Rocky Flats worker aid
Re: “Slash red tape to aid Rocky Flats workers,” June 14 editorial
In your editorial, you claimed: “The process is so laborious that the Department of Energy managed to pay just 31 claims in four years before Congress lost patience and shifted administration of nuclear workers’ compensation programs to the Labor Department in 2004. Unfortunately, Labor hasn’t moved much faster, settling just 802 of the 6,140 claims filed to date by Rocky Flats workers.”
The reality is that the Labor Department has resolved more than 80 percent of the 2,616 Part B cases received from Rocky Flats employees – although resolution includes both approvals and denials. (Labor has also reached a final decision on 61 percent of the newer Part E program cases at Rocky Flats, but those cases are not connected to the decision made on Tuesday by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health that was the topic of your editorial.) A large number of Rocky Flats Part B cases could not be approved because the claimant didn’t have one of the conditions required for eligibility (cancer or beryllium disease). And for those who did have cancer, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has completed dose reconstructions on more than 80 percent of the Rocky Flats cases referred to them.
We deeply sympathize with Rocky Flats workers who have suffered from terrible diseases like cancer, and with the frustration of those who, despite their belief that the disease was caused by radiation exposure at the plant, are found not to have met congressionally established criteria for payment. But the Department of Labor has acted promptly and fairly in deciding cases under this program, and we will continue to do so.
Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.
…
Thank you for your editorial about the need for intervention to help the former Rocky Flats workers. This obfuscation by the federal government is nothing new. Tweny-five years ago, when Rocky Flats was still operating, the United Steelworkers union and I wrote a letter to the Department of Energy, requesting that copies of medical records be made available to individual workers if requested. In their letter of refusal, the department made the absurd argument that such releases would do no good, since only DOE- appointed doctors and experts could accurately interpret the medical tests and results found in the workers’ files. It was ever thus.
Timothy Wirth, Washington D.C.
The writer represented Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to 1993.
Whose government?
We knew that President Bush’s knowledge of the constitution was questionable, but now he has made it abundantly clear. Regarding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he is quoted as saying, “They [the Senate] can have their votes of no confidence, but it’s not going to make the determination about who serves in my government.” The president needs to be reminded that it is the government of the people, not his government.
Mac McLennan, Denver
Front-page news choices
Why did Friday’s front-page main story have to be a superficial blurb about porn (“Power and porn,” June 15 Denver Post)? You had an amazing story of courage and triumph of the human spirit in the lower corner of the paper (“Iraq valor earns Silver Star: Colo. GI risked all for fellow”). Obviously neither of the stories were “breaking news,” so you had an opportunity to evaluate which story to feature prominently.
Maria Pierce, Littleton
Littleton Wal-Mart zoning
Littleton residents are being asked to support or rebuff their City Council’s decision to rezone part of the Santa Fe Drive/South Platte greenway area for a huge, 24-hour Wal- Mart store (Ballot Question 1A). Wal- Mart is the sole funder of “Neighbors Voting No on 1A” to support this zoning. The issue here is clear: The City Council is out of ideas on city funding and has sold out to the highest bidder; to even consider such an eyesore is proof. Real neighbors of Littleton appreciate the fresh air, mountain views and greenway bike and walking paths. Real neighbors of Littleton expect traffic and environment reports to be made available on the city’s website (they aren’t) and are happy to leave the city limits to experience traffic jams and gross overdevelopment. So, the real neighbors and contented residents of Littleton will vote “yes” to overturn the zoning decision and save the charm of our town.
Paul Trantow, Littleton
What about the people?
Re: “Limited time to mill about,” May 28 news story.
As an attorney who formerly represented the former owner of the Dutch Mill Mobile Home Park on East Colfax Avenue in Aurora, I read with interest the article about the Dutch Mill structure in your article. The article gave an interesting historic account of the structure and the possible hope for relocation and reuse of the landmark building.
Unfortunately, however, the article made no mention whatsoever of the many human beings living in the mobile homes at the Dutch Mill, who also need to relocate. I hope that the more complicated human aspects of this story will be considered soon by The Post. In particular, is the city of Aurora helping to find resources for the many people not only at the Dutch Mill, but also at many other mobile home parks and motels which will be demolished by new development to serve the Fitzsimons redevelopment?
L. Michael Henry, Denver
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to blogs.denverpost.com/eletters
To send a letter to the editor
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202; Fax: 303-954-1502
Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
