| Base Expansion On Science |
 |
 |
 |
|
The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the St. George Spectrum. -Staff I appreciate the sentiments my friend Ed Kociela expressed in his column ("Orrin, please change your mind on new RECA bill," April 24) on New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposal to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). As many who are close to people impacted by radiation exposure, I am passionate about ensuring that the victims who were exposed to radiation from nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site are treated fairly and justly compensated. That's why I authored and was able to get the original RECA Act passed into law in 1990 and why I was successful in expanding this important program on several occasions. Due to these efforts, RECA is now funded for the life of the program, meaning radiation victims will never have to rely on an IOU. My fight also carried over into creating the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education (RESEP) program, which has helped thousands of radiation victims through cancer screening, public education programs and assistance applying for RECA benefits. Each time legislation has been introduced to expand RECA, I have reached out to the scientific community to ensure the scientific data justified the policy proposals in the legislation. While I agree with Sen. Udall that the RECA law may need to be updated and that more research may be required on the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, Congress should not spend taxpayer dollars on programs that are not justified by scientific evidence. We only need to look closely at the deceptive practices being used to drum up support for the onerous cap-and-trade legislation to see the negative effects of policies not supported by scientific facts. Without sound scientific evidence, there is little likelihood expanded RECA legislation will be signed into law. Several years ago, I was able to secure federal funds for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to determine if RECA should be expanded. After listening to Utah radiation victims' concerns at meetings in St. George and Salt Lake City, the NAS' Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board determined in its 2005 study that the low-level radiation Utahns and others were exposed to was unlikely to be a "substantial contributing cause of cancer" and ruled out further expansion. In light of new scientific evidence since that decision, I have asked the NAS to revisit this issue and update their recommendations about the RECA program. It is critically important, particularly in this tough economy and with the federal deficit at dangerous levels, that decisions on expansion be based on the best-available science before committing more taxpayer dollars to the program. That is why I have stressed the importance of having board members speak to radiation victims and researchers before releasing new findings. Without this compelling evidence, it will be extremely difficult for Congress to change the law. I have always said RECA is not a finished product, and I remain committed to ensure that we take care of Utahns and other Americans who were harmed by our government's nuclear testing. Trackback(0)
Comments (3)
  written by Gucci Outlet, June 28, 2010
The path to glory is always rugged.since the 2010 world cup coming up,i hope you enjoy the games.Fantastic post,i will bookmark it and come back to concern your other post.
 written by all star shoes, September 02, 2010
That is why I have stressed the importance of having board members speak to radiation victims and researchers before releasing new findings. Without this compelling evidence, it will be extremely difficult for Congress to change the law.
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Wang: everybody in the gucci outlet swimming pool.
The lifeguard: yes! Sir, but only if you stand on the board in the urine...