Letter From Janet Michel to the Editor of The Oak Ridger, September 19, 1999

To the Editor:

Why did the majority of the ill people and their supporters walk out of the
multi-agency public meeting on September 9, 1999?  Many may be wondering
why these people appear to be rejecting an attempt to address health
concerns in Oak Ridge.

1. We are totally frustrated with endless meetings with the same people
producing no results and we can only see more of the same in the future.
2. The agencies have never responded to recommendations that were made
after over 100 citizens interacted in a workshop format for 2 days in
October 1997.  We all recognize that DOE is the responsible party, but DOE
refuses to be accountable to our community.  They have the money and they
control the issue.
3. We are disturbed and frustrated with having our concerns and
recommendations repeatedly ignored.
4. The agencies have already said they cannot address our greatest need:
diagnosis and treatment.
5. The agencies have already decided the structure (FACA) of the health
committee. This is counter to all principles of public participation.
6. The structure chosen gives the agencies the most control instead of the
control being in the hands of those most directly affected.
7. We do not want to be put into the position of only advising the
agencies, when they have already said they cannot help us.
8. Community members on the SSAB made the recommendation for an
environmental health clinic through the proscribed process more than three
years ago. DOE refused to honor that recommendation. Our experience with a
FACA board has not been good. Why would we want another one?

There is a great need for a public health initiative in this community, but
this current attempt is not the way to go.  Once again, what we need is a
world-class environmental health clinic staffed with independent physicians
and researchers who can examine, diagnose, and treat patients as well as
gather the needed data on exposures, biomarkers, and treatment plans.
Medical intervention and research can occur simultaneously. Under the
present system with the contractor and its HMO contolling health care, we
are denied medical diagnosis, treatment, and intervention.

As well, the affected people need to feel comfortable "at the table" and
the only way for that to happen is for the planning process to be fully
participatory and collaborative. We are not the first citizens to leave the
agencies' table.  The downwinders in Utah and Nevada have long expressed
the same concerns and are refusing to be parties to anymore of these
affairs until they get a full partnership on the table and the final
decisions concerning what is, or isn't going to be done with their health
concerns is left up to the affected people themselves to decide.

There is a growing unity among the nation's affected communities that there
must be justice for all, not a few crumbs tossed here and there to shut up
whomever is currently screaming the loudest or whose community has just
been given a DOE "surprise package", as Paducah was recently. The federal
agencies must develop solutions for and acceptable to all of the nation's
affected communities. They must address the whole problem as a whole and
not isolated parts of it. For once and all, we want a true partnership for
everyone and not just one solution that is done to shut up a few and done
only to look good on paper!

Janet R. Michel