Reflection
Though, spring term at Portland State University has concluded, the terms of the workers’ and my interest in the controversy has only just begun. I have learned so much through the creation of this blog that I have decided to continue to follow the issue the best I can, time and personal situation allowing.
I can not guarantee daily or weekly posts, however I do intend to research online and in other mediums the few news releases depicting the progress of claims filed by nuclear workers. This “black box” created by the government presenting nuclear plants as not being a lead cause of cancer in nuclear workers is ludicrous and a well-designed out PR strategy.
If nuclear plants have nothing to do with cancer, then how is it that so many nuclear workers developed multiple forms of cancers, very unique from the population which they reside among? Perhaps, we may never know, as the allies that the government has far outnumber the allies of the workers’. The hope is that treatment, compensation, and the "truth" is provided to these workers and the public, lets not forget they were working for the US government, as well.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Update
A recent article in the New York Times reported that thousands of nuclear plant workers of Rocky Flats, Denver, Colorado be denied compensation for illnesses, they claimed were caused by radiation exposure. According to the NY Times: “A worker must first file a claim with the Labor Department, a step that brings a lengthy investigation in which scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, through records, research and interviews, determine eligibility by establishing the radiation dose incurred by the worker. If the scientists are unable to determine the dose, the worker may file for “special exposure cohort” status” (The New York Times, June 13, 2007).
This brings the controversy back downstream to where the government originally stood on the issue. The claims filed by thousands of workers around the country, moved the controversy upstream to the development of such plants, their infrastructure, the role of confidential records and so on. The “black box” that the government so closely guards, holds that nuclear plants are safe, even though significant studies show otherwise. The question is not the safety of a plant to avoid repeating Chernobyl, but how safe are those confinded within the metal structure.
This, only time will tell. The controversy has once again settled in favor of the government, we have to wait and see who challenges their black box, re-opens the controversy and provides evidence by taking the controversy back upstream. However, the only way this controversy would be successfully challenged, would be to provide allies that support the workers claims. The government has significant number of allies that are hard to challenge, and thus result in intimidation of even starting a challenge, on part of the workers.
A recent article in the New York Times reported that thousands of nuclear plant workers of Rocky Flats, Denver, Colorado be denied compensation for illnesses, they claimed were caused by radiation exposure. According to the NY Times: “A worker must first file a claim with the Labor Department, a step that brings a lengthy investigation in which scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, through records, research and interviews, determine eligibility by establishing the radiation dose incurred by the worker. If the scientists are unable to determine the dose, the worker may file for “special exposure cohort” status” (The New York Times, June 13, 2007).
This brings the controversy back downstream to where the government originally stood on the issue. The claims filed by thousands of workers around the country, moved the controversy upstream to the development of such plants, their infrastructure, the role of confidential records and so on. The “black box” that the government so closely guards, holds that nuclear plants are safe, even though significant studies show otherwise. The question is not the safety of a plant to avoid repeating Chernobyl, but how safe are those confinded within the metal structure.
This, only time will tell. The controversy has once again settled in favor of the government, we have to wait and see who challenges their black box, re-opens the controversy and provides evidence by taking the controversy back upstream. However, the only way this controversy would be successfully challenged, would be to provide allies that support the workers claims. The government has significant number of allies that are hard to challenge, and thus result in intimidation of even starting a challenge, on part of the workers.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
What is the controversy?
In order to understand the effects of nuclear radiation, one needs to understand how nuclear reactors work. However, this blog's purpose is not to address the workings of a nuclear plant, therefore I recommend that the reader visit this website that outlines how a nuclear plant works, and the side-effects of radiation exposure.
Further linking a few pages, I would like to show one side of the argument, somewhat in line with the Washington Post article. The workers in this case are sent back from the Office of Workers' Compensation under the US Department of Labor--with denials. The controversy starts to unfold when 104,000 ex-power plant workers ask the government to assist them pay medical bills, hospital stays, and other expenses related to the symptoms of being exposed to nuclear radiation from working in plants. The government denied majority of the claims.
The actors in this controversy: government, nuclear-plant workers, the scientists, and the media, all play a vital role in defining the outcome of these denials. Studying the government's point of view, we see a couple key players. According to the Washington Post article, the government started to pay attention to the workers after word spread of cancer causing radiation exposure, around the country. Though, a commission was established to provide $150,000 in compensation and medical assistance, “for each claim, government investigators review the evidence and decide whether a worker's illness was more likely than not caused by exposure to radiation or toxic chemicals at work. Under the act, the claim is denied if the probability is ruled to be less than 50 percent” (The Washington Post, May 12, 2007). This is at the heart of the controversy, as science suggests that there are many unknown symptoms or un-established illnesses related to radiation, in addition to the 22 known cancers caused by radiation exposure.
When presenting their cases, the workers were often left defenseless due to “red-tape.” Most of their personal medical and work related files were labeled “confidential,” therefore often unavailable for an open review by either a primary care doctor or the government appointed commission.
The government’s stance on the matter to avoid a public relations nightmare—in avoiding the seriousness of nuclear plants stems from their efforts to find more locations to build nuclear waste facilities. Increasing claims by nuclear plant workers would further weaken the government’s case in finding new places like, Nevada and Oregon to build their nuclear plants.
The science behind radiation exposure states that the possibility of developing a cancer due to radiation is higher than that from natural causes. This site outlines two studies conducted on radiation exposure and the resulting factors. The causality of one event is weighed against the correlation that the other would occur. Again, the governmental agencies involved in the debate underplay the risk of radiation from nuclear plants, by de-railing or “shifting” the issue by presenting nuclear radiation as a threat only posed by terrorist in terms of “dirty bombs.” The CDC provides ways in which citizens can prepare themselves for a terrorist attack, but does not address the problem of continuous radiation exposure to workers of nuclear plants. Furthermore, according to the EPA they have been protecting people from radiation since 1970. One must wonder: how then did workers get exposed to such dangerous levels of cancerous radiation?
The goal of the government here is to provide allies like the CDC, EPA, OSHA and the Labor Department to weaken the claims of the workers. The government took the stance that nuclear radiation is housed in facilities that have safeguards, with several levels of protections and that exposure to workers is zero if not minor. Along those lines, awarding all workers compensation for exposure to radiation would provide a different portrayal of nuclear plants—as actually unsafe.
A new ally for the workers is Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who wrote a letter to the President of the United States, requesting that his administration re-evaluate their stance on compensating nuclear workers' for their sacrifice for the safety of the Country. Though, Obama is an ally that may proof fruitful in the future, his current standing in the political realm would do little to push for an overhaul of the Bush administration's stance of limiting compensation.
In order to understand the effects of nuclear radiation, one needs to understand how nuclear reactors work. However, this blog's purpose is not to address the workings of a nuclear plant, therefore I recommend that the reader visit this website that outlines how a nuclear plant works, and the side-effects of radiation exposure.
Further linking a few pages, I would like to show one side of the argument, somewhat in line with the Washington Post article. The workers in this case are sent back from the Office of Workers' Compensation under the US Department of Labor--with denials. The controversy starts to unfold when 104,000 ex-power plant workers ask the government to assist them pay medical bills, hospital stays, and other expenses related to the symptoms of being exposed to nuclear radiation from working in plants. The government denied majority of the claims.
The actors in this controversy: government, nuclear-plant workers, the scientists, and the media, all play a vital role in defining the outcome of these denials. Studying the government's point of view, we see a couple key players. According to the Washington Post article, the government started to pay attention to the workers after word spread of cancer causing radiation exposure, around the country. Though, a commission was established to provide $150,000 in compensation and medical assistance, “for each claim, government investigators review the evidence and decide whether a worker's illness was more likely than not caused by exposure to radiation or toxic chemicals at work. Under the act, the claim is denied if the probability is ruled to be less than 50 percent” (The Washington Post, May 12, 2007). This is at the heart of the controversy, as science suggests that there are many unknown symptoms or un-established illnesses related to radiation, in addition to the 22 known cancers caused by radiation exposure.
When presenting their cases, the workers were often left defenseless due to “red-tape.” Most of their personal medical and work related files were labeled “confidential,” therefore often unavailable for an open review by either a primary care doctor or the government appointed commission.
The government’s stance on the matter to avoid a public relations nightmare—in avoiding the seriousness of nuclear plants stems from their efforts to find more locations to build nuclear waste facilities. Increasing claims by nuclear plant workers would further weaken the government’s case in finding new places like, Nevada and Oregon to build their nuclear plants.
The science behind radiation exposure states that the possibility of developing a cancer due to radiation is higher than that from natural causes. This site outlines two studies conducted on radiation exposure and the resulting factors. The causality of one event is weighed against the correlation that the other would occur. Again, the governmental agencies involved in the debate underplay the risk of radiation from nuclear plants, by de-railing or “shifting” the issue by presenting nuclear radiation as a threat only posed by terrorist in terms of “dirty bombs.” The CDC provides ways in which citizens can prepare themselves for a terrorist attack, but does not address the problem of continuous radiation exposure to workers of nuclear plants. Furthermore, according to the EPA they have been protecting people from radiation since 1970. One must wonder: how then did workers get exposed to such dangerous levels of cancerous radiation?
The goal of the government here is to provide allies like the CDC, EPA, OSHA and the Labor Department to weaken the claims of the workers. The government took the stance that nuclear radiation is housed in facilities that have safeguards, with several levels of protections and that exposure to workers is zero if not minor. Along those lines, awarding all workers compensation for exposure to radiation would provide a different portrayal of nuclear plants—as actually unsafe.
A new ally for the workers is Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who wrote a letter to the President of the United States, requesting that his administration re-evaluate their stance on compensating nuclear workers' for their sacrifice for the safety of the Country. Though, Obama is an ally that may proof fruitful in the future, his current standing in the political realm would do little to push for an overhaul of the Bush administration's stance of limiting compensation.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Thousands of Nuclear Arms Workers See Cancer Claims Denied or Delayed
By Michael Alison Chandler and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page A01
The issue at this point is not analyzing the historical-context, however a brief review is provided on the roles of the US government, plant workers, the political issue, the scientific issue and the role of the "public."
The criteria used to select a controversy for this class is fairly broad. However, certain elements have to be present. The controversy has to be (presently) on-going; it has to have (to some extent) a "scientific" representation and a "political" implication. The etiology has to be established, as Latour may argue that without the origin, the representation may not have existed. Furthermore, what effects and affects does this controversy have on the "actors" associated with the claims, politics, science, the general public, and any other person/animal or thing influenced by the controversy.
When analyzing arguments, the cited sources need to be further examined. This exhaustive approach reveals the workings of the "collective," where the controversy develops, conceptualizes, and is then operationalized. Once this controversy has been established, it is compared to Latour's "slider" that has "In the Making" on the left side and "Made" on the other. To better help you understand this, imagine a rope tied between to mountains, with a pulley on it--the pulley can slide back and forth. On one side is the controversy “in the making,” and “made” or a black-box on the other side. This black-box is the “end” sought by scientists and other actors in an effort to close a controversy.
The slider can be moved around depending on the argument being made. A conventional approach usually accepts the data provided by science as the Truth, leading to a black-box on a certain issue. Whereas, the respondent to the controversy, using a non-conventional approach moves the slider back to the left or “in the making.” Usually in this approach, one can argue that the Truth is one of the many truths, not just one, concrete explanation. An example of Latourian analysis can be seen in my paper of the 2002 Biscuit Wildfire controversy—this paper was also written for Dr. Michael Flower’s; Power-Knowledge Class (Spring 2007).
By Michael Alison Chandler and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page A01
The issue at this point is not analyzing the historical-context, however a brief review is provided on the roles of the US government, plant workers, the political issue, the scientific issue and the role of the "public."
The criteria used to select a controversy for this class is fairly broad. However, certain elements have to be present. The controversy has to be (presently) on-going; it has to have (to some extent) a "scientific" representation and a "political" implication. The etiology has to be established, as Latour may argue that without the origin, the representation may not have existed. Furthermore, what effects and affects does this controversy have on the "actors" associated with the claims, politics, science, the general public, and any other person/animal or thing influenced by the controversy.
When analyzing arguments, the cited sources need to be further examined. This exhaustive approach reveals the workings of the "collective," where the controversy develops, conceptualizes, and is then operationalized. Once this controversy has been established, it is compared to Latour's "slider" that has "In the Making" on the left side and "Made" on the other. To better help you understand this, imagine a rope tied between to mountains, with a pulley on it--the pulley can slide back and forth. On one side is the controversy “in the making,” and “made” or a black-box on the other side. This black-box is the “end” sought by scientists and other actors in an effort to close a controversy.
The slider can be moved around depending on the argument being made. A conventional approach usually accepts the data provided by science as the Truth, leading to a black-box on a certain issue. Whereas, the respondent to the controversy, using a non-conventional approach moves the slider back to the left or “in the making.” Usually in this approach, one can argue that the Truth is one of the many truths, not just one, concrete explanation. An example of Latourian analysis can be seen in my paper of the 2002 Biscuit Wildfire controversy—this paper was also written for Dr. Michael Flower’s; Power-Knowledge Class (Spring 2007).
Forces
In a criminal investigation, often the forensic evidence strengthens the case. Similarly (though not leading the reader to believe that any criminal intentions exist), when investigating an issue or controversy, the "latent prints," the interpretations of all the actors involved and their stance need to be analyzed. In the mass media, the one-sided message-frequency establishes a unilateral understanding of the issue. Thus presenting a view that only portrays a photograph of a given context—not a movie of all the elements at play during the processing of the issue.
Latour, simply wants to encourage the questioning of “black boxes.” I look at it as the democratization of an issue, where every facet of an issue gets highlighted, equally. No one aspect gets favorable view from a Latourian investigator. In this investigations, the linkage between sources, resources, actors, texts and other “influencers” need to be studied and exposed in the sense that their roles need to be analyzed and de-constructed in relevance to the issue. Several questions need to be asked as to why they are part of the debate, and what do they gain/loose from certain outcomes.
The issue that I have decided to study is: the effects on nuclear plant workers from years of radioactive exposure and their unsuccessful efforts at receiving proper health care and financial assistance by the United States Government.
Latour, simply wants to encourage the questioning of “black boxes.” I look at it as the democratization of an issue, where every facet of an issue gets highlighted, equally. No one aspect gets favorable view from a Latourian investigator. In this investigations, the linkage between sources, resources, actors, texts and other “influencers” need to be studied and exposed in the sense that their roles need to be analyzed and de-constructed in relevance to the issue. Several questions need to be asked as to why they are part of the debate, and what do they gain/loose from certain outcomes.
The issue that I have decided to study is: the effects on nuclear plant workers from years of radioactive exposure and their unsuccessful efforts at receiving proper health care and financial assistance by the United States Government.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Definitions
As boring as they may seem, definitions are the foundations of what we build our message upon. It is essential that I provide explanations for the terms I am going to be using. Part of the reason for this kind of approach is to understand the respective meaning and the context that I am using the term in. Though, my discipline is Communication, when studying politicoscientific controversies, the scientific methodology needs to be addressed in addition to the Social Science's perspective.
Ironically, every single class that I am taking this quarter, has at some point in the term provided a definition for “theory,” thus suggesting its importance to research and academia. Following is how each class provided an insight to the dynamics of Theory:
Sci 316U - Astronomy II- A theory--"the framework of ideas and assumptions used to explain some set of observations and make predictions about the real world--must be continually tested" (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005).
Furthermore, these theories have important defining characteristics (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005) [Following points have been taken verbatim out of Chaisson & McMillan’s book; Astronomy Today]:
• They must be testable—that is, they must admit the possibility that their underlying assumptions and their predictions can, in principle, be exposed to experimental verification. This feature separates science from, for example, religion, since, ultimately, divine revelations or scriptures cannot be challenged within a religious framework—we can’t design an experiment to “verify the mind of God.” Testability also distinguishes science from pseudoscience such as astrology, whose underlying assumptions and predictions have been repeatedly tested and never verified, with no apparent impact on the views of those who continue to believe in it!
• They must continually be tested, and their consequences tested, too.
• They should be simple. Simplicity is less a requirement than a practical outcome of centuries of scientific experience—the most successful theories tend to be the simplest ones that fit the facts. This viewpoint is often encapsulated in a principle known as Occam’s razor: If two competing theories both explain the facts and make the same predictions, then the simpler one is better. Put another way—“Keep it simple!” A good theory should contain no more complexity than is absolutely necessary.
• Finally, most scientists have the additional bias that a theory should in some sense be elegant. When a clearly stated simple principle naturally ties together and explains several phenomena previously thought to be completely distinct, this is widely regarded as a strong point in favor of the new theory.
More to come soon...
Ironically, every single class that I am taking this quarter, has at some point in the term provided a definition for “theory,” thus suggesting its importance to research and academia. Following is how each class provided an insight to the dynamics of Theory:
Sci 316U - Astronomy II- A theory--"the framework of ideas and assumptions used to explain some set of observations and make predictions about the real world--must be continually tested" (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005).
Furthermore, these theories have important defining characteristics (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005) [Following points have been taken verbatim out of Chaisson & McMillan’s book; Astronomy Today]:
• They must be testable—that is, they must admit the possibility that their underlying assumptions and their predictions can, in principle, be exposed to experimental verification. This feature separates science from, for example, religion, since, ultimately, divine revelations or scriptures cannot be challenged within a religious framework—we can’t design an experiment to “verify the mind of God.” Testability also distinguishes science from pseudoscience such as astrology, whose underlying assumptions and predictions have been repeatedly tested and never verified, with no apparent impact on the views of those who continue to believe in it!
• They must continually be tested, and their consequences tested, too.
• They should be simple. Simplicity is less a requirement than a practical outcome of centuries of scientific experience—the most successful theories tend to be the simplest ones that fit the facts. This viewpoint is often encapsulated in a principle known as Occam’s razor: If two competing theories both explain the facts and make the same predictions, then the simpler one is better. Put another way—“Keep it simple!” A good theory should contain no more complexity than is absolutely necessary.
• Finally, most scientists have the additional bias that a theory should in some sense be elegant. When a clearly stated simple principle naturally ties together and explains several phenomena previously thought to be completely distinct, this is widely regarded as a strong point in favor of the new theory.
More to come soon...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Evolution of a blog
This is the prologue to my final project for Sci-361U, "Power-Knowledge" class at Portland State University, taught by Michael Flower. The projected outcomes of this blog are open to interpretation, and that is quiet the goal. In the process of establishing individual reality (quiet controversial, in it self), individual meaning and understanding is required.
A collectivistic approach to understanding what is right or wrong is based on group reality. But, how unique is individual reality? Considering that reality is created by our immediate opinion-leaders, who I would like to refer to as the "enablers." These enablers have the power to persuade us towards certain ideas/concepts or away from them. Based on the reality accepted by the society we are in, dictates the theories that are relevant for our existence.
So, are theories the basis of existence? I mean, can one theory guide every single person towards the same outcome? No, I do not believe so. However, theories are the explanations, guide, and the DIY for maneuvering through life. These concepts have been already established, similar to the policy and procedures in a company handbook. The idea is to make a smooth transition for a new employee, by codifying the organizational culture. This further establishes organizational identity and leads the individual to transition from a unique, individual identity to organizational identity. Similarly, understanding theories and the approach towards deconstructing the topic that I am actually preparing this blog for.
I want to present a weekly view of the cognitive progress that I make through compiling the vital facets of interpreting an issue, theory, or controversy. Understanding the meaning and usage of reality,hypothesis, paradigm, theory, concepts, axiology, oncology, epistemology,nomotheic, ideographic, variable, model, deductive, and inductive reasoning.
These concepts are designed to comprehend the "big picture," of a subject matter. A complete understanding is required to strengthen a assertion or dissention regarding claim.
This blog is created for a project studying a politico-scientific controversy. I am still in the stages of deciding which controversy to analyze. As the term progresses, I would establish a final project and through the concepts mentioned above, I would decipher all the influential forces acting upon, internally and externally regarding the issue in question.
A collectivistic approach to understanding what is right or wrong is based on group reality. But, how unique is individual reality? Considering that reality is created by our immediate opinion-leaders, who I would like to refer to as the "enablers." These enablers have the power to persuade us towards certain ideas/concepts or away from them. Based on the reality accepted by the society we are in, dictates the theories that are relevant for our existence.
So, are theories the basis of existence? I mean, can one theory guide every single person towards the same outcome? No, I do not believe so. However, theories are the explanations, guide, and the DIY for maneuvering through life. These concepts have been already established, similar to the policy and procedures in a company handbook. The idea is to make a smooth transition for a new employee, by codifying the organizational culture. This further establishes organizational identity and leads the individual to transition from a unique, individual identity to organizational identity. Similarly, understanding theories and the approach towards deconstructing the topic that I am actually preparing this blog for.
I want to present a weekly view of the cognitive progress that I make through compiling the vital facets of interpreting an issue, theory, or controversy. Understanding the meaning and usage of reality,hypothesis, paradigm, theory, concepts, axiology, oncology, epistemology,nomotheic, ideographic, variable, model, deductive, and inductive reasoning.
These concepts are designed to comprehend the "big picture," of a subject matter. A complete understanding is required to strengthen a assertion or dissention regarding claim.
This blog is created for a project studying a politico-scientific controversy. I am still in the stages of deciding which controversy to analyze. As the term progresses, I would establish a final project and through the concepts mentioned above, I would decipher all the influential forces acting upon, internally and externally regarding the issue in question.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)