Skip to main content

Cancer rates at LLNL

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

I question whether the information contained in the Cancer Incidence Among Employees of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1969-1980
Peggy Reynolds, PhD and Donald F. Austin, MD, MPH study accurately reflects cancer-related deaths of LLNL employees who have retired since the study was published. I have personally known many previous LLNL employees who have died from cancer-related deaths. Perhaps an online database/list should be compiled listing the following information: employee names, years they worked at LLNL, what their job classification was, what program they worked on, when they passed away, what caused their deaths and whether or not the U.S. Department of Labor's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA)has recognized their deaths as related to their work at LLNL.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A related question for us to ponder; how many of our co-workers passed away within the fist 12 months of retiring. I have personnally known 2 people to pass away on the day of retirment.
10/15/2010 6:39 AM
Anonymous said…
I went to work at the Lab in 1976. Had a hand in almost every program of any importance. I can't respond to cancer deaths and the results of the report. I can say I contracted cancer in 2005, retired medically in 2007. Jumped through the hoops placed in front of me by EEOICPA. They denied my claim that employment at the Lab was responsible. Because I lived, does that change the statistics? How many cancer patients don't show up on that report, simply because they didn't die?
10/15/2010 11:29 AM
Anonymous said…
People who die within a short time of retiring usually have not ever established a life-sustaining environment outside of work. They can't cope with nowhere to go in the morning, and can't deal with the lack of structure in their lives. Often, their sense of worth is too tied up in their work position or responsibilities to survive the separation. No outside interests equals no will to live after work. It is surprising how many workers contemplating retirement fail to consider this.
10/15/2010 9:22 PM
Anonymous said…
The claim of work-related cancer is common if the work environment has been shown to involve cancer-causing materials, and especially if the pockets of the employer are large. These are not sufficient to prove the cause, and each case will be decided on its merits. The poster at 10/15/2010 has given no indication of accused cause or connection to the workplace, so has no standing to make any claim of malfeasance or abuse. Just another whiner.
10/15/2010 9:30 PM
Anonymous said…
Just another whiner.

October 15, 2010 9:30 PM

I wouldn't call anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer a "whiner." I think you may have let your normal on-line nasty self get in the way of whatever compassion you used to have before the age of the internet. When you get cancer, I hope you don't "whine," but I wouldn't blame you if you did. Hey Scooby - how about your rule on name-calling?
10/16/2010 9:23 PM
Anonymous said…
I wish to respond to the assumption that I was whining about being denied by EEOICPA. I didn't list all the times I could have come into contact with carcinogens that caused my cancer. I thought that saying I "Had a hand in almost every program of any importance." would suffice. Perhaps it was the time I had to wade knee deep into water in a radioactive materials storage vault in B292, or the time I was splashed in the face with an unknown waste chemical in the photo lab of B113. Or even the PCB's I may have inhaled during the big transformer and switch fires at B131, B121 and B424. Maybe it was the asbestos I handled before it became a big deal not to. It could have been I ate to many Jumbo Jacks. I really don't know. I was simply responding to the question raised as to the validity of the study, and asked my own question as to it's validity as well. If you really want to know if there is a higher incidence of cancer in a group of people, do you ask how many died, or do you ask how many contracted a disease? We had very good health care, and surviving these diseases may have been at a higher rate then in other groups of people who didn't have care of the quality we had. I wish to also point out that during the "Cold War" things were totally different then they are today. We had a sense of urgency, we were in a technology race, and we had a "Can do" attitude. Did the Lab take safety measures? Sure they did, and they worked most of the time. Did accidents happen? Of course. I loved my time at the Lab during the early years of my employment. We were part of a big family in those days, who wouldn't like to work in that environment? Since I didn't have a typical cubical dwelling job, I may have been exposed to something that caused my cancer, to not file a claim would have been foolish. I'm not loosing sleep over the denial. I don't believe that calling me a whiner was justified. Sorry if I didn't communicate more effectively.
10/17/2010 9:20 AM
scooby said…
Hey oct 15th 9:30PM!
SInce "whiner" is not an expletive, I let it go. The commenter meant "complainer". Not taking sides. Trying to be impartial.
Thanks of commenting.
10/18/2010 6:34 AM
Anonymous said…
A look beyond the obvious (such as historical radiation dose readings) may suggest that increased liver and pancreatic cancer statistics could be the result of employees drinking water from highly contaminated LLNL water coolers and faucets during the 60s - 90s. Why did we suddenly get water bottle deliveries and then expensive filtered hot and cold water dispensers installed in all of the facilities? Look at the following web site for the contaminant particulars as outlined by LLNL researchers and at the bequest of the EPA: https://saer.llnl.gov/
11/13/2010 9:19 AM
Anonymous said…
Come on DOL's (Department of Labor) EEOICPA (Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program) . . . quit looking to just dose reconstruction to determine the Probability of Causation for determining claim approvals - for some cancers LLNL water contamination probably is the culprit!
11/13/2010 9:26 AM
Anonymous said…
some cancers LLNL water contamination probably is the culprit!

November 13, 2010 9:26 AM

That's not what they do. You are wasting your time if you want them to investigate something important to you, that is not within their scope. Find out who you are addressing and what their mission is before attempting to enlist them in your cause, otherwise you look clueless and stupid. Not to mention desperate.
11/16/2010 8:22 PM
Anonymous said…
You're incoherent
3/19/2014 7:41 PM
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
12/02/2016 10:55 PM
Jedi Master & Bee Girl Cheryl said…
My father, a USNA/SWOS/USN-PGS (nuclear physics) graduate was found dead at his lab in LLNL in 1972 - with his hands bound behind his back, hanging in a broom closet with a needle mark in his belly.
The Navy said he committed suicide.
That was no cancer death per se except for the cancer of the deep state.
Wonder if we'll ever see his service record after 50+ years? Apparently it's still considered highly classified.
2/23/2024 6:58 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more