-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 8:02 PMI haven't seen an initiative yet that was a good law. -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 9:24 PMHey Kendall,
As a Downwinder,I'm kind of surprised at your answer.
I guess your opinion is bring on the waste?
Do you work at Hanford?
Thanks for your reply.
-
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, May 19, 2005 - 11:12 PMI just think it's better to be smart about radioactivity than just run scared from it. One man's waste is another man's feed material. To ignore it is not going to just make it go away.
And yes I work in the nuclear industry. My company builds and services power plants as well as provides fuel and reprocessing services. -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, May 26, 2005 - 12:19 PM
Thank's you for your opinion about radioactivity.
I do understand it is your lively hood.
Depending on whether you get your information from the gov. or from independent sources
the aspect differs enormously.
As to your comment on it's better to be smart than to run, for all the Atomic Veterans, Uranium Miners,Ore Transporters,Millers,Weapon Production Workers,Construction Workers,Gaurds, and Downwinders that were exposed to radiation, that are sick, and or dead.I say sick men don't run very fast and dead men can't run at all.
-
-
-
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, May 19, 2005 - 4:40 PMI can't say much on this subject, because I'm not well-informed on the specs of the initiative.
What I CAN say is that 1.) I have heard more negative comments than good ones from other people and 2.) I agree with Kendall- initiatives commonly make bad law.
My general sense is that it is a theoretically good idea that would be a crappy one in reality. -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Tue, May 24, 2005 - 10:53 AM
I can't say much on this subject, because I'm not well-informed on the specs of the initiative.
Supreme Court hears arguments on intent of I-297
By Rebecca Cook
AP (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
May 19, 2005
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Did voters mean to expand the state's power to
regulate radioactive waste when they overwhelmingly passed Initiative 297
last year?
The state Supreme Court heard arguments on that question Thursday.
Initiative supporters say no, the Hanford cleanup measure simply
tells the state to use its existing authority to block any more waste from
coming to the nuclear reservation until what's there is cleaned up.
Opponents say yes, the initiative dramatically expands the state's
authority to block nuclear shipments - extending even to rags used to
wipe machinery at a nuclear facility.
At stake is the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation in
south-central Washington, the most contaminated nuclear site in the country
For the full story visit
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...ory.asp
-
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Tue, August 16, 2005 - 11:28 AMFirst, I do not work at Hanford. However, my professional career (30 years)has centered around nuclear weapons production and testing, nuclear power plant construction and operation, chemical weapons destruction, and environmetal restoration projects.
Regarding I-297, I do not believe that the average taxpayer, nor any politician, is qualified to determine what should be done with any hazardous waste including nuclear wastes. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the U. S. Department of Energy is responsible for managing the nuclear waste programs in this country. Congress provides the funding for the DOE programs. Washington State residents should not weigh into the fray. -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, August 18, 2005 - 11:02 PMYes DOE is responsible for the clean up of their own mess. And also very irresponsible.
DOE does not run the United States or Washington State, thank God. Last time I checked they were run by the citizens (American voters).
Don't forget DOE sectary Richardson admitted that DOE had knowingly put their own workers in harms way. They lied and covered up many issues concerning their own employees. In April 2000, after more than five decades of denial, then–Energy Secretary Bill Richardson acknowledged that nuclear weapons workers as a group had been put at risk by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances without their knowledge.
DOE loves control. After many lawsuits and millions in judgements against DOE. Always fighting the against them(victims) with our (Americans) tax payer money. Like they had an open treasure chest of money at their disposal with no accountability what so ever. They admitted that they knew they were causing illness and death to many of their own workers. The only reason that they admitted to this is like I said they lost millions (our money) in lawsuits in court.
DOE was in charge of the Energy Employees Occupational Compensation Program(EEOICP) part b. And in three years spent 98 million dollars on running the program and only paid 700,000 to just 31 victims out of 25,000 submitted in just that part of the program. Does this sound responsible to you? DOE does not respect our money. Congress had to step in and say this was inexcusable. So congress took the part b away from DOE and change it to part d and gave control to Department of Labor. (DOL) DOE loves control so they are now controlling the compensation programs still. By supplying the dosimetry records that NIOSH and DOL uses to deny many of the victims. This is truly a conflict of interest.
DOE has admitted that they falsified records. So I guess after decades of lying we should forget about their track record, and now just trust DOE? Yes, lets just trust DOE and let them do as they see fit seeing how they have proven that they care so much about the health of their own workers and the environment.
With thirty years of nuclear operations behind you, you have worked for DOE directly or as a sub-contractor or still do. So you might be a little "bias." You may or may not have nuclear knowledge. But I have plenty of knowledge about DOE. If you want to know more about what I know about DOE? I will be happy to tell you.
Letting DOE run the clean up operation without any input or incite from Washington State is insane.
Is like letting the "FOX GAURD THE CHICKEN COUP!"
www.thebulletin.org/article.php
The burden of proof | thebulletin.org
The HREX link off this site has been closed. They call it the DOE Openness Project. DOE realized that people were disgusted at what they had done. But, I have been their and many of the Human Radiation Experiments that were listed there were done admittedly without any knowledge to the Humans involved. They flat out lied to them and administered the Radioactive substances without permission.
www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/
DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments
-
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Fri, October 7, 2005 - 9:15 AMWhat kind of insight do you think one would get from an ordinary, non-nuclear, citizen of WA? Go down to the local grocery store and ask a cashier. Gather input from individuals that don't have a clue what happens at Hanford. Put all that "knowledge" in your head and then go run Hanford. Maybe the solution IS to turn over the management of Hanford to the citizens of WA. I'd like to see the results.
Typically what does happen, even at Hanford, is that a contractor/subcontractor is awarded a contract by DOE (it's a liability issue because one is not supposed to be able to sue the government); then many times the contractor becomes disallusioned by the performance (or lack thereof) by the subcontractor. Then the contractor gets this notion in its mind that they (the contractor) can do a better job and cheaper; the contractor takes over putting subcontractor personnel out of work. The contractor does no better than the subcontractor. Happens over and over and over again. Like a turbo-charged Energizer Bunny.
So Merry Citizens of WA: take over the operation of Hanford. Let's see what you can do (or not do). -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Mon, October 10, 2005 - 3:30 PMThe bottom line is that there are bone-heads, liars, and glory hounds at ALL levels of government, as well as in the private sector. The DOE is no more intrinsically "bad" or good than the citizens of WA. However, despite past mistakes and continued problems, DOE is eminently more qualified than the general populace of the state to run Hanford. The reason initiatives are often bad public policy is that they tend to pander to irrational anger or uninformed opinions. The more I've read about I-297, the more I feel that it's a bad plan to fix a nonissue.
-
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Mon, October 10, 2005 - 3:42 PMI've got to add, Richard, that you're not helping your argument by claiming that everybody but you is biased. First of all, we've all got biases- it's only human. Secondly, your specific bias AGAINST the DOE is as plain as day, so there's no sense acting like we're all a bunch of blind dummies while you're the only one who can see the truth. That's about the surest way to get yourself disregarded that I know of, short of shouting obscenities.
On a more positive note, this thread is one of the VERY few active and engaging ones on this board, so congrats on starting it. :) -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Mon, October 10, 2005 - 6:36 PMI do respect you questioning. But, our obviously "misinformed".
First of all DOE spends 10 times as much money on military offence and defensive projects than on any type of energy based programs. Why even call yourself the Department of Energy? Unless your trying to candy coat or hide your true agenda. There is tons of data available and there still hiding way more than you or I will ever know about them behind a little rubber stamp call classified top secret. The U.S. Government spends 51% of all the tax payers money on military defense and less than 5% on education and most any other gov. program unless it's tied to military spending. Hiding behind faults descriptions of gov. organizations like DOE. If this is fine with you than that's your choice. I have made a different choice. And yes I'm very biased but only because of the fact that I spent 6 to 12 hours a day for the past 9 years doing research and learning everything that I can about them and 2% is positive and 98% makes me sick. When it comes to the DOE I have buried a Father that worked at Hanford for 22 years in nuclear operation and worked for DOE for 30 years that died at age 62. He died of Multiple Myeloma which has scientific significants linking it to radiation and nuclear workers at Hanford. Scientific significants means that the possabilty that this was caused by chance other than the epidemiological study being used is less than 5%. I urge you to do a google search just put in Multiple Myeloma and reactor workers and multiple myeloma and nuclear workers. I buried my Mother because of Myeloid Leukemia with is also as strongly linked to Hanford radiation exposure in her early 60's. And a brother that died of cancer linked to Hanford at age 40. There are studies to back any of these cases up and many more. And there are not to many people still alive willing to stand up and take on the DOE they are very powerful and do know all the tricks and don't care who gets in their way. They have an agenda that you know nothing about. By proof of all the radiation compensation programs and all the dead victims along their path. I have chosen to take them on and stand up for all the dead and dying victims ( Americans) with my life. I believe that my family
members and everyone else that has sacrificed the health and or the lose of their loved ones do to neglect of the DOE deserves to have DOE watched with a fine toothed comb so that they do not continue to make the same old mistakes over and over again.
I invite you to take a look I one of my tribes I have posted over 1000 current
articles with source links attached. You can do a topic search and come to your own opinion.
But first do some research before you judge me and or my motives. and if you have any questions I will be more than happy to try and answer them or will lead you to someone who can. Yes it's true that some individuals think that common people know nothing at all, but this is one of the many lies that DOE uses to get away with murder. And a misinformed person is nothing more that a puppet to DOE and will fall for anything. I hope that you will join this tribe, if so you will be kept up to date on many different kinds of nuclear events.
coldwarsurvivors.tribe.net/
Cold War Survivors - tribe.net -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, October 13, 2005 - 11:04 AMI respect your passion and vigilance, but not your excess. I won't continue to argue the initiative because it seems pretty personal to you and I don't want to be antagonistic. I just don't feel like you're being very discerning in your argument, but instead are playing fast and loose with what I (and others) have said while ignoring the valid points that have been made. I'm not as naive and hoodwinked as you think, and I hope you're not as irrational and vengeful as you seem. Whatever the case, I'm certainly very sorry for the price your family has paid for the Cold War. -
-
Re: What do you think about I-297?
Thu, October 13, 2005 - 3:37 PMI appreciate you, and do not wish to argue either.
I hope that we can have a great time together on this tribe.
And yes it is very obvious that I'm displaying emotionalism.
I just have one point to try and convey. That being purpose of I-297. Which is no more waist till the clean-up is achieved.
No where does it say, that citizens want to take over and to take charge (run) Hanford.
The people have spoken now DOE needs to abide by. I apologize if I rubbed anybody wrong.
I will no longer reply to this issue, so if you or anybody else want's to have the last word that would be great.
-
-
-
-
-
