Re: (Fwd) Error Condition Re: Re: Hanford Cleanup Strategy

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Sorry, Mr. Forrer, while I agree with some of your contentions, I must disagree 
with others.  First: I have heard and read "not everything is learned in the 
classroom..." and "I may not have an alphabet soup after my name..." just a 
couple of times too often for me to let it go by gracefully. I DO have Ph. D., 
from a first rate chemistry department at a first rate school (Johns Hopkins) 
and I am darned proud of it and I learned an awful lot in those classrooms and 
laboratories and have taught an awful lot in my own classrooms and laboratories.
 Attitudes like yours toward education have contributed to the rise of the "junk
science" that we seem to be dealing with.  Just keep on denigrating education 
and see where it gets us.

Now about Hanford, with which I am very familiar.  The reason that so many 
species flourish on the site (and they do) is precisely because much of it has 
been off-limits to people.  The "mess" you refer to is not even remotely as 
harmful to an ecosystem, especially a desert ecosystem, as roads and housing and
commercial developments.  The Hanford "mess" doesn't disturb the Hanford Reach 
ecosystem as much as the irrigated farmland, ranchland, and orchards and 
vineyards of the Columbia Basin.  Is it the land's natural state that you want, 
or the cultivated land?  I might also point out that if you drive up the 
Columbia Gorge from the Vernita Bridge to I-90, once you are off the Hanford 
site, you will see resort, motel, and housing developments taking over the 
farmland.  Can't blame it on DOE either.

To respond to the "Native American brothers and sisters" comment: please come to
New Mexico and see for yourself the relative importance to the tribes of 
beautiful open space v. casinos.  I do believe that many tribes cherish the 
values of the tribal land, just as many of the rest of us cherish wilderness 
values, but neither group or culture is immune to greed.  Again, the irony in 
all this is that the use of Hanford as a closed site for plutonium production 
has preserved the land to a much greater extent than the surrounding land 
outside the Hanford reserve.

Now to the "cleanup."  As  member of the review team for the Columbia River 
Comprehensive Imapct Assessment (CRCIA) I observed first hand how the supposedly
official views of the Yakima and Nez Perce were to exaggerate (beyond 
credibility) the levels of contamination, the effect of the contamination, and 
the need for "cleanup."  All they seemed to want was to spend as much money as 
possible.  This view was not shared by a lot of tribal members who, as you point
out, take a more realistic and constructive position.  So of course do the many 
non-tribal residents of the Tri-Cities area who, by the way, have just as much 
right to live there and are equally concerned about its preservation.

Clearly my own opinion and no one else's.

Ruth F. Weiner
rfweine@sandia.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: (Fwd) Error Condition Re: Re: Hanford Cleanup Strategy
Author:  Eugene.Forrer@tdh.state.tx.us at hubsmtp
Date:    3/5/98 8:53 AM


Well Mr. Drifter, I don't know where you get your information, but 
Hanford is much, much more than rocks and rattlers.  The Hanford 
reservation contains the only virgin Columbia River Basin Prairie left.
 It has become a de-facto game preserve for many native species
including several endangered ones.  The wildlife is thriving.  It is 
true that Hanford does have a fair amount of desert type land, but 
mostly it is grassland.  If you get away from the man spoiled portion 
you will find some of the prettiest land God put on this earth.
That being said I must say that I agree to certain point about 
cleaning up the place.  There have been several surveys done that show 
that clean up of certain areas will do more harm than good. 
Remediation efforts would scar the grassland for decades if not 
centuries.  Attempting to remove contaminated piping from the river 
would probably result in massive contamination problems.  There have 
been several articles suggesting that leaving low levels of 
contamination alone and remediating in place (such as filling the 
piping in the river with mortar to seal the contamination in place). 
There is (or was, I am not sure what the current thinking is) a plan 
to move the reactors near the river to a mesa some 20 miles away using 
a crawler, like the one they use to move the shuttle to the gantry, to 
move them.  The road the would have to cut will be there for several 
hundred years.  Some have suggested that stabilizing them in place may 
be less harmful overall.  There are some messes at Hanford that will 
have to be cleaned up regardless of the adverse effect on the 
environment, due to the nature of the contamination. These ideas of 
leaving some contaminated are endorsed not only by bean counters and 
scientific types, but some environmentalists
and Native American groups also.
My final thought is that lets say for arguments sake that Hanford was 
all rocks and rattlers.  Why does this type of land deserve less 
remediation than say some place greener and (to some) prettier.
The presence of rattlers indicates the presence of life and a 
thriving ecosystem.  Mr. Drifter wants us to remeber what this type 
of land was used for before Hanford.  Hunting, Fishing, Farming and 
more.  Thats what that type of land was and still is used for.
That part of Washington is full of wheat fields, fruit orchards, and 
wildlife.  Walla Walla where I lived as a kid is surrounded by 
nothing but wheat and Yakima where I spent many a summer is the fruit 
capital of the USA.  Both could be identified as worthless deserts by 
Mr. Drifters standards.  Also to imply that our Native American 
brothers and sisters are only looking for the next site to place a 
fireworks stand or casino is insulting.  The land has historical and 
spiritual significance to them. We (Americans, Humans, etc.) made the 
mess.  It is incumbent upon us to clean it up.  While I agree that 
$85 Billion (big B) is way to much to spend, we need to spend what it 
takes to make the area safe.  Granted some parts may have to be 
isolated effectively forever, there is much more that could be 
released for free access.  If we want environmentalists and the 
general public to trust us and believe us we can't just decide to 
lock the gate and walk away because it costs too much to clean up. 
This kind of thinking is why it is us against the enviromentalists. 
This is why they don't trust us.
I may not have an alphabet soup after my name but some of the most 
important things in life cannot be learned in a class room or be 
gauged by a testing panel.  When I was a kid my mother always told 
me to not make too much of a mess because I was the one who was
going to have to clean it up later.  Well its later and time to clean 
up.
She also taught me that if you believe in something to stand forward 
and let the world know who you were and not try to work from the 
shadows of anominity
     
I am (no aliases)
Eugene (Gene) Forrer
Project Chief
Uranium Licensing Project
Texas Department of Health
Bureau of Radiation Control
Eugene.Forrer@tdh.state.tx.us