If the '90s was the decade in which nobody wanted to accept responsibility for anything, than perhaps the OOs will be the responsibility decade. A recent signal from the White House suggests that we are on the right path, and this is good news.

Recently, The New York Times and other publications reported that the U.S. government has conceded that certain persons who worked for the government in nuclear weapons projects were exposed to radiation and chemicals and experienced higher than normal rates of cancer.

The government admitted that workers who were exposed to radiation and chemicals in 14 different nuclear plants have higher than normal rates of 22 different kinds of cancers. Apparently hundreds, if not thousands of individuals may have been injured while serving all of us in these defense projects.

Federal nuclear projects were, of course, initially commenced to advance our national defense. These projects were designed to defend this country's interests. And it appears that in the name of national defense, many Americans were placed in harm's way.

You would have expected that any one who became sick as a result of this kind of work would be treated promptly and fairly by the United States, wouldn't you? In fact, we all know the sad truth -- which is that apparent victims received the same red tape treatment that many people do when they have other kinds of dealings with Washington. The difference is that these people were sick and justifiably scared. And generally, they were not wealthy. It takes stamina and money to fight the government, and may of these sick people had neither.

Even for healthy people, these kinds of claims are hard to fight against the U.S. This is so for several reasons. First, federal law generally immunizes the federal government from most negligence-type claims. This immunity dates all the way back to England when it was the law of the land that "the King could do no wrong."

Another reason why these claims are difficult to pursue relates to the so-called "causation issue." Former workers do not only have to prove that they were there and became sick. They also have to prove that the radioactive exposure "caused" their illnesses. This is an extremely complicated task that often costs many thousands of dollars. How many people have that kind of money to spend on a lawsuit?

Claims and assertions relating to nuclear exposure are not brand new. In 1990 The British Medical Journal reported that there was a high incidence of leukemia and lymphoma in children of fathers who worked in a British nuclear power plants. Not the workers, but children of the workers, the report said.

And in 1998 a report was issued suggesting that Alaskan nuclear workers employed by the United States during nuclear experiments in the 1960s and 1970s may have been exposed to various levels of radiation from contaminated groundwater as well as air-borne nuclear particulates.

Congress has already enacted legislation awarding payment to Navajo miners, or their family members, relating to sickness from radiation in uranium minds. Between the 1940s and 1950s American Indians were employed to mine uranium ore and have now reported a disproportionate percentage of lung cancer and respiratory illness. Much has been documented about this struggle in a book entitled, "If You Poison Us: Uranium and Native Americans", published by Red Crane Books in 1994.

We have had a sad national legacy of trying to avoid real responsibility. Whether we were talking about the detention camps that housed Japanese Americans in World War II, of the Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange, or those reportedly exposed to some harmful agent in the Iraq war, or these brave people apparently hurt in federal nuclear experiments, the government has historically ignored such victims.

Why? Probably it is all about money. The federal government often does not want to make large cash payments to its victims. Hopefully, weall understand that this attitude must change, and change quickly. While the victims, and their families, are still around to see justice.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.