Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


Test site claim heard

U.S. will consider ex-worker's plight

After seven years of wrangling and denials by federal agencies, former Nevada Test Site worker John Funk has Labor Department officials backpedaling to resolve his compensation claim for exposure to toxic substances from at least one nuclear weapons test 28 years ago.

In a letter Funk received last week from a hearing representative in the department's Final Adjudication Branch, he learned that his case had been mishandled and he might have been exposed to a few toxic compounds, not the least of which was lithium hydride powder from the 1980 Huron King nuclear detonation.


Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Terry Fator, wife ending marriage
  • NORM: Jackson worked on album at Palms
  • NORM: Blaze breaks out during magic act
  • Ex-Ensign aide details wife's affair
  • NORM: Jacksons set up LV memorial area
  • SENATOR'S AFFAIR: Hamptons given $96,000 in gifts
  • LV area residential real estate sales reach record in June
  • Ensign wrote lover a letter, saying their affair was a 'sin'
  • Official: Fatal gunshot in back
  • Coroner says sexual assault suspect killed by police was shot in back




  • "Records also indicate you worked in several areas at the NTS in which the toxic substance benzene may have been used; and an incident report indicates you had an acute exposure to lithium hydride," reads the Feb. 27 remand order Funk received from hearing representative Sandie Howley.

    The order says Funk, a Las Vegas carpenter who is chairman of the nonprofit advocacy group Atomic Veterans and Victims of America, was not given a chance to complete an occupational history questionnaire or participate in an interview about his work history at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

    "Accordingly, your claim for skin cancer, myeloprolifterative disorder and colon cancer is remanded to the Seattle district office," the order reads.

    Funk believes his skin cancer is linked to exposure to a compound of lithium, which is a soft, silver-white colored alkali metal.

    He blames his continuing bout with myeloprolifterative disorder, which is a form of bone marrow cancer that affects blood cell production, on exposure to benzene or radioactive materials or both.

    He said his colon cancer was probably caused by toxic chemicals used to make fire-retardant wood and preventing rot in wood used at the test site.

    In an interview, Funk said he tried to explain his work history three times to case workers for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Under the program, claimants who show that their illnesses were likely caused by their exposures at test site to radioactive or toxic materials or both can receive at least $150,000 in compensation plus reimbursement for medical expenses.

    "They screwed up," Funk said. "They did not take down written interviews of anybody ... and the information we did send in got put in the trash.

    "My case is not the only one. There's going to be a lot of them," he said.

    The Labor Department's Office of Workers Compensation Programs in Washington, D.C., said officials will try to find out how many other cases like Funk's might be out there.

    "Once we find out what the impact is in a given case, we then determine whether NIOSH (the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) did or didn't include this new information from the incident in other similar cases," a representative for the office wrote Thursday in response to questions.

    The Labor Department will also determine whether any other cases didn't include occupational history questionnaires or occupational history interviews.

    Regarding the incident described by Funk, the Labor Department is "remanding the case to be sent back to NIOSH to factor in the incident in a new dose reconstruction," the workers compensation office said.

    The Huron King nuclear test was conducted June 24, 1980, in a shaft at the Nevada Test Site for the Pentagon's Defense Nuclear Agency. It was designed to simulate a cold, outer space environment to gauge the effects of a nuclear bomb exploding near a communications satellite.

    The device was detonated at the bottom of the shaft and the so-called "nuclear effects" were reflected off 9-inch-thick, lithium hydride plates at the surface toward a large tank containing a communications satellite and other targets.

    The test was designed to shock the satellite with electromagnetic pulse, heat and radiation. The plates were reduced to a fine-powder smoke.

    Archive documents show that airborne lithium hydride particles were detected inside the tank six days after detonation and an effort was made to remove them with a vacuum.

    Funk said carpenters made a floor for the tank and installed it so that technicians who were sent to retrieve the satellite and other targets in the curved chamber would have a flat place to walk. When he entered the tank he wore a dust mask but he said it was ineffective for filtering the extremely fine particles.

    Funk later went to a health clinic at the test site for treatment of flulike symptoms.

    "My throat was real harsh. I couldn't taste anything. I had headaches and fever," he said.

    In all, counting recovery teams that retrieved cameras from Huron King's crater to industrial hygienists who checked air inside the tank, government and contractor personnel made 515 entries into the area. Pocket dosimeters indicated possible radiation exposure although film badges of recovery team members detected no evidence of exposure to gamma rays.

    Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0308.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 6 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    robert elmore wrote on March 16, 2009 07:48 PM: Yes, I was notified that my fathers claim was re-opened, but his lung cancer did not have the probability percentage of 50% or more to qualify for the compensation when they sent it back thru NIOSH. I believe just another reason for the gov't to spend more money finding a reason not to help these hard workers and families not collect what is owed to them. I'm proud my father worked at the NTS and he provided me a good home. Thanks, Dad


    traci mccormick wrote on March 02, 2009 11:35 AM: I to am having many problems with this gov. program. I filed a claim in 2000 and have been working very hard on this for a long time. My father and grandfather both worked at NTS for many years. I have been told my fathers claim was denied because I can not prove how long he worked there and his lung cancer, skin cancer, and diabetes were not a high enough percentage for causation is not High enough. I am angry, I need help to solve this problem.


    Franchisca wrote on March 25, 2008 11:06 AM: As one who has navigated through the red tap of the EEOICPA, I am interested in learning more about the Atomic Veterans and Victims of America advocacy group mentioned in the article? Is there a website for this group? Although my claim was accepted by the EEOICPA, there is alot that is not covered by the EEOICPA, such as who is supposed to pay my salary while I am currently out on medical leave due to my disease and my employer (a DOE contractor) will not pay my salary while I'm out, citing it is a worker compensation issue for an injury substained before they were awarded the contract.


    Dr. M. Merritt wrote on March 19, 2008 05:30 PM: Thanks to Keith Rogers for an excellent article on this thorny issue...which is typical and widespread across EEOICPA nuclear worker country. As a physician advocate myself for New Mexico claimants, I deal with these kinds of cases all the time. Keep up the good reporting!


    NVTanner wrote on March 11, 2008 06:43 PM: Funny thing........ I worked there as little as 2 1/2 yrs ago. I wore dosimetry and was told the whole time I worked there I NEVER picked up one bit of radiation in all the areas I've ever worked in. How clever the DOE is in hiding even current NTS workers exposure.


    Mama Bear wrote on March 11, 2008 06:06 AM: Just another DOE revelation. And, you would put your faith in these people to properly store waste at Yucca Mountain? I think not.