Protecting Our Own

Compensation for Radiation

I cannot imagine what it would be like to end my career early after falling victim to the occupational hazards that one has accepted all their life. Life at that point must become a game of questions: Was the job worth it? Was there something you could have done differently? How will you work in the future? How will you pay for all the medical bills? How will you support the life that you have grown accustomed to living? Nuclear standards have received a poor reputation as being stringent, however, they truly seek to avoid putting anyone in this position described above. But yes, they also do seek to protect the employer as well, minimizing the amount of negative situations that occur and result in the paying of large sums of money.

When I first read about how cases in which occupational hazards pose a factor are handled, I was disheartened. It did seem like it would be another time when those in power, protected their power, with their power, resulting in the crushing of those not as fortunate. Most radiation corporations utilize a probability of causation calculation to assess their liability in these cases. As you know from earlier posts, we all have an inherent risk of developing cancer from natural sources. However, when we are exposed to radiation dose there is now a risk for radiation-induced cancer which is indistinguishable from cancer that would be naturally caused. Hearing this, I could just envision how big corporations could  use this to weasel out of providing support for employees that got sick while working for them. They could state that the employee's developing disease probably fell under the employee's natural risk for cancer and that they are thus not liable. However, I know that personally I would feel horrible even if I had only a history of low dosage while working and still got cancer. I would probably beat myself up over how I could have avoided some of the rems and possibly had  a different prognosis. So forced, then would come the lawsuits.... Generally, those with better legal representation have the advantage in court cases, and I imagine, against a large nuclear corporation, that legal battle would go horribly. However, as frightening as this all sounds, I have actually been pleasantly surprised by the information I have found on support provided by nuclear standards and compensation programs.

Using data I found from  UK nuclear operations, I was able to explore more about compensation programs and dissuade my fears. They do use formulas and math to predict their liability, which they call an "Assigned Share". However, there are multiple generous factors worked into the calculation to lean towards favoring the employee. There are factors that consider your health and personal choices before the diagnosis. For example. if you have been a non-smoker that would increase their view on your prior personal health and increase the assigned share leading to a higher chance of payout. Dose records and estimates are calculated conservatively, in favor of the employee and those who's work results in cancer at a young age, under 50, also get a boost to their assigned share.  All this gets factored and a decision can be made on whether there will be a settlement. Thus, the employee can avoid costly legal fees on top of everything else they are dealing. with. Yet litigation is still an option if this formula does not work out favorably for the employee. Probably the best reasoning for this compensation scheme is what they called "Proportional Recovery". Even if  your assigned share is low due to a high chance of your cancer being due to natural risk, a business may pay out 50% or 25% of what they would in normal cases. It definitely is not perfect, but it would be better than nothing. If this occurred in court and the employee could not prove that his disorder was due to the occupational hazards than he would probably be going home with nothing else but the legal bills to pay for.With proportional recovery you have a higher chance of getting something.  Most of the  successful cases that the nuclear system in UK has dealt with has had a probability of causation of less than 50%, which is below the level that they would likely win in court.

All in all, there probably still is room for improvement. But it is good to see that this system is working for many people and supporting our fellow nuclear workers who unluckily succumbed to the occupational hazards. As a future nuclear worker, its very important to know that I have these methods of support available.

(1) http://www.vbdr.org/meetings/2007/Chicago/wakeford.pdf