Before the WWII, there were not many opportunities for jobs to come by, until the WWII era of the invention of America's vast nuclear weapon produced several working opportunities. Constructing these nuclear weapons jobs, by production facilities, laboratories, and nuclear test sites throughout New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington State and eventually scattered through the United States, conversely resulted in environmental degradation and adverse health effects among the nuclear weapon workers. These nuclear weapon workers were exposed to some of the deadliest substance ever used which resulted in cancer and diseases. The capital investment in the weapons exceeded the combined capital investment of DuPont, General Motors, U.S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Alcoa, and Goodyear (p. 214). It was not until thirty years later, in the 1980's and 1990's when accounts of the mismanagement of the weapons complex the surface.
In David Michael's book, Doubt is Their Product, chapter sixteen discusses the side effects from the weapons project after WWII, and explains the law he helped create in order to reduce decades of inadequate protection for nuclear weapon workers. Before then, many of the workers in the weapons project were not aware how much of influence their work environment conflicted with their health, and if they did they battled to fight for their protection of their health rights. "many of the workers were told the names or the hazardous nature of the other material with which they worked, and if they were told, they were prohibited from sharing this information with their spouses and physicians. (To this day, many workers are still not old this information.) If they subsequently became ill, that was just too bad" (p. 217).
In 1988, the Radiation-exposed Veterans Compensation Act, provided benefits for people who contracted cancer and a number of other specified diseases as a direct result of their exposure from the environment, intentionally and unintentionally. However, it was debatable to argue the fairness of compensation for the atomic veterans. "Cancer caused by radiation looks the same cancer caused otherwise. Doctors' cannot tell the difference" (p. 218). Department of Energy, (was known as Atomic Energy Commission) had faced serious problem with its "deny and defend" policy when confronting nuclear weapons works who said their job had made them sick. The National Cancer Institute develop a system to calculate the "probability of causation" from other cancer that may have had additional causes to help defined the atomic veterans. Even those obvious sick workers, were not getting compensation for occupational illness because most workers in the weapons complex were considered private sector workers given that they were employed by the contractor the government had hired to run the facility.
Followed by 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), a federal statute providing for the monetary compensation of people who contracted cancer and number of other specified diseases, or the widows of uranium miners who had died. Since most were employed by the private constructors it was required in most states for employers to carry workers' compensation insurance to cover medical expenses, wage-loss payments, and rehabilitation's and death benefits (p. 222). Unfortunately, in 2000 RECA ran out of money and those widows received an IOU letter from the U.S. government.
It was until victory for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), was enacted to provide compensation and medical benefits to the workers of the nuclear weapon complex. In 2004, Congress finally passed the legislation, ensuring the Department of Labor would fully pay out sick workers and surviving wives of uranium miners would not ever receive an IOU from the government if their program ran out of funds again (p. 231).
QUESTIONS:
Why do you believe the AEC and Doe hounded and questioned Dr. Mancuso on his researched results of detecting increased cancer among workers at the plutonium production facility in Handford, Washington (p. 218)?
Quoted from Michael, "The Department of Justice had always been successful in shielding the government from liability in these claims" (p. 229). Why do you consider the Department of Justice was successful for protecting this from the government?
Why couldn't the atomic veterans get support that their cancer was caused by radiation in order to get fair compensation?
Personally, how would you feel if you were a widow of uranium miner and you received an IOU from the U.S. government?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To put an answer to your last question...I would not feel that I and IOU from the government would have been enough to be a widow of one of the miner's.....so money and word from the government is supposed to make me feel better for my loss and to make up for my grief and sorrow for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place...I don't think so! Furthermore, I don't fully support RECA...again...money is an issue...like it's supposed to make everything all better! Is that what our government is all about....buying out the wrongs that are done to its society? If so....this will be an interesting future!
ReplyDeleteFinallly, we have a start to at least acknowledging wrongs that have been done. Alyson, to your point, throwing money at problems that could have and should have been prevented in the first place is not only unsustainable but potentially a slap in the face to all the families who have lost loved ones. However, it is more importantly an acknowledgement and an attempt to right a wrong which is what, in my opinion, anyone who has been wronged is looking for. This chapter shows that we ARE capable of making change. Now, how can we effectively make more changes? As more and more cases like these come to light in the future, how are we as public health agents going to handle the balance between funding and doing the right thing in our own work? Without a doubt we will all find ourselves in positions where we have to choose, and not always will it be an easy or right decision. What happens when you as a health sanitarian agent has to decide between closing down a business for the health of the public or destroying the livlihood of a the family who owns the business? Granted, the scenarios we may face in the near future are on different playing fields and ethical standards than what our government and industry has been playing on for some time now, but in your own world the decision will be as big as it gets.
ReplyDeleteThis topic was kind of tough, because we are dealing with the country during the end of WWII and the cold war. America wanted to dominate and they had the backing of its citizens, during WWII. During the Cold War the Americans wanted to have more nukes than the Russians and vice versa. We won because we worked harder at the production line at cost of poor health for the workers. but if I was one of those workers I probably wouldn't think about my health I would be thinking about building more weapons and building a bunker in the backyard. I keep thinking back to how old public health is, and all agency, policies, etc, which have been created throughout the years. The education of public health may have not been available to citizens and the even the workers. Its a tough subject especially with the Cold War, because with all wars there will be casualties, and thats reality. This was a war, but it was a war fought on individual domestic soil. Thats a statement the government may say. I'm personally not for it, but I guess I am playing devils advocate, sorry PJ. My question is why WWII and the Cold War, what about all our other conflicts? There are various other health impacts from other conflicts, which were not mentioned in the text.
ReplyDeleteAll round us are made by chemical material, laptop, table,paper....When workers are making these staff for our daily life, have someones thought about the processes/procedure of these products?
ReplyDeleteLots of time hear about laws trends and try to protect people,but who knows the end of the story? Once we traced on the end, we always get bad things. Government/Departments are doing their best as "we are know", justice is stand on the other side. What is "safe way" of protect workers in producing plant?
There is a link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/NuclearGreen#p/a/u/0/es41caMvWh0
taking about nuclear company.
Does it the only compensation for workers in Uranium and their family? Does this "Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA)" is follow up the same idea of "first pollute the environment and then take countermeasures"? The air can not be protected by this lesson, but we are still following... Health can destroyed firstly and cure later? Does it our health education and health promotion's mission?
One quote, that I think Dr. Jecklin used last semester that I really liked was "We never have time to do it right, but we always have time to do it over". And this is so true if you think about it. We are always in a rush to get things done, off our desk, out the door, but how often do we look at how its affecting ourselves, and others and if we are creating a quality product. We could go so many ways with this, especially now with the whole Toyota recall. However, I want to refer back to the text when U.S. citizens were preparing for war, and as Gracjan said, trying to outproduce other countries in regards to weapons. As I was reading, I was just thinking how obvious it was to me that we often are trying to protect our own soil, if you will, defend our homeland through weapons and war, but how many lives are we affecting in this process? The whole point to create weapons was to defend our country and in retrospect save U.S. lives, but my question is how many lives are we taking in the process? And what is more important, saving lives immediately (safe working conditions) or in the future (protection againest war)? I understand the point of creating security and an arsenal, but do we really have time to "do it over"?
ReplyDeleteMy second question is somewhat rhetorical, why do we keep creating chemicals and toxins that we can NOT dispose of?? For example pg. 216- the DOE is storing 1.5 billion pounds of unstable toxic material that is decades old and leaking. Fantastic. Did we not know this was going to be an issue before we created it? What is the point if we have no where to put it in the end? Very similar issues to e-waste.
I am interested in finding out more about the professional preparation of the healthcare field related to accurately assessing, diagnosing and treating health issues, such as ones caused by nuclear weapons and testing. If I, as a worker or a military person went to a 'check up' so to speak because I had some odd symptoms (mild to severe), is the general practitioner even properly trained to address my concerns? Even when i do get compensation for medical costs or treatment, are there places I can go for proper care?
ReplyDeleteIs there enough nuclear weapons out there to destroy the world?
ReplyDeleteWhere are these tank/barrel dumps all located? How many are there?
Is there the clean up going to be sponsored by US tax $, since they were cause by US tax $?
Sad stories of suffering by veterans of an industry that was touted as being essential to our national defense; is this an abuse of quiet heroes? Will there always be a need for Worker’s compensation insurance or is every adverse effect preventable? Do well-educated professionals always sense the moral dilemmas Mandy describes or can you be smart and clueless? If so, how would that happen? Gracjan provides a great introduction to Unit III. I frequently tease my friends in medicine; you only see public health’s mistakes. To what degree might that be true? Brittany’s question brings us to the contemporary challenge of resolving the safety and waste storage concerns of nuclear power fast enough to use this source of power to fend off the health threats of green house gases; what incentives exist to push ahead of our current state of knowledge? Bethany’s questions are excellent prompts to understanding the interface between health care and environmental threats; a better seam between these two fields could assure the type of surveillance we do not have with our current regulatory agencies. There are answers to many of PJs questions; you can read congressional hearings that will reveal some but not all of what we need to know. DoD has dumped barrels into Lake Superior; does anyone in class know what is in the barrels?
ReplyDeleteFrom the Radiation-exposed Veterans compensation Act in 1988 to the vitory of Energy Employees occupational illness compensation program Act in 2004, we have gone a long way. Who ever played a role in propelling this huge progress in legislation?
ReplyDeleteFrom the way it sounds we can assume that there have been enought nuclear weapons out there to destroy the world! I mena come on , ifjust the US made that many weapons, then rest-a-sured that everyone else did as well. However, it sounds like we wont thave to wait that long, because with all the leakage of toxic waste, we will just slowly poison ourselves to death. Probably along wiht thte rest of thw orld, because if all of our storage tanks ar our of date, I am sure theirs' are to.
ReplyDeleteOkay, this has to be the stupidest excuse I have read in this book so far, "Ther is no danger. Therefore, you are not sick. Now go back to work. (pg. 217)" WHAT? Lets not tell people that they are working with hazardous material, because then there positive fram of mind will keep the well. Dothey know that this only work for recovery proposes! I mean, I know the mind can do miraculous things, but lets be real here.
I know we did not talk about the "dwon-winder" in class, but . . . How many times does it have to be proven that particles in the air travel to other places besides just over a particular plant!!! AND - that the traveling particles have an effecdt on those in drop-out zones (from rainor just settlingof particles). This has bee know for decades from the indstrial area begining.
So, they finally fess up, but then they make it so difficult for those to file for workers composition,that it is better to work at a job that WILL kill you, then to fight back for better working condition. Some of these nuclear plant empolyee thousands of people, if they leave, then what happens to that town?
Sounds like there are some points that were discussed last night according to Paula's post...sounds very intersting and a very crucial issue that needs to be addressed further...I guess all I could add is that employers need to make safter working conditions for their employees and stand by their company when something isn't right and may put their employees health and as a whole at risk.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter had some very obvious issues, that in contrast to some of the other chapters, that were largely about money, I felt this one went down to caring for our own country.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main points that struck me was the fact that in order to produce weapons, nuclear or not we were harming our own. Something that seems so contradictory. In order to protective our country and defend ourselves (by making weapons) we were hurting and killing many people in the process, isn't this what we were trying to avoid?
I do not understand that if every country holds a peace flag for developing friendly, why they are still planing on new weapon?Does it contradiction? Government stands for its benefit or its citizens' benefit? Compare with honor, life is more valuable or not? Even government is doing and passing more and more acts for protecting workers in nuclear industries or others, our science and technology are not remedies for all these damages and diseases. It is not just a fault for one country but a aim for all countries in the world. Can Switzerland be a model of every county? anti war is not so hard.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this chapter it made me think the same things that Britt had brought of our country making weapons at the cost of innocent workers lives, who weren't even in combat. But that was then, I wonder what lind of dangerous or even toxic weapons the government is making now, and at what cost to the health of the American Public, I think that with any government there will always be doubt.
ReplyDeleteUsually the person who worked in a unsafe workplace settings are tend to be lower income and less educated. These people are less powerful and more vulnerable than we expected. And their rights and benefits could easily be hurt. The only way to protect them from harm is to establish strict rules and legislatons. And implemented it in a effective way, not to set invisible barriers when they approached for help.
ReplyDelete