61/28/2082 83:88 PAGE

January 18, 2002

Mr. Larry Elliott
Executive Secretary, ABRWH, NIOSH, CDC
4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio, 45226

gieg3o2 pors4s iN

Dear Sir,

LT have just read the article in Occupational Safety & Health Vol.32, No. 1, regarding the initial
meeting of the ABRWH on Jan. 22-23, 02. I know there has been some controversy regarding
membership of the Committee, and I am inclined to think and agree that the employees are under-
represented, but if everyone on the Committee has integrity and is not serving some other, agenda,
then it probably doesn’t make much difference. .

Thave a vested interest in the work of the Committee, in that I have long worked in the nuclear
and safety industries and am-a breast cancer survivor, having had two mastectomies. My-
exposure to radiation through the-years has not been high, but exposure does exist. Which leads
me'to several points I think should be considered when determining exposure v. compensation,

1.

There was a news story on television this morning announcing that Radon gas in homes
causes half of the lung cancers which occur to the citizenry of the US. They went on to
explain how any low doses of radiation could cause illness and also that there is an
accumulative effect on the body due to exposure. I have long subscribed to this
philosophy, {it is the basis for the ALARA “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” program)
never expecting that I might become a victim.

When OSHA wrote it’s regulations regarding Asbestos exposure re. preventing Asbestos
related diseases, they established a very low exposure limit which was applied universally
to workers in the industry as well as to the individual who had only incidental contact with
Asbestos. The rational behind this was that any single fibre of Asbestos could be the one
that caused a cancer or other related disease; therefore, eliminating or at least severely
limiting exposure was the safest route to follow.

The DOE Radiological Control Standard contains a statement - “Biological effects from
chronic doses of'radiation may occur in the exposed individual or in the future children of
the exposed individual. There is a slight risk that cancer-may be caused by chronic
radiation doses.” What this says to me, is that the potential hazard of disease due to
exposure is recognized and that there is no way to prove or disprove with any certainty
what may or may not have caused a cancer to any named individual.

a1

JAN-28-2822 17758 - S7K% P.G1


@1/28/2882 83:88 PAGE

Formulas are wonderful tools when applied to statistical situations such as masses of people, but
when they are applied to an individual they are virtually worthless since they can discriminate
against the individual. Congress recognized the need for this Compensation Program because
individuals such as myself have had our quality (and in many cases - quantity) of life effected. I
understand that it would make the Program much easier (and much cheaper) to administer if each
person, individually, could be ignored and only those that fit into a precise formula would:be
compensated, However, I don’t think that is what Congress had in mind. I believe they intended
to treat individuals right! I certainly hope that was their intent - from a moral standpoint, not just
from my standpoint (which I admit may be somewhat prejudiced).

Thank you for your time reading this. I hope the information will be used and useful.

Respectfully,

JAN-28-2822 17:59 37% P.@2

82