have been provided to us from Rocky Flats, as well as the medical records from the doctors and all other research that we have done on our own. Of course this is not a great surprise that you take anything the governments gives you at face value.
I really wish that you don't have to watch a loved one go through the hell of dying of cancer, and then have to re-live the nightmare over and over again because you are constantly having to look for more evidence that NIOSH and DOL already have access to.
Why don't you be more proactive and take into consideration that you are wrong, but then it takes a certain type of person that can admit mistakes. Shame on you for thinking that the process is a walk in the park. Laura Frank is tyring to educate you and show that this is and injustice and something needs to be done to help these Cold War Vets.
July 22, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
My intent isn't to downplay the process, it is however to point out the obvious, which is you will run into snags no matter what Gov't agency you deal with. And to answer your question, yes,I have family members who have navigated the system (i.e. uranium miners) and have been fortunate enough to have been compensated. I'm not here to cause trouble or even discredit those who are sick, my intenstions however are to point out that the claims that have been held up for any reason are no different from those VA, claims, the indigent homeless claims under SSDI, the claims with other agencies who, by far outnumber the claims currently pending under this program. Why do we not hear about them? Are the Veterans and Indegent less important. Yes these people did a service for our country, I'm just tired of hearing Ms. Frank single out program when we have holes everywhere that are NEVER addressed. How about the children who were killed because of a Social Sevice mistake, that came and gone yet here we are beating a dead horse. My apologies If I've offended you but I'm a bit worn on this already.
July 22, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rufus_Leakn writes:
Has anyone considered that maybe those denied do not have a job related sickness? Or, do we automatically assume all sick nuclear workers got sick from their work? Every aging population has their sick and dying and bomb builders are no different.
glock27 writes:
"Most of these cancer claims are a crock. For example, I doubt that Denny Daily, the security guard, was exposed to anything that caused his prostate cancer....
As the old saying goes...correlation is not causation. After controlling for all the environmental factors such as smoking, diet, and background radiation, I suspect that the incidence of cancer among defense workers is no different than the general population."
Right one glock27. If you take the time to look it up, you will find this to be true. The compensation paid out is errs in the worker’s favor.
July 22, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I ain't holy and KnowWhatYoureTalkinAbout doesn't know what he's talking about.
Science gets ignored and valid claims get denied to so that the Bush administration can use the money for something else like enriching the bosses of those Blackwater mercenaries.
Those nuclear workers are suffering for one basic reason: greed.
Going to combat and getting your head blown off for your country may be counted as a heroic deed. When you think about it, that's a pretty easy way to go. Compare that to dying slowly from chronic radiation poisoning and the diseases caused by the extreme toxicity of those materials.
As a nation, there is one and only one appropriate reaction to this disgrace: find those responsible for denying medicine to these nuclear workers and render them unto brave punishments.
July 22, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
saffron writes:
Knowwhatyouretalkingabout: Your transparency as a DOL employee is truly embarrassing to these forums and to free speech.
Laura Frank is doing her job as a reporter -- informing us, her readers -- thankfully a few still exist. She is merely a mirror for the nasty work the DOL is doing, of which you must be connected. Remember, don't kill the messenger!
No one, without some vested interest, would ever publicly defend a government institution that is mired in red tape and ultimately, killing people.
When you got your lame pr job offer at the DOL, did they inform you of the horrible nature of your duties? That is, to fly clandestinely in public forums backing the DOL? And you agreed? For what? $50k a year?
Sad.
July 22, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Reality check: the cost of determining the exact cause of disease in each person who has been exposed to radioactive materials is at least 1000 times what it costs to simply treat everyone who has been exposed.
That's why it costs too much. The solution is to fire (or jail) all the executives and bureaucrats whose lives are solely dedicated to the denial of claims. Those criminals are foisting misery on the nuclear workers who have sacrificed their health and lives for our country.
July 22, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
Your assumption of me being DOL employee is appauling, I do work for the Media as well. Not a publication nearly as large as the RMN but one that provides two sides to the story. 50K a year? I wish, but soon, as we begin to circulate to a much large demo. Nice try saffron, nice guess but way off base.
July 22, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
YLG writes:
Aging population? What do you consider aging? Any one over 65? Ok then tell me this, why did my father die at age 47? It couldn't have been because of all the chemicals used and radiation that he was exposed to at Rocky Flats, known and unknown? Don't start assuming.....
July 22, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
saffron writes:
That's a nice response KWYTA -- and if true, your bias is appalling. You sure media is the right calling for you, especially after your attacks on Laura Frank yesterday? You are not presenting two sides to the story.
Objectivity is the journalists' first rule in the code of conduct.
Remember the code brotha?
July 22, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
KnoWhatYoureTalkinAbout writes:
Now there are "codes of conduct" in "journalism?" WOW! That's an oxymoron!
July 22, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
What about all of the people who lived near RF, or the RMA? Are they just SOL when it comes to light that they were contaminated as well? What about nuclear power plants, how many are exposed inside and outside of the plants. We need to know because both candidates for president are exploring the idea of nuclear power as a solution for clean energy.
July 22, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
saffron writes:
My bad, KWYTA, it is a code of ethics.
This is news to you? Again, you sure media is your bag buddy?
Here's a link to your code: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Maybe you should consider joining the Society of Professional Journalists? Laura Frank, the writer you have been attacking in these forums, is most definitely a member.
BTW -- they don't accept bloggers
July 22, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
jtriska -
"Weren't these people working on bombs that were designed to wipe out millions of other people? I guess karma really is a beotch. How many times were these workers in their little work room laughing about how many people this one might take out?"
Actually jtriska the work these people performed most likely prevented quite a few million people from being wiped out. So you might want to say a few thanks, least you find out just how much of a beotch karma can be.
July 22, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
YLG writes:
I wouldn't worry about the people who lived near Rocky Flats, they got compensated for their property value in the millions of dollars range...when the people who worked there have yet to be compensated for $150,000.00. Tell me why property is worth more than a human life?
July 22, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Balances writes:
Every person has the right to their opinion. Those who are suffering also have the right to be represented. Checks and Balances. The court of public opinion would point to Senate or Congressional Hearings, to get to the bottom of this conjecture. People put under oath with the real possibility of going to jail for miss deed or committing perjury. How much more has to be done before our elected officials hear and act? There is a real course and solution for this real problem. It might take a regieme change. Without action in the legislature nothing will happen. This was supposed to be fixed when it was taken away from ( and rightly so ) DOE. It's not fixed. Call for the hearings. Also why are the Unions being so quiet? Do we have to kill our workers to have a nuclear program? Let's look at the contracts between DOE and their subcontractors.
July 22, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
KnowWhatYoureTalkinAbout has a future in conservative propaganda, not real journalism or any form of credible media.
No one except one of Rush Limbaugh's "oxy"morons would care to read or hear a nonstop stream of excuses for failure. That is exactly what those who decry the messenger, Laura Frank, are doing here.
She's interviewed the abandoned nuclear workers and is telling their story. This is an appalling story, a national disgrace, and a cruel failure that is not acceptable.
July 22, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
bradindvr writes:
The care which these people are(n't) getting from our caring government will be required for all of us under the plans of certain political (D) candidates. It is spelled "single payer"
July 22, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
WhyMe writes:
OK, I feel a need to chime-in here. The sensationalism of this news article keys on a few things, not the least of which is “VA pays for the illness, so why not DOL!?”
The fact is that VA pays for prostate cancer only based on service in Vietnam and a presumed exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange. Are Laura Frank and the Rocky actually implying that a person at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant was likely exposed to Agent Orange? Come on now!
Additionally, VA presumes prostate cancer's link to dioxin (the nasty chemical in Agent Orange) not because of any proven causal relationship, but rather because of a very slight statistical increase in prostate cancer (and other conditions, including diabetes) in the demographic group of those who served in Vietnam. In other words, if an average of 200 out of 10,000 people in the general population get prostate cancer, but 205 out of 10,000 Vietnam veterans get prostate cancer, VA simply decided to pay all 205 veterans. Does that mean it is "at least as likely as not" that the 205 cases of prostate cancer were caused by exposure to dioxin? No.
Lastly, this statistical increase was realized only by disregarding other factors such as age, lifestyle, family history, etc. These coexisting factors were ignored for the political reason that VA wanted to create a way to pay more benefits to Vietnam veterans. For VA purposes there never was any ‘evidence’ of a physiological link between prostate cancer, diabetes, etc. to Agent Orange or any form of exposure, but the claims are being paid for a political reason.
The article states that VA automatically pays for prostate cancer based on exposures to “certain chemicals.” Later the article refers to questioning Mr. Turcic about the evidence “that led the VA to make prostate cancer automatically covered for veterans who faced chemical and radiation exposure.” It is patently incorrect to imply that VA pays for prostate cancer based on radiation exposure, or even based on various chemicals. VA pays for prostate cancer based on exposure to one chemical in one location; dioxin in Vietnam. There has never been any actual evidence of a causal link, but merely a statistical blip caused by faulty logic.
So...
Q: How many 65 year old men, with no known risk factor other than age and being a male, develop prostate cancer?
A: A helluva lot!
July 22, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jtriska writes:
Wow did I stir up alot of chit. So what your telling me is that we'd all be dead now if we weren't making WMD's? Well chit i'm really f'n sorry if I offended anyone. Just let me know who I am to thank when that big bright light goes off and we're all toast.
July 22, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
jtriska - we might not all be dead, just speaking Russian.
July 22, 2008
6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
WhyMe writes:
Getting back to the 'news' article...
I also take exception with the article’s statement that regarding radiation-induced cancers and illnesses from toxic substances “in both cases, sick workers must prove a link…” In fact, for a claim for a radiation-induced cancer a person simply needs to establishes that he was diagnosed with cancer. Presuming his employment is documented the employee does not need to ‘prove’ anything else for the claim process to continue. Where does this reporter get her (pseudo-)facts from? Wikipedia?
And Larry Elliot’s point was merely the equivalent of the old adage of ‘be careful about what you ask for.’ If a group petitions for the plant to have special status (and thus automatic benefits for certain cancers) it has to be based on establishing that NIOSH cannot adequately estimate the amount of radiation that workers were exposed to. When the petitioners are adamant enough and the status is granted, NIOSH has no choice but to then be consistent and say that they are unable to estimate the radiation dose that workers may have been occupationally exposed to.
This is not a decision made by Elliot’s office, but is a matter of logic; the workers at the plant simply cannot have both special status and reconstructed doses amounts. The reporter tries to somehow take Elliot to task for stating the logical truth... say what? The petitioners, with their certain cancers, effectively stab their coworkers in the back. Mr. Daily’s lowered chance of causation, after the plant got its special status, effectively reveals the knife that was thrown by his coworkers who petitioned for the change.
The Rocky's sensationalized rants like this remind me why I'm darn glad that my work forced me to move from the area. Now I only wish that my friends would stop telling me about these inane articles, so that I can allow my blood pressure to settle down a little.
July 22, 2008
7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rufus_Leakn writes:
There are radiation induced cancers, but at the exposures received in the weapons complex, there is no statistical evidence (from studies) showing overall increased cancer rates. I believe this program was set up for political reasons as in the case of Agent Orange.
July 22, 2008
8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
smarterthanyou writes:
If those who are angered by jtriskas comments will look more closely at their own position, by saying that the work of these people at the facilities that produced nuclear weapons was necessary and righteous, then they are in fact saying that the people getting sick from the chemicals are collateral damage and that it is worth it. They knew they were not going to work manufacturing lolly pops for school kids. They were dipping their hands in plutonium, not butterscotch. Just like soldiers going off to fight a war, they know the risks. If they did not, then they were fools. And as far as the comment that we would all be speaking Russian if we did not proliferate nukes, then you are saying that we are essentially weaker than the other developed nations, and that all that stands between us and oblivion is our warheads. I happen to have more faith and pride in America than you have, you silly sheep.
July 22, 2008
8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Balances writes:
Once again, people talking and no justice being served. There were rules in place concerning exposure. The subcontractors were in charge of watching out for the workers. They were also in charge of manipulating dose data to fit the incentive payments they were getting from DOE for no law suits no high doses and no safety fines over 10,000 dollars. I.E the subcontractors got money if they changed the dose. You want to talk, or organize a hearing so that the documents to prove this can be put on the table. All you should need is one example to reveal a smoking gun.
The documents exist. Without official actions by the courts or hearings by the Government that's all it is is just talk. No one is scared of that with out the posibility of indictment. If NIOSH is wrong push for the law to be corrected. We don't work for NIOSH , they work for us. I don't get where the Price Anderson should bail out the subcontractor. Also why does DOE still get to put their cut on everything. They wre supposed to be removed from this thing but are still witholding documents and the EEOICPA doesn't even have subpoena powers to get the documents. If you don't know this you don't understand the process. I believe they give workers 30 days to come up with documents. We are not being properly represented by our elected officials. They are DOE's boss but they act like they work for DOE.
July 22, 2008
9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Balances writes:
Oh by the way in the facility I work at 7 out of 50 men who would be affected 7 out of fifty have Acending Aortic Aneurisms. They are under the age of 56 with the youngest being 46. The national average is 1 in 144,000 between the ages of 65 and 79. You'd call this a decimation by any streatch of the imagination. Speaking of imagination , why is the baseline of 22 cancers still in effect after it was established in 2000? Is there not one ne new piece of evidence surfaced in that time that would change that? ( not confusing Aneurisms with cancer) Take for example the aneurisms. A Cardioligist who reviewed these stats said it would be like 7 people in the same small town not knowing each other all winnig the lottery. People who worked with this stuff Salary and Hourly who were under the watchful eye of the DOELAP programs are sick. Hey here's a good one for you who knows what DOELAP is? Who runs DOELAP?
July 22, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
smarterthanyou -
"And as far as the comment that we would all be speaking Russian if we did not proliferate nukes, then you are saying that we are essentially weaker than the other developed nations,"
What I'm saying is that the USSR would have built their nuclear arms whether we did or not.
If the USSR had a nuclear arsenal and the US did not, then the outcome of the Cold War would have been vastly different than it was.
Care to tell us what would have kept the USSR out of Western Europe if the US didn't have nukes?
"and that all that stands between us and oblivion is our warheads."
Um, no, I'm not saying that. You confused the past and present for one thing - the USSR no longer exists so our nukes are no longer a deterrent to them. Even so, our nukes weren't the only factor in the Cold War - our conventional military presence in Europe, for example, was also a major factor.
"I happen to have more faith and pride in America than you have,"
Do you really? It doesn't sound to me like you have much pride in how America conducted the Cold War.
40 years and not a nuke fired in anger - I guess those "workers in their little work room laughing about how many people this one might take out" that jtriska described must have been pretty disappointed.
" you silly sheep."
History really is silly isn't, what can you do about it?
July 22, 2008
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
PaducahWorker writes:
All across the Nation, it has been the same cry, not only from Rocky Flats and its nearby facilities, but from dozens of DOE plants and installations. If you have not worked in one of these plants, been lied to repeatedly, falsely accused of doing something wrong on the job, been exposed to countless toxic agents while plant managers were telling us that the dust in these old buildings was only "dust", no dangers, then you are totally unqualified to judge sick workers who know that we were lied to and deserve proper compensation. At age 48, I was on my way to owning a 17 acre farm, a very nice home and two pieces of rental property. Then, I found myself sick with such a mix of symptoms that six different doctors in three states could not figure out what was wrong with me. At age 49, I was totally and permanently disabled. Every time I laid down, I did not know if I would ever get up again. I suffered terribly with the symptoms of Multiple Heavy Metals Poisoning, then we lost everything, an $850,000 investment, gone over night. We lost all our savings, almost all of our furniture and got to keep one ten year old car. For nine years, I have been corresponding with advocates, sick workers, down-winders (plant neighbors) and other concerned citizens from all over America, England, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan. The link of secrecy and deceit is between DOE plants and Gulf War Syndrome. Study the symptoms yourself. You will find all basic symptoms to be the same. We have not only poisoned our Radioactive Materials workers for more than 60 years, but have poisoned and killed around 11,000 of our Troops who have used the Depleted Uranium Ammunition, secretly laced with Plutonium. Some of you have written cute comments in order to get attention and raise a stir. This is so far above your knowledge that you would not sleep for weeks, if you knew the truth. Laura is being a bold journalist by writing these truths. I personally talked with reporters from Dateline, Time Magazine and 20/20 who refused to take the risk to criticize the U.S. DOE, DOL, or the Dept. of Defense. One serves the other. All three are linked. People who have tried to bring out the truth in past years have died in the process. Silkwood was not just a cute movie. Please, PLEASE accept this information from Laura. She has put years into research and she has her facts absolutely straight. Those of you who write otherwise, God Bless You, in spite of your ignorance.
July 23, 2008
5:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Balances writes:
Paducah worker is right. News papers are afraid usually to tackle this problem. They are afraid they will be attacked by our own Government. When the Republican administration was not in power they said " dismantle DOE." You haven't heard that latley have you. The DOE weilds much power and money. The people working there don't serve a particular politic. They fold their arms and wait. Bill Richardson was not the person to reveal the things going on in the DOE it was Hazel O'Leary. I remember well after the 2000 Senate hearings with Senator Thompson ( Leiberman was minority chair). The Senate had been told publicly what a boondogle we were in and they were scrambling to provide a fix.( the Price Anderson protects against catastrophic accident not willful misconduct) Vicki Hatfield
( Oak Ridge) had testified along with Ann Orrick and Energy Secretary Richardson thinking he should " do somthing" gave her a medal in a ceremony. It reminded me of the medals with Jefferson's picture on it that our Government gave the American Indians. Call for hearings. Call for action. Pry the power away from these agencies that are serving themselves and should be serving us. Vote out the officials who are losing sight of their mission. That is to serve their constituants. ( quote) They all seem like game show hosts to me.
July 23, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
WhyMe writes:
As a reply to Balance's question about the 22 cancers and why the list hasn't been revised...
The list of presumptive cancers is not unique to this benefit program. It's taken from the same list of cancers used for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) and matches the automatic cancers for 'atomic' veterans who witnessed a blast or cleaned-up the islands.
And the listed cancers do not always indicate that they are more radiogenic. Non-special-status workers who have their cases go through NIOSH often get some of the lowest causation percentages for cancers on the list.
So don't expect the list to be changed as there's no basis for a change and other in-synch agencies’ big-buck programs would be affected.
July 23, 2008
10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
smarterthanyou writes:
CL: Don't misrepresent my statements to suit your narrow and uninspired point of view. Interesting how you failed to answer my suggestion that supporters of our participation in the arms race should accept the illnesses of the nukes workers as a necessary evil and that their suffering and death is worth our security as a country. Have you ever considered that perhaps the former Soviet Socialist Republic was not as mighty as we had all been raised to fear, and that it was never economically sound enough to last. American military might was a factor in the ending of the cold war, but so was the reality of economics, and the diplomatic efforts of men like Gorbachev. It may have been necessary, but make no mistake, every one is accountable for their own choices. My point, people who make their living dealing with destructive elements should hold themselves accountable for that choice. By the way, I'm sure even you are likely not dumb enough to believe people in those plants did not have a giggle about the weapons they were cranking out. I am sure you will be voting for McCain, whom I believe stated, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".
July 24, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
jtriska writes:
Well smarter than you, good to see that there are others that understand what it means to have accountability for their actions.
That's what I was trying to convey to these war mongers. I don't like to hear about people suffering and I don't want people to think that I'm a heartless worm. The fact is we are all going to die from something and if you choose a profession that involves working with the most toxic substances on earth than you run the risk of dying a little sooner than most. Don't try and tell me that these educated people had no idea of the risks involved. Give me a break. They just don't want to face the destiny that they created for themselves. I especially like the part you threw in about how these workers are then righteous in their efforts to protect our freedoms and therefore collateral damage. Hit it on the head.
I can't belive that after all we know about our government and how they treat our vets that anyone can still be surprised when good ole uncle sam screws them over.
July 26, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Asia53 writes:
To Jtriska:
I worked at Rocky Flats for 25 years. Never once did any of us make jokes , or laugh about our product or work.
Yeah, you're right about karma. I sincerely pray, and hope, you don't have to pay for your crass, insensitive remarks.
Asia 53
Rocky Flats 1980-2005
July 29, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jtriska writes:
Hey Asia. Did you read my last post? Is that uranium getting to your head? I said I don't want to hear about people suffering, but I'm tired of hearing about people being aware of the risks they take in life and then cry about the outcome of their actions. Don't even begin to try and tell me that none of these educated people working with these elements had no idea of the risk. Take accountability for your actions.
Don't try and tell me about karma. I'm not worried at all. Oh no, the big bad karma boogie monster is out to get me. How many homes have you volunteered to build on your time off for our wounded troops and disabled people. My guess is zero. Oh yeah, you only worked on things that were meant to destroy and send the earth into oblivion. Good luck with your karma warmonger.
July 30, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
PaducahWorker writes:
jtriska, You call us Warmongers? We were producing nuclear fuel rods for electricity to heat and cool your home. By the time I went to work in a DOE operated plant in 1984, stockpiles of nuclear war heads were being dismantled because the US was overstocked with them and had been for a long time. Of all the bloggers, you appear to be the least informed and least sensitive. Are you aware that it was uproar from plant workers that stopped the DOE from trying to dispose of Depleted Uranium by selling to Mattel to be impregnated into plastics for your children's toys to make them indestructible? Are you aware that advocates such as Laura Frank and others were the ones who blew the whistle time and again when DOE was trying to dump radioactive toxic waste in your backyard landfills? One of those strongest advocates lost her daughter to one of the 22 qualifying cancers two weeks ago, waiting for the DOL to compensate for very long time. She left behind two sons and a loving family. Mother and daughter both worked at Hanford in Washington, both have suffered returning bouts with cancer and both were told repeatedly that all precautions were taken, everything was safe in the plant and they had nothing to worry about. They were told that their safety equipment had been tested and they could not be harmed if they followed procedures, which they did, but the safety precautions failed. We all worked with a proper attitude of, "If I do my job correctly, follow proper procedures, then I, nor anyone else will be harmed in any manner." Our illnesses, deaths and those of countless down-winders were caused as result of repeated lies from the DOE and our proper compensation, which will never make up for our losses, financial or physical, are manipulated and withheld by the DOL so that Bush can continue his war in Iraq.
July 30, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
PaducahWorker writes:
One other note: I have talked with countless US Military Troops from every branch of service concerning Depleted Uranium Ammunitions. I have seen the filmed classroom warning that was never shown to Gulf War Troops. It warned of dangers of the Plutonium smoke and dust from the burning and burned DU Ammo. Instead, Troops as far back as the British in the Falkland Islands used US produced DU Ammo and following battles, reported illnesses and symptoms of acute heavy metals poisoning. Troops were told that the DU was coated with a thick layer of Teflon, which kept the round from burning in the barrel of the weapon, increased muzzle velocity and made DU a perfect weapon, safe to the shooter. Recent tests have proven that the Teflon burns away quickly within the rifle barrel, spewing a cloud of radioactive smoke from the flash suppressor and if several rounds are fired, which is common, fogs the shooter in a cloud of a mix of various heavy metals to include radioactive DU and elevated levels of Plutonium. (When DU burns, there is a substantial increase in the level of Plutonium.) I packaged and shipped DU powder for five years to Carolina Metals where the DU was made into ammunitions. My basic symptoms of my Multiple Heavy Metals Poisoning are identical to the basic symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. Both the DOE and the DOD knew that the DU Ammo was dangerous and that many of our Troops would be poisoned. Want more info: get "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" and "Contaminated Forever" documentary films that show the secrecy, denial and deceit. The DOE has directly interfered with health care of plant workers by means of Intravenous Chelation Therapy which extracts elements and toxic isotopes from the human body. DOE has contributed to rumors that IV Chelation Therapy is dangerous, yet furnished such treatments to plant managers and DOE plant reps. for now close to 70 years. Intravenous Chelation Therapy is the only cure for severe Multiple Heavy Metals Poisoning, yet the Government suppresses any positive news about its success.