An Open Letter to the United States Government
This is my experience dealing with the US Government and my struggles for compensation for my cancer and other illnesses. If you would like to help me and others convince our government to finally do the right thing, please sign the petition and encourage your friends, families and contacts to do the same. Thank you in advance.
I have been fighting for compensation under the EEOICPA in its current form since 2004, and many others have died trying. I may not be able to speak for the other claimants, but I can relate my own experiences. I had long-term exposure to radiological and hazardous materials due to my employment at the Fernald site in Ohio from April 3, 1991 through August 22, 2002. I was diagnosed with Stage IIIB invasive breast cancer on November 29, 2002. Apart from the radiation exposure I experienced through the course of my employment at the Fernald site, I have none of the other known risk factors for developing breast cancer.
In 2004, I learned that there was a program designed to compensate both cancer survivors and non-survivors’ families in a timely manner. I was led to believe that the benefit of the doubt would go to the victims. While the intentions behind enacting the legislation to establish this program may have been honorable, I regret to inform you that we employees are as much victims of the bureaucracy surrounding the program as we are of the illnesses we have suffered. I was told that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) would subject my case to a Dose Reconstruction. I waited more than a year for this “reconstruction” to be completed, only to be informed that the statistics NIOSH and Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) used did not support my claim, and that the Department of Labor (DOL) would recommend denial.
I do not believe that NIOSH accurately estimated my actual radiation dose. In fact, I believe that it was grossly underestimated. There are serious flaws in the site profiles used at Department of Energy (DOE) work sites which form the basis for NIOSH’s Dose Reconstruction Reports for individual site employees. These flaws are the result of several factors, including missing, inaccurate and, in some instances, falsified DOE and contractor records. This leads to invalid assumptions and miscalculations. Therefore, even though NIOSH and ORAU claim to overestimate the dose we claimants have received, the reality is that they are continuing to grossly underestimate these doses. Even if I were to accept that the dose reconstruction is correct, reliable scientific studies have clearly shown that the dose of ionizing radiation I have received, even according to the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction, was more than sufficient to have caused the cell mutations that led to my breast cancer.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection stated in 1928 that any individual exposure of less than 100 rem per year was the recommended limit. By 1936, that limit had been drastically lowered to 36 rem per year. Today, the limit is down to 5 rem per year. It is obvious that the acceptable limits are lowered as scientists make more discoveries about the effects of radiation. Therefore, I must question how the US NIOSH can unequivocally state that my radiation exposure did not cause my cancer and other illnesses that I have suffered. It is at least as likely as not that my work at Fernald directly led to my cancer. Any radiation exposure is harmful and every reputable scientist confirms this; even NIOSH cannot dispute the fact that radiation exposure causes cancer. If any exposure were not harmful, then why do technicians still leave the room when patients are subjected to x-rays and mammograms? Why does our government have a collective meltdown at the very thought of nuclear proliferation by other nations? They do because they accept the established scientific evidence that ionizing radiation causes cancers to form in the human body. So why doesn’t NIOSH?
I have reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to occupational causes of malignancies. I went to great lengths to ensure that I consulted only reputable, peer-reviewed publications. In fact, I have also consulted my primary care physician, who was involved in my cancer treatment, and he submitted documentation directly to the DOL on my behalf (and that documentation, just like the documentation I sent in myself, was either rejected or ignored).
In a joint study sponsored by the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research, the Radiation and Genome Stability Unit of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council, the US National Cancer Institute and the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, Japan, among others (including Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley), the results indicated:
Doses of 50-100 mSv (protracted exposure) or 10-50 mSv (acute exposure), direct epidemiological evidence from human populations demonstrates that exposure to ionizing radiation increases the risk of some cancers. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100:24)
NIOSH’s estimate of my dose, 0.112 rem, is most certainly far too low to be credible given the nature of my employment. And yet, when taken into consideration with the above-referenced study results, it is clear that the 1.519 rem dose calculated for the single organ actually was more than sufficient to cause breast cancer. Still, NIOSH wants me to believe that it is not. I refuse to believe this and so do many scientists and physicians who are not now, and have never been, on DOE’s payroll.
A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Carcinogenesis (24:5) states, “ionizing radiation [is] an established etiologic agent for breast cancer,” and concluded the following:
DNA damage inflicted by carcinogenic agents, such as ionizing radiation, reactive oxygen species, and estrogen metabolites, may contribute to genetic alterations that are critical in breast carcinogenesis. . . . a large percentage of breast malignancies cannot be explained by known risk factors, such as age at first birth, nullparity and family history. (886-7)
The American Cancer Society supports that same research by stating that, at my NIOSH-assigned exposure levels, “female breast cancer risk is more than twice as high as normal.” Do the DOL and DOE truly consider themselves more knowledgeable about the effects of ionizing radiation than the scientists at the American Cancer Society? If not, then how can the DOL and DOE possibly justify stating that my cancer was not caused by my exposure to the levels of radiation that leading scientists and experts have proven does cause cancer?
The traditionally accepted risk factors for breast cancer are not applicable in my case, so it is completely reasonable and accurate to conclude that the DNA damage to my cells, which led to my developing breast cancer, is due to carcinogenic agents, which in my case is the radiation to which I was exposed when I worked at the Fernald site. The only source of radiation that I could have been exposed to in sufficient quantities to inflict DNA damage came from the eleven-year period during which I worked at the Fernald site. Published scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals, using real data and not NIOSH pseudo-science, support my conclusion. Yet NIOSH, under DOL’s direction, deliberately omits links between ionizing radiation and cancer in its Site Exposure Matrix, which is then used to ensure workers’ claims are denied. In fact, the “handbook” that NIOSH provides to DOL “District Medical Consultants” (who, for all we know, are not even qualified to read an x-ray) specifically instructs them to ignore ionizing radiation worker claims. It is a system deliberately and expressly designed to cheat us out of their justly-deserved compensation. How can anyone in government, in good conscience, simply stand by and let this happen?
I had a mammogram to establish a baseline in 1998, and there was no evidence of cancer at that time. Four years later, after I had been increasingly entering the former Production Area though the course of my employment, I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the relatively young age of 39. Most diagnoses occur in women over the age of 50. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), notes in its Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual: “children, elderly and women of childbearing age . . . tend to be more sensitive to adverse effects from environmental exposures than the general population” [emphasis added]. These guidelines, in conjunction with others, were the same ones used to determine the necessary remediation levels for the Fernald site in each Operable Unit’s Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (please note that I served as a technical writer and editor on all of these reports for Operable Units 1, 3, 4 and 5). If these guidelines were applicable to the general population living around the site for developing remediation standards, then surely these same guidelines should apply to those of us who were actually on the site and taking part in the remediation efforts. There is simply no other, better explanation for how I got breast cancer than my exposure to radiation while I was employed at the Fernald site. Or does NIOSH want us to believe that the ATSDR’s guidance does not apply to us members of the public who worked at the Fernald site and didn’t just live nearby?
ATSDR’s finding was echoed just this year by another study which found that, in addition to radiological hazards, exposure to organic solvents like those found in abundance at the Fernald site double the risk of breast cancer for women whose initial exposures occurred at age 36 or younger (source: Occupational and Environmental Medicine). I was 28 when I first began working at the Fernald site.
ATSDR further noted, in a 1993 report, that the external exposure to off-site residents in the vicinity of the Fernald site was, in 1992, 17 - 59 mSv. This was a risk level considered unacceptable to local community residents who had filed – and won -- a class-action lawsuit to obtain monitoring and, ultimately, remediation. Given that my on-site dose to one single part of my body was calculated at 1.519 rem, NIOSH’s contention that my dose should somehow be considered unlikely to cause cancer is simply not believable and not acceptable.
In each study I have seen, including many that are not cited here, it is obvious that the effects of long-term radiation are conducive to carcinogenesis. In addition, studies by US government agencies such as the CDC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) clearly indicate that the effects of exposure to dust from radioactive metals increases the risk of human organ cancers. Why doesn’t NIOSH accept the word of the CDC, the NCI, the National Academy of Sciences, and reputable, published physicians and scientists that my employment-related exposure to radiation at the Fernald site caused my cancer?
Here is the reason why: Because NIOSH and its contractors, ORAU and Sanford, Cohen and Associates, are staffed by former DOE employees and former DOE contractor employees who were behind the original falsification of, failure to record, and deliberate destruction of, individual radiation and toxic substance exposure data. This is the very definition of “unmonitored, unrecorded or inadequately monitored recorded exposure incidents” that took place during the entire production era (1951-89) and environmental restoration era (1990-2006) which NIOSH states form the basis for considering a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petition.
The minutes of an April 28, 2004 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting further indicate that the reconstruction reports are not claimant-friendly - quite the opposite, in fact. For example, by NIOSH’s own admission, the dose reconstruction reports are flawed. In the above-referenced meeting minutes, Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld is quoted as stating, “There is still much that NIOSH and ORAU do not know.” William Murray of ORAU acknowledges that, “The calculations are based on DOE records. It’s the only way we can do it; there is no way to verify if the data are good or bad.” This is the same ORAU representative who was present at the meeting for the Fernald site reconstruction on June 28, 2004. We have clear acknowledgement that the data being used to reject my claim cannot be validated.
The most compelling evidence comes from the minutes of a June 28, 2004 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting which centered on the Fernald site. In this meeting, NIOSH officials acknowledged that DOE had, for years, deliberately falsified or covered up worker exposure data and deliberately avoided monitoring workers in a timely manner in order to produce misleading results. NIOSH officials also admitted that they had deliberately avoided contacting former site workers to obtain their input on site conditions. In this report, a meeting attendee is quoted as stating a NIOSH study “showed a 10% higher incidence of stomach cancer in administrative workers in the offices from air conditioning intake.” It is highly unlikely that the greater incidence of cancer among administrative workers would be limited to stomach cancer alone.
The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health is quoted as stating that DOE did not provide “the right information to write an accurate site profile. DOE has testified against one claimant who was rejected even though he never worked anywhere else. At one time, DOE said there was no beryllium on the site, but now they admit it.” These kinds of data gaps are only a few examples of why NIOSH’s dose reconstruction reports cannot be relied on to come close to accurately estimating my actual dose, despite the statements that my dose reconstruction is “claimant-favorable.”
Minutes from these meetings are not the only documentation showing the NIOSH dose reconstruction reports are flawed. In a December 14, 2004 statement, Senator Charles Schumer (NY) cited the findings of a federal audit of the Bethlehem Steel site profile and stated, “This report proves what we [US Congressional investigators]’ve been saying all along -- that there are gaping holes between the compensation . . . workers have received and what they should be entitled to. . . . The report is clear -- it shows a system fraught with bad assumptions and miscalculations. . . ” (source: U.S. Senate press release).
The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health has found serious problems with NIOSH’s site profile of the Rocky Flats site (source: Rocky Mountain News, February 6, 2006). Given the serious nature of the problems with NIOSH dose reconstruction reports in terms of underestimating the doses site workers were subjected to, it is more than reasonable to conclude that doses at the Fernald site have likewise been grossly underestimated, despite NIOSH’s alleged “claimant-friendly” dose reconstruction process.
Wolfgang Koehnlein, Director of the Institute for Radiation Biology at the University of Muenster (Germany), and Rudi H. Nussbaum of the University of Portland, have, in conjunction with their own research, found numerous examples in the epidemiological literature which have led them to conclude:
Human epidemiological evidence shows, however, that [cell] repair fails to prevent radiation induced cancers, even at doses where the repair system has to deal with only one or a few tracks [per cell] at a time and even at dose rates which allow ample time for repair before arrival of additional tracks (damage). By any reasonable standard such evidence is proof, that there exists no dose or dose rate which is safe.
The scientific evidence to support my claim, and the claims of thousands of other sick, dying and dead employees, is overwhelming. Yet NIOSH’s flawed dose reconstruction reports are used to deny this reality. As a result, we -- the employees -- are literally being left to die with no acknowledgement of our conditions and no compensation for our sacrifices.
A recent report on radiation experiments on animals, which were conducted in the 1960s in Dublin, California, indicates that while such research provided a greater knowledge base for the effects of radiation on tissues, “options have [now] narrowed for the use of animals, and one 2005 study cited such limitations as ‘a major bottleneck’ in the development of new or improved drugs for radiation injury treatment or prevention.” I cannot help finding it highly ironic that steps have been taken to safeguard animals against the cruelty of ionizing radiation exposure (and rightly so), but we human beings who helped safeguard our nation during the Cold War are simply ignored despite scientific studies clearly showing we were subjected to the same types of cruelty. Indeed, DOL, DOE and NIOSH’s cruelty toward us is even more deliberate since they are well aware our cancers were caused by our work at the Fernald site but they simply choose to hide behind a bureaucratic fig leaf instead of acknowledging the validity and truth of our claims for compensation.
I have read 42 U.S.C in its entirety. I have also reviewed Public Law 97-414 (the Orphan Drug Act). There is no stipulation whatsoever requiring a claimant to prove 50% or greater probability. In fact, a report published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, referring to the lawsuit settlement between the US Department of Energy and Fernald community residents, stated: “If there is a greater than 1 percent chance that a worker was ‘as likely as not’ to get cancer from his/her calculated dose, the worker will be compensated” (source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 57:4, 2001). Note: this is 1 percent, not 50 percent, not 25 percent and not even 99 44/100 percent. One percent. Even by the results of the clearly flawed means by which NIOSH conducted my dose reconstruction, I am more than qualified to receive compensation for my cancer.
The EEOICPA was signed into law under the Clinton Administration in 2000. Implementation of the Act under the Bush régime led to little or nothing actually being accomplished in terms of compensating us workers. Initially, the Department of Energy spent $76 million on a contractor to process the claims - even though this contractor had no experience. An additional $20 million was spent supposedly processing claims, though none were paid. After that, the Department of Labor spent an additional $70 million to set up their claims processing system, which has proven to be just as flawed as, if not more flawed than, DOE’s. This was $166 million as of early 2009 (no doubt millions more have been similarly squandered) -- money which could have compensated over 1100 workers and/or families. In March 2010, the Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that another $163 million was spent on what are called “administrative costs” – money that could have gone to compensate 1086 workers and/or families. Instead, all we have is a department that chooses to focus its attention on implementing a program meant to help people so that it only helps pencil pushers and government contractors while ignoring the plights of nuclear workers and their families.
Even Department of Labor employees have recognized that the rules implementing the EEOICPA are so badly skewed against claimants that we have no fair chance of receiving compensation. I was told by two different DOL claims adjudicators at two separate hearings that my research was convincing and of very high quality. The radiation exposure I received was sufficient, and what NIOSH calls “discussions” is real scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals proving it. I will further point out that compiling this research is what I was asked to do by Mr. Anthony Zona, Department of Labor Hearing Representative, following my June 8, 2006 hearing. In fact, Mr. Zona, “off the record” (of course), praised the depth and quality of my research proving my case, and did so again on September 30, 2009. Mr. Steven A. Levin of the DEEOICP, who conducted my hearing on May 8, 2007, also praised my research and expressed personal admiration for my pursuit of justice for my Fernald colleagues in addition to myself. I share these anecdotes to make it clear to you that even the regulators who are routinely tasked with rejecting our claims know the process is rigged against us. Therefore it is even more imperative that you add the Fernald site to the Special Exposure Cohort.
So you can better understand and appreciate that there was a human cost for the Cold War, let me introduce you to a few other Fernald site cancer victims who deserve compensation they have not received, both living and dead:
· Manford Cox, who not only worked there but also lived a few miles from the site, within the zone being treated with groundwater extraction/reinjection: not only is Mr. Cox dead from cancer, but his wife and daughter both died from cancers, a surviving daughter is dealing with her second diagnosis, and her son had metastatic colon cancer. His son, Randall, had a brain tumor.
· James Wilson, who delivered mail during the production era and died in 1974. His family filed a claim that was denied even though he was in the production areas of the site and exposed to radioactive materials every day he worked.
· Milton Holstein worked as a pipe filter at the Fernald site for 33 years. He stated very clearly, “There’s no doubt that stuff caused my cancer,” referring to his work at the site and to the baseball-sized tumor removed from his colon in 1975.
· Julian Baldridge worked at Fernald before he died of cancer. His family was instrumental in filing SEC-00046, a petition with compelling evidence to prove that accurate dose reconstructions are impossible. NIOSH rejected it, touting the use of Sanford, Cohen and Associates as an “objective” evaluation of the petition’s merit. NIOSH conveniently ignored the fact that Sanford, Cohen and Associates has received multiple contracts from DOE among other federal agencies – a blatant conflict of interest and a slap in the collective face of all Fernald site workers stricken with cancer. Of course, we could hardly expect a different result since the people responsible for NIOSH dose reconstructions are former DOE and contractor employees masquerading as “health physics experts.” Therefore, NIOSH’s pretense at a fair and accurate dose reconstruction that is claimant-favorable is clearly just that – a pretense. What further proof do we need that there is a blatant and intentional collusion between the US Government and its contractors to avoid compensating dead, dying and sick Fernald site workers or these workers’ survivors? The government prefers paying NIOSH, HHS, DOL, DOE and their contractors to make up excuses for why we should not be compensated than would have been spent on actual compensation.
NOTE: The residents within a five-mile radius of the Fernald site won a lawsuit to get their groundwater decontaminated, a suit which led to the Ohio EPA’s lawsuit against DOE. This in turn led to the end of uranium production phase and the start of the cleanup phase – where we dug up contaminated buildings and soil, exposing ourselves to radiation and toxic chemicals, because we wanted to see the site cleaned up. We are Cold War Warriors, just as much as the human beings who worked at the site between 1951 and 1989 are and were also Cold War Warriors. What is our reward for our efforts? It has been having the likes of David Sundin, in his capacity as Deputy Director of the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, call us claimants “pigs” being swallowed up by the “python” claims process – a sentiment echoed by Andrew Slovak, who stated that “greasing is somewhat difficult and it doesn’t get you past the pinch point” (see Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health meeting transcript, May 19, 2003, pages 38 and 105). I agree that NIOSH is like the python in that it does not have a leg to stand on. Indeed, the absurdities it tries to pass off as “science” are more evocative of Monty Python than peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.
The National Academy of Sciences’ BIER VII report states: “There is no level of radiation below which cancer will not form.” Why is it that NIOSH, a US government entity, flat-out refuses to accept the word of scientists in another US government entity which clearly states any exposure to workplace radiation is “at least as likely as not” to cause cancer? Again, it is because NIOSH and its contractors, ORAU and Sanford, Cohen and Associates, are staffed by former DOE employees and former DOE contractor employees who were directly responsible for the original falsification of, failure to record, and deliberate destruction of, individual radiation and toxic substance exposure data. This is the very definition of “unmonitored, unrecorded or inadequately monitored recorded exposure incidents” that took place during the entire production era (1951-89) and environmental restoration era (1990-2006) and shows up NIOSH’s so-called “claimant-friendly” individual dose reconstruction process to be exactly what it is: a sham.
Sanford, Cohen and Associates report that NIOSH uses “surrogate data for facilities that do not have adequate monitoring records and/or co-worker data for individuals who do not have complete dosimetry information.” Using data from Population A’s data set and saying it applies to Population B just because Population A’s data set exists and Population B’s does not would be unacceptable to a middle school science teacher. Yet NIOSH, supposedly staffed by “health physics experts,” would have us believe that this practice is not only acceptable, it is also scientifically valid. It is neither.
The Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups states:
As noted in the Federal Judicial Center's Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence "[a] dose-response relationship means that the more intense the exposure, the greater the risk of disease. Generally, higher exposures should increase the incidence (or severity) of disease". Thus, for example, when the probability of causation is greater than zero, the correct interpretation of this finding is that dose produced an increased risk of disease. . . . Thus, it is reasonable and scientifically valid to conclude that cancers that are contributed to by radiation in an individual are those that reach a probability of causation that is greater than zero. The basic principle of dose-response is no different for ionizing radiation than it is for any other exposure or risk factor. (Letter to Rachel Leiton, DEEOICP, July 8, 2009)
It may seem odd that an advocacy organization would have a better understanding of the basic concept that radiation causes cancer then so-called “health physics experts.” Then again, as Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld himself observed, “There is still much that NIOSH and ORAU do not know.” Well, Mr. Hinnefeld, in case your years of DOE employment at the Fernald site taught you nothing, now you know: radiation causes cancer. Those of us who worked at the Fernald site became sick because we were exposed to radioactive materials and toxic chemicals. Many of us died. We deserve compensation.
The best solution would be to eliminate these expensive, pointless and error-ridden “reconstruction reports” and “processing” activities and simply designate all nuclear facilities such as the Fernald site as “Special Exposure Cohorts.” In other words, eliminate the entire claims process and compensate every individual who was ever employed at a DOE facility and was diagnosed with cancer or a toxic substance exposure. This will be far more cost-effective in the long run and certainly a much better use of taxpayers’ money than the Bush régime’s expenditures over eight long, horrifying years, which included a multi-billion dollar war based on lies, six-figure salaries to “homeland security” officials using government resources to find homeland teenage girls to rape, a half-million dollar teapot museum, and hundreds of other similar wastes of lives, money, time and resources. Another case in point: the fact that former NIOSH Director Elliott finally agreed to review data from the Rocky Flats facility after a year of protests from the people of Colorado. I can only imagine the waste of money and resources that it took to finally get NIOSH to see reason in this case, though I cannot say I am optimistic that it will lead to people actually getting the compensation they deserve. This is NIOSH, after all: the same organization that has decided to renege on a promise to Los Alamos National Laboratory employees that would have granted them Special Exposure Cohort status. Review this statement, quoted in The New Mexican:
Dr. Maureen Merritt, a retired Nambé physician and worker advocate, said in the past, NIOSH has been found to engage in "bad science" in determining the feasibility of dose reconstructions. She said NIOSH has been guilty of poor scientific analysis and has used "questionable models," such as the use of other sites to determine radiation exposures at similar plants.
And once again, NIOSH feels free to trample on us and waste more taxpayer money on cheating us out of the compensation we deserve. I tried to file an SEC petition on behalf of Fernald site employees myself, but NIOSH refused to consider it, noting the following:
“the provision of any evidence, including one or more affidavits (or other supporting documents), would not, in and of itself, be sufficient to confirm the facts presented by these affidavits or any other evidence. NIOSH will consider the adequacy and credibility of any evidence presented:”
I still do not know what to make of that statement except to suppse someone at NIOSH was trying to be funny. The standard of a sworn affidavit with credible evidence is considered sufficient in any court of law, yet NIOSH suggests that it still is not enough. I did present a sworn affidavit and I did provide supporting documents from credible sources (i.e., scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals and statements made by DOE, NIOSH and ORAU employees themselves) proving that the NIOSH dose reconstruction process is not credible, not based on good science and not acceptable. Yet I was presented with the outlandish statement that “NIOSH will consider the adequacy and credibility of any evidence presented” against NIOSH itself. I was not at all surprised when NIOSH decided to reject my petition. I ask you: in what other legal setting would a victim be told that the perpetrator responsible for the injustice would be the one to judge whether the victim was being treated fairly?
NIOSH added further insult to injury by rejecting an earlier petition, SEC00046: “the proposed class includes all employees of DOE, DOE contractors or subcontractors . . . from January 1, 1951 through December 31, 1989” in its October 25, 2006 “SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00046” (Page 70 of 74). The excuse that NIOSH gives for excluding those of us who worked at the Fernald site after December 31, 1989 is: “more stringent dose monitoring and reporting standards requirements of DOE Order 5480.11 . . . went into effect (January 1, 1989).” Let us now review just how effective these so-called “more stringent” requirements actually were:
· A six-month investigation conducted by a Cincinnati Enquirer journalist, which began in mid-1995 (4 ½ years after these so-called “more stringent” requirements went into effect and four years after I started working there in April 1991), revealed that “hundreds of safety violations and other problems, including many radiation exposures, have been blamed on poor management” by FERMCO, the contractor hired by DOE for site remediation.
· This same contractor, for whom I worked after they succeeded Westinghouse, was proven to have issued falsified performance reports to DOE in order to cover up cost and schedule overruns. Yet NIOSH accepts FERMCO’s personnel monitoring and medical records at face value because “more stringent” requirements were in place? The concept would be laughable if so many sick, dead and dying human beings were not denied compensation because of them.
· The Enquirer also obtained an internal memo dated December 9, 1993, which revealed the following issues (emphases added):
o “Any credibility concerning the accounting, forecasting and performance measurement systems on site is universally absent.”
o “The system is not auditable; even those involved in implementing the system cannot explain which numbers are real.”
And yet, the data NIOSH used for dose reconstruction are somehow universally present, and that system is auditable, and those numbers are real? They are not and never were. Therefore, it is impossible for NIOSH to perform accurate dose reconstructions for any Fernald site worker whose employment dates are between 1989 and 2006. Moreover, documented radioactive leaks were occurring at the Fernald site as late as 2003 - one year after my employment at the site ended. This is why all site employees, not just those who were there from 1951 to 1989, must be included in the Fernald site Special Exposure Cohort. It is ludicrous to suppose that all risk magically disappeared on December 31, 1989 at 11:59 pm.
· An Enquirer report from February 14, 1996, revealed that “FERMCO officials secretly modified government-owned software so computers would spit out phony reports.” Therefore, any data NIOSH would have us believe can be used to create “claimant-favorable” reconstruction reports are, in fact, not in the least claimant-favorable.
· A March 4, 1996 report quoted FERMCO employees as follows: “The company hates people who speak out for their [safety] rights or become whistle-blowers because no one fixes the problems, no matter what they try to tell you or the public.” In fact, FERMCO settled a whistle-blower lawsuit in 1997 for more than $8 million because a court refused to accept the company’s false data and phony reports. These are the very same false data and phony reports that NIOSH has used for its so-called “claimant-favorable” dose reconstructions. Has a more miraculous transformation occurred since the Biblical rise of Lazarus?
· A March 24, 1996 report revealed that “the company managing the cleanup at Fernald violated environmental regulations by failing to keep inspection records of the storage, handling and maintenance of hazardous and radioactive wastes.” This alone proves the point: if there are no inspection records of handling hazardous and radioactive waste, then there are no records of personnel exposure to those wastes. This is just one example of unmonitored, unrecorded or inadequately recorded exposure incidents. Yet NIOSH still wants me to believe that adequate personnel and monitoring data exist to complete an accurate and fair dose reconstruction? NIOSH is either utterly incompetent or staffed with compulsive liars. Perhaps both, but given that NIOSH and its contractors (ORAU and Sanford, Cohen and Associates) are staffed by former DOE employees and former DOE contractor employees who were behind the original falsification of, failure to record, and deliberate destruction of, individual radiation and toxic substance exposure data, I am more inclined to believe the latter.
· A May 5, 1996 report revealed that “union leaders … say [FERMCO] is pressuring them to lie about safety conditions.” A few of the conditions identified in this report included “providing workers with ill-fitting or torn radiation protective clothing,” “eliminating advanced training in handling radioactive materials for most subcontractor employees,” and “having employees reuse respirator filter cartridges already used by other employees.” Moreover, incidents in which workers were contaminated with radioactive materials were never reported: “We have workers constantly telling [the union leaders] they were contaminated and the company didn’t write it up or threatened to blame [the workers] if they made a stink about it. This is how FERMCO deals with worker safety problems.” It is clear that unmonitored, unrecorded or inadequately recorded exposure incidents were the rule rather than the exception, proving that there is no possible way that NIOSH can perform adequate dose reconstructions.
NOTE: The DOE Inspector General’s Office has substantiated all of the above statements. What further proof that “radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed” is required beyond the word of the DOE Inspector General? Yet the former DOE employees and contractors responsible for causing the radiation monitoring records to be lost, altered illegally, or destroyed – now known as NIOSH and ORAU – will, with a collective straight face, insist that their dose reconstructions are somehow “claimant favorable.”
For data to function properly as a guide for dose reconstruction, the data must be part of a complete and accurate information system. Data plucked arbitrarily from records known to be incomplete, falsified and inaccurate are of no value, cannot be validated, and will never serve their intended purpose. The above compelling evidence shows clearly that the Fernald data on worker radiation exposure cannot possibly serve their intended purpose. There is simply no way that NIOSH’s individual dose reconstruction process, making use of these data, is “claimant-favorable” in any way.
I was hopeful that a new administration would lead to more humanitarian treatment of those of us who are still struggling to get compensation. However, recent events have not made me optimistic. I truly cannot understand why multi-billion dollar corporations such as Citigroup (whose investors include the Royal family of Saudi Arabia, an organization hardly short of funds) and AIG had money handed to them as a result of poor decision-making and corporate greed, while we continue to struggle for the most basic compensation while we’re struggling with cancer and other employment-caused diseases. Wall Street bonuses continue to be paid – with federal bail-out money. Yes, they’re restricted to “only” a half-million dollars, but I’d say those executives who helped create this financial mess are doing quite well for themselves. Meanwhile, we Cold War Warriors who worked in nuclear facilities, whether processing radioactive materials or helping to clean up the sites, are not even given half that amount, thanks to poor-decision making and greed at NIOSH. How could anyone in good conscience call this just or fair?
I made my living as a technical writer and editor; I am a college instructor as well. I am not a physician or an attorney, but that hardly means that I am a simpleton who will accept this miscarriage of justice without question and without complaint. Neither should many others whom the government, over the past eight years, has considered ineligible for compensation even though scientific studies prove they are.
Not only do ionizing radiation doses that are a fraction of my NIOSH-documented dose cause cancer, but also NIOSH’s flawed dose reconstruction process severely underestimates my actual dose. Since the reconstruction is so clearly wrong in my case, there is absolutely no reason to accept NIOSH’s findings for other site employees as any more reliable.
As far as I am concerned, DOE is responsible for the homicide of all of those Fernald site workers who have died from cancer and/or illnesses from toxic substance exposures. DOE is further responsible for attempted homicide in my case and in the case of all those Fernald site workers who still live, but are sick and struggling for justice. NIOSH, ORAU and Sanford, Cohen and Associates are nothing more than DOE employees and contractors trying to present themselves as “health physics experts” even though they are nothing more than the perpetrators of this carnage under different names and job titles.
By refusing to compensate us, Congress might as well admit the following:
· The dose reconstruction process is a sham that will be perpetuated
· The EEOICPA was not and was never intended to be anything besides a piece of “feel good” legislation that would make politicians look as if they care about dead, sick and dying site workers but is meant to accomplish nothing
· The US Government prefers wasting millions more dollars on top of the millions already wasted coming up with excuses for not compensating cancer-stricken Fernald victims instead of giving us justice, which would have been less expensive and time-consuming;
· The US Government will drag the claims process out for the survivors of dead Fernald cancer victims for so long that they will either give up or die trying; and
· NIOSH, HHS, DOE, DOL and indeed the entire US Government would like nothing better than for us still-living but sick and dying Fernald site workers to just go ahead and die.
Despite what David Sundin and Andrew Slovak may choose to believe, those of us who are suffering and dying from our occupational exposures to radiation and hazardous materials are not "pigs." We are human beings struggling for justice.
The EEOICPA was supposed to help us. In its current form, it is doing anything but helping. I say pass these bills and let the EEOICPA do what its authors intended: compensate the victims and families who have sacrificed their health and, in many cases, their very lives.
Sincerely,
Ana Madani
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Feed Materials Production Center Health Outcome Data. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1993.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1993.
Alvarez, Robert. “The Risks of Making Nuclear Weapons: A Review of the Health and Mortality Experience of U.S. Department of Energy Workers.” Washington, DC: Government Accountability Project, 2000.
Barker, Sharon, Michael Weinfeld, Jing Zheng, Liang Li and David Murray. “Identification of Mammalian Proteins Cross-Linked to DNA by Ionizing Radiation.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 280:40, 2005.
Beyerlein, Tom. “Atomic Workers Concerned About Reduction in Benefits: Memo Says US Could Save if Help is Harder to Get.” Dayton Daily News, April 5, 2006.
Bohan, Suzanne. “Radiation Riddle Remains Even After Scientist’s Lifetime Research.” Contra Costa Times, February 19, 2009.
Brenner, David J., Richard Doll, Dudley T. Goodhead, Eric J. Hall, Charles E. Land, John B. Little, Jay H. Lubin, Dale L. Preston, R. Julian Preston, Jerome S. Puskin, Elaine Ron, Rainer K. Sachs, Johnathan M. Samet, Richard B.
Carroll, Dennis J. “Lab Workers Fight For Compensation.” The New Mexican, February 14, 2009.
“Congressmen Ask DOL to Keep Sick Nuke Worker Program.” EHS Today, March 3, 2001.
Durovic, Branka, Vesna Selakovic and Vesna Spasic-Jokic. “Does Occupational Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Induce Cell Membrane Damage?” Archives of the Institute of Oncology, 12:4, 2004.
Frank, Laura. “Feds to Review New Rocky Flats Data.” Rocky Mountain News, February 14, 2009.
Fujimori, Akira, Ryuichi Okayasu, Hiroshi Ishihara, Satoshi Yoshida, Kiyomi Eguchi-Kasai, Kumie Nojima, Satoru Ebisawa and Sentaro Takahashi. “Extremely Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Up-Regulates CXC Chemokines in Normal Human Fibroblasts.” Cancer Research, 65:22, 2005.
Habuda, Janice L., and John F. Bonfatti. “Bethlehem Steel Site Profile Being Revised, Claimants Told.” The Buffalo News, January 13, 2005.
Imse, Ann. “Review Exposes Flats Data as Faulty.” Rocky Mountain News, February 6, 2006.
Koehnlein, Wolfgang, and Rudi Nussbaum. “Chronic Low-Dose Radioactive Exposure: False Alarm or Public Health Hazard?” Medicine and Global Survival, 1998.
Makhjiani, Arjun. “The Burden of Proof.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 57:4, July/August, 2001.
Meeting minutes of the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on INEEL Site Profile. April 28, 2004.
Meeting minutes of the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on Fernald Site Profile. June 28, 2004.
“Post-menopausal Breast Cancer and Occupational Exposures.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2010, 67: 263-9.
Ronckers, C.M., C.A. Erdmann, and C.E. Land. “Radiation and Breast Cancer: A Review of Current Evidence.” Breast Cancer Research, 7:1, 2005.
“Schumer: Report Reveals Serious Flaws in Compensation for Nuclear Workers.” Washington, DC: US Senate, December 14, 2004.
Setlow and Marco Zaider. “Cancer Risks Attributable to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Assessing What We Really Know.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100:24, 2003.
Smith, Tasha R., Mark S. Miller, Kurt K. Lohman, L. Douglas Case, and Jennifer J. Hu. “DNA Damage and Breast Cancer Risk.” Carcinogenesis, 24:5, 2003.
Tubiana, Maurice. “Dose-Effect Relationship and Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: The Joint Report of the Académie Des Sciences (Paris) and of the Académie National de Médecine.” International Journal of Radiation Oncology and Biological Physics, 63:2, 2005.
United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 84, Subchapter XVI. Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Washington, DC: United States Government, 2002.
United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 20, Parts 1 and 30. “Performance of Functions Under This Chapter: Claims for Compensation Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act: Final Rule.” Federal Register, May 25, 2001.
United States Congress. Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, First Session, To Conduct Oversight of the Implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004.
United States Government Accountability Office. Energy Employees Compensation: Additional Oversight and Transparency Would Improve Program’s Credibility. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, March 2010.
Wakeford, Richard. “The Cancer Epidemology of Radiation.” Oncogene, 2004.