continued

Even though generic hotspots of Sr-89 in U.S. milksheds were determined by the monitoring network of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) – the EPA’s predecessor – in the late 1950s and early 1960s (the same applies to other short- and long-lived isotopes), the PHS didn’t have enough sampling stations to pick out the most extremely contaminated milk supplies (tainted with iodine-131 or radiostrontiums) from the proverbial ‘haystack.’ This is commonsense – in the 1960s, as today, a radiation monitoring network with 30 or even 100 milk sampling stations can’t pinpoint the specific dairies affected by rare, isolated severe-rainouts (rainouts wash radioactive contaminants from the atmosphere and propel organ-seeking radionuclides along the air-grass-cow-milk-human chain). Most certainly some foodstuffs that would exceed any radiation standard during the atmospheric nuclear testing era – or even today – regularly flew under the PHS’s radar and ended up on dinner plates in the 1950s and 1960s. The same could happen in 2011 (and beyond) with the EPA’s unimpressive air, milk and food monitoring network. There is a small but real probability that one or one thousand of the several million quarts of milk produced in the U.S. this spring or summer might have strontium-89 or -90 that exceeds safety standards – but the EPA and FDA will not know this.

Putting our security in a smattering of monitoring stations that comprise a network that’s 1/100,000 the robustness of a cellular phone network seems like a misplacement of priorities. We have radioactive isotopes running detectors in every building from sea to shining sea that emit ear-bursting decibels if smoke is detected, but if radioactive isotopes enter the airspace of the United States, we have less than 150 air monitoring stations – half of them malfunctioning, and all of them at ground-level – to warn us!

Only one conclusion can be drawn from this: the federal government, and perhaps a large part of industry, doesn’t want us to freak out over ionizing radiation. They don’t want us to have any fear of the stuff.

I have struggled for some time with coming up with a term to call this breed of betrayal. It is not quite a radiation cover-up…or a health scandal…or a conspiracy of atomic henchmen. It is more like a PR campaign. A PR campaign to make ionizing radiation look good, like beef for the beef industry, cars for the car industry and genetically modified seed for the Monsantos of the world. Yes, the powers that be are actually industry spokespeople, lobbyists and marketers for radiation. It could be radiation in fallout, nuke plants or your local hospital.

Having said all of that, it is very essential to also mention that one of the PR campaigns listed above is more inhumanitarian than the rest, and by a large margin. Which one? And why? Here’s the bottom line: I can choose to eat meat with fecal matter and antibiotics in it or not, or a car that is not quite perfectly safe or not, or a GM veggie burger or not. But I can’t go anywhere to get clean air or clean water or non-radioactive food because they are contaminating the whole bleeding world. I never chose this and I can’t opt out.

” Gillispie declined to identify the interested counties other than saying they are outside of southwest Idaho, arguing that he didn’t want them harassed by critics of his plant until a site is picked. But he said the Idaho Department of Lands also offered him “state lands anywhere in the state,” following a directive from Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s office.

That was news to both the department and Otter’s office. Lands Director George Bacon said Gillispie contacted his office some time ago wondering if state land might be available for a plant. Department staff wasn’t sure what such a plant needed, but employees in its southwest office helped him look through some parcels and filled him in on how the application process would go, Bacon said.

Jon Hanian, Otter’s spokesman, said the only thing the governor asked Lands to do was fill AEHI in on how the process works and that the company has “not been offered state sites.” “

To hear what the Snake River Alliance claims happened, read and consider their post-game review and action step. The SRA asserts that the ‘…Commission heard from dozens of local residents and other concerned Idahoans that they do not want Prime A Agricultural land to be rezoned…that the job creation claims asserted by the developer will likely never occur and that local residents are not willing to sacrifice the back-bone of their economy—agriculture—for the false promise of jobs…’

AEHI, likewise, claims victory in their press release. They state that although pro-plant testimony was about the same (slightly more) than con-plant testimony, the crowd of hundreds was mostly pro-plant: ‘Hundreds of people packed a hearing room Wednesday night to show their support of a proposal to rezone 1,300 acres of land for a power plant.’ Since the Boise Weekly article (below) states that ‘More than 200 people attended,’ the only way that ‘hundreds…packed a hearing room…to show their support’ is if nearly everyone there was pro-plant. It doesn’t seem like that was the case.

I recommend reading Boise Weekly’s piece, ‘Nuclear subdivision: Elmore plant raises same objections as subdivision.‘ But much more interesting is our observation that Andrea Shipley is already putting into practice what she learned from being sued by AEHI, which is: always make it clear that your criticism is interpreted as opinion if you can’t back it up with hard proof, thus avoiding a defamation or slander lawsuit! Thus, she told KIVI-TV regarding AEHI’s controversial curb-side job fair last night: ‘It’s kind of a false hope in our opinion to get out here in an economic crises and offer hard working jobs that really aren’t there.’ Note her use of the phrase ‘in our opinion.’ That Shipley’s a smart cookie!

Now we just wait: 2 to 4 weeks.

Since Virginia-based Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) first announced plans in 2008 for a nuke plant in Idaho, the company has encountered hearty resistance. AEHI was booted out of one county by well-organized protesters. Then, when the company announced plans to move the plant site to Elmore County in Southwestern Idaho, two of Idaho’s most outspoken anti-nuke activists were quickly drawn into the battle. But AEHI wasn’t going to give in so easily this time.

One of the activists, Andrea Shipley, director of the Snake River Alliance, Idaho’s anti-nuclear group, called attention on a television newscast late last year to the company’s worrisome financial condition, saying ‘These guys are scammers. Regardless of how you feel about nuclear energy, these guys are scamming Idahoans.’ AEHI decided to act quickly and filed a defamation lawsuit against Shipley that ended much quieter than it began; AEHI had issued press releases galore about it being defamed, and the deleterious effect of Shipley’s slanderous comments on it’s already crippled stock price. Shipley told the Judge that she meant it (calling them ‘scammers’) only as an opinion, not as fact. The Judge was pleased. Case was dismissed.

The second activist was Dr. Rickards. When AEHI held its first Elmore County ‘information fair’ about its plant last year, in attendance at the meeting were Shipley and Dr. Peter Rickards, a podiatrist from Twin Falls. Both Shipley and Rickards felt that the event was a public meeting and, furthermore, a venue for their right of free expression, constitutionally speaking. But AEHI’s staff seemingly didn’t appreciate nor agree with this or their presence, asked them to leave, and after Shipley left, Rickards stayed. And, as it happens in the Westerns, things ended up physical. Who pushed who, or who pretended that they were pushed to later file assault and battery charges, will be hashed out in an Idaho appeals court.

AEHI’s lawsuits, however, didn’t put an injunction on Rickards’ and Shipley’s mouths. They continue speaking out about the dangers of putting a nuclear power plant in their state. Their efforts have encouraged other dissenters, such as one person who reasoned in his letter to the editor of an Idaho paper this morning: ‘Do we really want to live next to highly radioactive waste that puts our local farms and water at risk and may decrease the value of our crops?’

For those out of state, you may be asking: why all of this attention on a proposed nuke plant in Idaho when plans for nuke plants are sprouting up all over?

If you know about Idaho’s nuclear history, you’ll know that the state was for decades in the cross hairs of fallout from the Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Laboratory, and Hanford. Residents weren’t told the truth, or told for decades, or told at all, about what was being deposited at dangerous levels in their air, crops, and water. Cancers from fallout in Idaho’s past have been emerging and will continue to emerge without justice, awareness or recognition from public health authorities or related legislation. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210), for example, compensates downwinders in 21 counties NOT in Idaho, but in Utah, Nevada and Arizona. U.S. Representatives from Idaho and Utah (Jim Matheson, Mike Simpson, and Walt Minnick) are trying to fix this: they sent a letter in February to the House Judiciary Committee asking to include Idaho (among other areas) in RECA. (Matheson’s also asked for hearings.) But there’s no word. As I’ve/we’ve often heard, ‘It’s stuck in the Judiciary Committee.’

Tonight, Idaho’s future is placed in the hands of another committee, the Elmore County P&Z Board, which is holding the last in a series of hearings on rezoning land for AEHI’s proposed nuke plant. The Board heard testimony from AEHI and environmental groups back in the fall of 2008 and this third hearing was significantly delayed because AEHI’s CEO had scheduling conflicts. But, since it is the final hearing, today is the first or last day of AEHI’s life; if the Board refuses to rezone, then it’s over. (Let’s hope.) So, if you know of anyone who can make it to tonight’s hearing, call the Snake River Alliance (SRA): 208.344.9161 or email: lwoodruff@snakeriveralliance.org to get more information, or visit SRA’s website.