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.