|
Archives of
the BVDA's recent News postings:
Upcoming Legislative
Meetings
Here
is a list of NM State Legislative Committee meetings which may impact BVDA and
are scheduled for July. Occasionally
the time or agenda of a scheduled meeting changes, so call the Legislative
Council Service at (505)986-4600 if you plan to attend, in order to confirm the
information. In order to
receive the newsletter, call the above number or e-mail wpxtra (at) nmlegis.gov
(replace the (at) with the @ sign).
Radioactive
and Hazardous Materials (RHMC)
July:
TBD (Watch for more
information on this one.)
Water and Natural Resources (WNRC)
July
6 – 7: TBD
Socorro
Economic
and Rural Development (ERD)
July
8: 10:00 a.m., Deming
July
9: 9:00 a.m – 12:30 p.m, Deming
July
9: 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m., Elephant Butte
July
10: 9:00 a.m., Elephant Butte
Agenda
Items: agricultural issues, medial
marijuana, wine industry, spaceport, White Sands, tourism
Indian
Affairs (IAC)
July
12: UNM Law School
July
14 – 15: Pueblo of Santa Ana
Agenda
Items: law programs, new law school
dean, voting rights
Interesting reading
Ernest
J. Sternglass, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Radiological Physics
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project
4601 Fifth Avenue #824, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
February
7,2009
Dr.
Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20585
Dear
Dr. Chu:
I am writing
to you to make you aware of a little-known tragic mistake that was made by the
medical community and physicists like myself during the early years of the
Cold War that has been playing a major role in the enormous rise of the
incidence chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes, and thus the cost of
healthcare in our nation. The mistake was to assume that the radiation
exposure to the public due to the small amount of fallout from distant nuclear
weapons tests or the operation of nuclear reactors would have no significant
adverse effect on human health.
This
assumption was based on our experience with a half-century of studies that
showed no detectable increase in cancer rates for individuals given one or two
diagnostic X-rays. What was not understood at the time was that the
radioactive elements created in the fission of uranium did not just produce a
small increase in the external dose as received from the natural background
sources. Instead, the particles and gases produced in the fission process
released into the environment would lead to vastly greater radiation damage
than from diagnostic X-rays or the gamma rays in background sources because
the radioactive fission products and uranium oxides were inhaled and ingested
with the milk, the drinking water and the rest of the diet, concentrating in
critical organs of the body.
Thus, the
radioactive Iodine-131 seeks out the thyroid and damages the production of key
growth hormones as well as thyroid cancer, Strontium-90 concentrates in bone
where it irradiates the bone-marrow, causing leukemia in newly forming red
blood cells as well as damage to crucial white cells of the immune system that
fight cancer cells and bacteria. Cesium-137 collects in soft tissue organs
such as the breast and the reproductive organs of males and females, leading
to various types of cancer in the individuals and their children as well as in
later generations.
The mistake
was compounded by the fact that in the early 1950’s when bomb tests began on
a large scale in Nevada, it was not known that the adverse effect of radiation
is tens to hundreds of times more serious for the developing infant in the
mother’s womb and young children than for the adults studied following
medical X-ray exposures. Nor was it discovered until the early 1970’s that
protracted radiation exposures as from long-lived fission products
accumulating in the body, is much greater than from the same total dose
received in a short X-ray exposure.
As a result of
this lack of knowledge at the time, government officials were able to reassure
a concerned public that the small levels of nuclear fallout from the Nevada
tests would produce no adverse effects, and point out the potential benefits
of the peaceful atom. Thus, in the mid-1950’s, President Eisenhower was able
to declare that dirty coal power plants could be replaced by “ clean nuclear
energy too cheap to meter.”
Thus, a
program of building a large number of nuclear plants was begun which were
permitted to discharge small amounts of fission products comparable with the
levels of fallout from atmospheric weapons testing. This was also the
time the Cold War had begun and thousands of nuclear weapons were produced and
tested as a necessary deterrent to keep the large armies of the Soviet Union
from overrunning all of Europe. Therefore, when it was discovered in the
1960’s that small amounts of fission products produced much greater damage
than had been expected, and not only leukemia and other forms of cancer but
also premature births, low birth-weight and infant mortality, it was kept
secret by our government for fear that it would endanger the deterrent value
of the nuclear arsenal.
Moreover, when
a rise in healthcare costs began with the start of large-scale atmospheric
weapons testing that increased sharply with the construction of some one
hundred nuclear plants beginning in the 1950’s, this was blamed on the
inefficiency of the system and the greed of the drug companies, and not on the
large rise of releases from the nuclear plants built near the large cities,
contaminating the milk produced in the nearby dairies.
The details of
this story can be found in my book “Secret Fallout” that can be downloaded
free from the Radiation and Public Health web-site www.radiation.org
as well as a list of some two dozen papers published in scientific journals
and five books published by members of RPHP.
Fortunately,
the recent rapid development of alternative energy makes it possible to see an
end to this tragedy, since it is possible to convert the aging nuclear plants
to operate with natural gas. This can be done at a small fraction of the cost
of new power stations until the alternative solar, wind, geothermal and hydro
sources can take their place, as demonstrated by the case of the Fort St.
Vrain nuclear plant near Denver, Colorado, now using natural gas.
If our nation
that built the first reactors and nuclear weapons were to announce the goal of
phasing out nuclear fission reactors that also produce the plutonium and
tritium needed for nuclear weapons while developing nuclear fusion power and
other non-polluting sources of energy, it will also make it easier to achieve
the stated goal of President Obama of a world free from nuclear weapons.
Thus it is
possible to look forward to a world free from the danger of the annihilation
of human life by nuclear weapons using enriched uranium or plutonium that is
only produced in nuclear fission reactors, together with the highly toxic
nuclear wastes that remain deadly for thousands of years.
Sincerely
yours,
Ernest J. Sternglass, Ph.D.
____________________________________________________________________
New at BVDA:
A history of MASE and a
re-cap of the 2008 and 2009 New Mexico Legislative sessions, by Chris Shuey,
review it here
____________________________________________________________________
Post 71 miners have a new
action alert page on their site.
April 2, 2009
Read what they are
saying about US Senator Udall and NM Senator Ulibarri working against their
constituents by clicking here
____________________________________________________________________
New
Mexico Environment Department Prevails in Precedent-Setting Case
Affirming
State's Authority to Protect All Groundwater in New Mexico
New
Mexico Water Quality Control Commission Rules Unanimously that
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Must Clean Up Pollution
January 13,
2009, Santa Fe, NM.
From: Marissa
Stone, NMED Communications Director
For
Immediate Release
(505) 827-0314
or
(505) 231-0475
The New Mexico
Environment Department prevailed today
in a major case
before the Water Quality Control Commission that
reaffirms the
state's ability to enforce the Water Quality Act to
protect the state's
precious groundwater resources.
The ruling
establishes that groundwater beneath Freeport McMoRan Copper
and Gold's Tyrone
Mine in Grant County is protected. The decision will
require the company
to continue to take steps to protect groundwater and
clean up pollution
beneath the mine property. The case reaffirms the
state's authority
to protect groundwater at any site it regulates,
including mines,
dairies and national laboratories.
"The
commission upheld the department's longstanding position that in
an
arid state like New
Mexico - where we derive 90 percent of our drinking
water from
groundwater - all aquifers must be protected," said New
Mexico Environment
Department Secretary Ron Curry. "The commission
re-established the
state's right to protect water quality and all
groundwater now and
for future generations. This precedent setting
decision is
important not only for the Tyrone mine site but for the
regulation of
groundwater quality in Grant County and the rest of the
state as
well."
The decision will
require Freeport, formerly Phelps Dodge Mining Corp.,
to continue to
follow requirements the department established to protect
groundwater at the
mine site.
The case hinged on
Freeport's argument that groundwater within the
Tyrone mine site -
consisting of several thousand acres -- was exempt
from state
groundwater protections as long as the company did not cause
groundwater off
site to become contaminated. The result of this argument
would have been to
create a groundwater "sacrifice zone" at the mine
site. The
department has long maintained that groundwater underneath the
site should be
protected now and into the future.
The commission
rejected Freeport's contention that this groundwater is
not protected.
The case began in
2002 and has been ongoing ever since. The company,
after a lengthy
hearing, challenged the New Mexico Environment
Department's
hearing officer's initial decision in the case. The hearing
officer affirmed
the state's right to issue a permit with conditions for
the protection of
groundwater quality and require the company to follow
provisions of the
Water Quality Act. The case was subsequently heard
before the
commission, which upheld the department's authority. Freeport
then appealed the
case to the state Court of Appeals, which largely
affirmed the
commission's decision but remanded the case to the
commission on the
limited issue of groundwater protection. Today's
decision was the
result of that remand.
I commend the
commission on its hard work, technical expertise and
thorough review and
deliberation that required hundreds of hours of
work,"
Secretary Curry said.
The New Mexico
Legislature in 1967 passed the Water Quality Act, which
provides protection
for all groundwater in the state.
For more
information, call Marissa Stone at (505) 827-0314.
_____________________________________________________________
New
Mexico Environment Department reaches agreement with
Homestake regarding water supply
HMC to provide city water to a dozen or more homes in Bluewater Valley
January 12,
2009, Santa Fe, NM.
In
a signed Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) between the NMED and HMC, certain
residents will be connected to the Milan water supply. Additional
information is available
by downloading the following documents.
Download the
NMED MOA by clicking here - PDF
File
Download the
response to the MOA by the bvda by clicking here - DOC
file
____________________________________________________________________
Nearby residents oppose permit
HOMESTAKE STILL SEEKING RENEWAL
By Donald Jaramillo
Beacon publisher/managing editor
Published Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:15 AM MST
GRANTS - A public hearing
was held last week on Jan. 12 and 13 in regard to Homestake Mining Company's
discharge permit with modification at the Cibola County Complex. The hearing
started on Tuesday morning and went through 8:30 p.m. the first day. On
Wednesday, officials started at 8 a.m. and the hearing ended at approximately
3 p.m.
The permit's site is just
north of the Village of Milan on Highway 605 toward San Mateo. The Homestake
reclamation project is a Superfund Site.
According to Homestake Project Manager Al Cox, he has been
waiting for re-approval of the existing permit for several years and is now
requesting a third pond, EP3, to speed up the process of reclamation. If
approved by the New Mexico Environmental Department, EP3 would be constructed
on HMC property on Sections 22 and 23, approximately 1,800 feet north of
County Road 63. A 50-foot wide access corridor will be constructed to access
the proposed pond and to locate piping and associated infrastructure to the
pond area.
Cox said that the pond can be constructed in 90 to 120 days and would cost
approximately $2.5 million.
“We've lost time [without the third pond],” said George
Hoffman, a hydrologist witness for HMC. “We've been unable to maximize the
process being used for cleanup.”
The hearing, hosted by the Environmental Department,
included detailed discussion from expert witnesses and attorneys from HMC and
the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance. A hearing officer lead the meetings
as the opposing organization, the BVDA, argued the success and questioned the
process being used by HMC. BVDA is a grassroots community-based organization
based in Milan and lead by Art Gebeau. BVDA is opposing the permit, in
collaboration with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center and the Southwest
Research Information Center. The three organzations are requesting NMED to
disapprove the water permit until a report on the effectiveness of HMC
reclamation plan is released next month by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
According to BVDA, residents in the area have already lost well-use access and
are suffering from radon exposure coming from the tailings pile at four times
greater than safe background levels.
“Since you started this in 1972,” Gebeau confronted
Hoffman while he was on the stand. “the goal was so that the contaminated
water would not spread and some odd 30 years later many people around there
are told not to drink the water, why? Why is it that the contamination has
spread?”
Hoffman went on arguing that HMC is using the best process the company he
represents knows of.
State Senator David Ulibarri and Representative Eliseo Alcon went on record on
Tuesday evening in support of the HMC being renewed with modification.
Alcon said, “If this third pond will help Homestake clean
its site up more quickly, then, obviously, it is in Homestake's best interest
to construct it . . . and sooner rather than later.”
Ulibarri told the hearing officer that he and
Representative Patricia Lundstrom had officially questioned as to why the HMC
permit had not been renewed and why it was taking so long. “My
interpretation of this letter is that the delay on NMED's part was due to the
question of whether the evaporation ponds were causing radon exposure,”
Ulibarri said. “NMED stated in their letter to me and Representative
Lundstrom that they have now made a determination that the ponds are not
causing radon exposure. Now it is time to move forward . . . the initial
request for this pond was made more than three years ago.”
Secretary Ron Curry of NMED will make a final determination
approving, conditionally approving or disapproving the renewal and
modification water permit.
“Fundamentally, our principal concern is the restoration
of our groundwater,” Gebeau said at the meeting. Gebeau concluded his
statement by offering recommendations to HMC, one being that they move the
cleanup site. “If the federal government can move tailings piles located in
or near communities and rivers in Durango, Grand Junction, Gunnison and Rifle,
Colo., and Moab, Utah, it can do so here in Milan.”
The HMC cleanup site involves a 25-million ton uranium
waste pile.
To comment or for more information on the hearing or water permit, you can
reach NMED at 1-505-827-2002 or 1-505-827-2919.
From
the Cibola County Beacon
Letter to the Editor of the
Cibola County Beacon - response to article:
Dear Mr. Jaramillo,
Your article on Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance's participation in the
recent hearing on Homestake Mining Company's state discharge permit contained
two fundamental errors that we request your correct immediately ("Nearby
Residents Oppose Permit", January 19, 2010).
First, neither BVDA nor its law firm (the New Mexico Environmental Law Center)
and technical assistance organization (Southwest Research and Information
Center) "opposed" the permit. We urged the Hearing Officer to
defer making a decision to modify and renew the permit until the results of an
independent assessment of the effectiveness of Homestake's groundwater
remediation system is completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and reviewed
by all parties. USACE is expected to issue a draft report of its findings
on February 12. No BVDA member said, orally or in writing, that our group
is opposing the permit.
Second, BVDA's expert witness was Mr. Paul Robinson, research director at SRIC
in Albuquerque, not his colleague Chris Shuey, as indicated in the photo
caption. Mr. Robinson did not testify in opposition to the permit, nor did
he state in his pre-filed written testimony that he was opposing the permit.
In fact, Mr. Robinson made several recommendations intended to improve
waste management at the site and to help Homestake make progress toward cleaning
up groundwater by 2017. His position was also clearly stated in his
written testimony: "The overall goal of these recommendations is to substantially
improve the processes and facilities permitted under Discharge Permit 725 by
providing for the closure and removal of the existing waste management units
located in the San Mateo Creek floodplain and consolidation of all waste storage
and disposal functions in a state-of-the-art facility that is located outside of
the floodplain."
BVDA urged deferring a decision on renewal of DP-725 because we are convinced
that Homestake will not meet its self-imposed 2017 deadline using its current
strategy of flushing the large tailings pile with clean water, and that the
USACE evaluation will address that very concern. BVDA members have heard
Homestake's repeated promises to clean up pollution groundwater since the
mid-1970s. Since the past and current systems have failed each 10-year
period since then, BVDA felt that the New Mexico Environment Department should
have waited to receive and review the USACE report before holding a hearing on a
permit that may have to be substantially changed.
Finally, BVDA notes that neither Senator Ulibarri nor Representative Alcon
listened to any of the technical testimony at the two-day hearing, or stayed
around on Tuesday evening to listen to BVDA members' statements about the
hardships they have endured from 40 years of polluted groundwater, diminished
property values, and ill health. Their willingness to ignore our
community's concerns has become a pattern of behavior that belies their
positions as representatives of all of the people of their districts.
Sincerely,
Dave Arnold
Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance
|
