Column: Idaho

Army Shipping Contaminated Kuwait Sand to Idaho Landfill


By Jill Kuraitis, 4-30-08

The U.S. Army is shipping 6,700 tons of contaminated sand to Idaho from Kuwait.  It will arrive at American Ecology in Grandview, Idaho, sometime in May. 

Grandview, population 470, is 42 miles south of Boise in Owyhee County.

The sand is from Camp Doha in Kuwait, a former Army warehouse complex used by Army Forces Central Command.  The sand absorbed depleted uranium when some spent ammunition was caught in a fire (addition May 1:during the first Gulf War.)

It’s also contaminated with hazardous levels of lead, according to the two military guys who told me the story, whose branch and names won’t be used for obvious reasons. However, it’s no secret, since the story had already been written by Erik Olson in the Longview, Washington Daily News.

Chad Hyslop, spokesperson for American Ecology, did not return New West’s phone calls, but he told Olson that all the sand will be at the disposal site in Grandview sometime in May. 

It will take 76 rail cars to run half the sand to Idaho, and then a second trip will be required for the rest.  152 of the smallest size rail cars would build a four-story structure about the size of half a football field.

Andrea Shipley, the executive director of the Snake River Alliance, an Idaho-based grassroots group with a mission to watchdog the energy industry and energy-related government departments, doesn’t like the idea of the sand coming to Idaho.  She told New West that “this is a major concern. Depleted uranium is both a toxic heavy metal and a radioactive substance creating health risks that may be far more varied than is recognized in federal regulations today.  Safe and responsible clean-up is critical to safeguard the health of Idahoans and our environment.”

The lead contamination, which the Army discovered before the ship carrying the sand to the Port of Longview arrived there, was nearly four times higher than the EPA standard for designating it “hazardous.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control, even very low levels of exposure to lead in children can cause learning disabilities, and may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, strokes or heart attacks.  Lead is also associated with impaired visual and motor function, growth abnormality, neurological and organ damage, hearing loss, hypertension and reproductive complications.

Whether or not humans might be exposed to the contaminated sand, either during transport, unloading, or processing at American Ecology’s Grandview landfill is not clear.  No Army official returned calls. Follow-ups to this story will be posted.

Addition May 1:  The full post about depleted uranium on Wikipedia can be found here, but here are two relevant paragraphs.

Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium primarily composed of the isotope uranium-238 (U-238). Natural uranium is about 99.27 percent U-238, 0.72 percent U-235, and 0.0055 percent U-234. Because U-235 is used for fission in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, natural uranium is enriched in U-235 by separating the isotopes by mass. The byproduct of enrichment, called depleted uranium or DU, contains less than one third as much U-235 and U-234 as natural uranium, making it less radioactive due to the longer 4.5 billion year half-life of U-238. The external radiation dose from DU is about 60 percent of that from the same mass of natural uranium.

Depleted uranium munitions are controversial because of numerous unanswered questions about the long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, and is only very weakly radioactive because of its long half life.  While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer. However, the UK government has attributed birth defect claims from a 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to DU poisoning, and studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. Until such issues are resolved with further research, the use of DU by the military will continue to be controversial.

Updates to this story will continue to be posted.

Update May 1:  NewWest blogger Irwin Horowitz of 6degrees - named because of his six college degrees including a B.S. from MIT in physics, an M.S. in astronomy and another M.S. in electrical engineering, has a strong interest in nuclear issues and follows them regularly.  He told New West that the primary issue with the sand from Kuwait is the heavy-metal toxicity more than the U-238, and the radiation, in the form of alpha particles, doesn’t penetrate skin. Lead, said Horowitz, gets into the soft tissues of the body.  “Depleted uranium could enter the body from ingesting it, breathing it in, or through surface skin cuts, so you’d almost have to play in the sand.”

More calls to American Ecology have not been returned.



Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.

Read more Boise stories
Advertisement

Comments

Why dump the six thousand seven hundred tons of contaminated sand in -- of all possible places -- Idaho? Who has the contract in Kuwait to dig up the sand and ship it to the states? Are there other corporations involved with American Ecology Corporation, such as Halliburton or KBR? How difficult is it to dig a large hole in the Middle East, dump in the contaminated sand and cover the hole back up? Who, specifically, came up with this brilliant plan?

Questions as far as the eye can see...
The original fire was in July 1991, so this problem has been brewing for 17 years, through both Republican and Democratic Administrations. Jill, I'm not sure why you feel the need to quote someone with no apparent scientific credentials (a B.A. in English, according to her biography) regarding the hazards of depleted uranium; the SRA's claims about DU (which means, basically, "uranium that is much less radioactive than naturally-occuring Uranium") are humorous at best, and anti-science at worst. And here I thought "progressives" were supposed to support actual science? Remember -- a 4.5 billion year half-life for DU means it's barely radioactive, and isn't just a case of a big number being bad.
I can see more common sense decisions by our government.
Fer cryin out loud bubbles, you don't think its relevant to quote a watchdog entity on their opinion on this? If you gotta problem with Andrea's number then let her have it but bitchin Jill out for being partisan is rather a stretch don't ya think? If this sand is so innocuous then why did it get shipped half way round the world in the first place?

I'm with Serephin, this smells to high heaven. How this became Idaho's problem is beyond me. Here's a link to an 06 annual meeting of shareholders for the &EndHTML;=</font></b>&SearchText;=<NEAR/4>("JOHN+M","COOPER")" target="_blank" >corporation.
oops, that didn't work.
When the watchdog entity and their ilk ( http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2006/07/depleted-uranium-worthy-of.html ) continually make ridiculous claims, then yes I think Jill could search for people who have a clue. She might just as well quote me that people making claims not supported by science can also "cause health risks including increased flatulence among area ungulates and pulchritude among the general population".
Well I certainly disagree Bubbles. I don't mind you pointing out the error but you've supplied nothing to refute it but an unsubstantiated partisan attack. And Jill did the right thing by posting on both sides of the issue. If either side has faulty numbers point it out, but don't blame Jill for it. And what about the info from the CDC Bubbles? And answer my other question if you have any info on it.
Actually, if you go to the link I provided, you'll find a lot of facts and links pointing out the fallacy of the "DU is horribly radioactive" argument. As far as why it got shipped here -- it's because lots of people are scared to death of anything that says "radioactive" and become irrational, to the point where they think they have to ship sand halfway around the world. (Otherwise, you'd see stories about "Americans are poisoning Kuwaitis by not removing the sand" when we eventually leave Kuwait.) Radiation can be bad, but this mindset the general public has makes us end up doing stupid things whenever anything involves radiation, and the SRA contributes to that.
As far as the CDC information, that has to do with lead. Lead is an element that is different from uranium, and the most common isotopes of lead aren't radioactive. Of course I recognize lead is a bad thing, and I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing that people getting freaked out about low levels of U-238 is ridiculous.
I've added a link to, and a short portion of the entry in Wikipedia about depleted uranium, and will continue to update this story as calls come back from sources and experts.
Hi Bubblehead,
I don't speak for SRA, nor they for me, but no doubt DU is toxic. Not as nasty as the plutonium dumped at INL, but for more nuclear info that is science based, please visit our website at http://www.MyIdahoEnergy.com
Here is one of the NIH website medical papers I used in my news release on Kuwait dumping DU here, that I also used on deaf ears to the legislative tax break for French Areva to enrich uranium in Idaho (DU is the waste product they will dump here).

1: Environmental Health Perspectives 2006 Jan;114(1):85-91.
In vitro immune toxicity of depleted uranium: effects on murine macrophages, CD4+ T cells, and gene expression profiles.
Wan B, Fleming JT, Schultz TW, Sayler GS.

Center for Environmental Biotechnology and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1605, USA.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process and shares chemical properties with natural and enriched uranium. To investigate the toxic effects of environmental DU exposure on the immune system, we examined the influences of DU (in the form of uranyl nitrate) on viability and immune function as well as cytokine gene expression in murine peritoneal macrophages and splenic CD4+ T cells. Macrophages and CD4+ T cells were exposed to various concentrations of DU, and cell death via apoptosis and necrosis was analyzed using annexin-V/propidium iodide assay. DU cytotoxicity in both cell types was concentration dependent, with macrophage apoptosis and necrosis occurring within 24 hr at 100 microM DU exposure, whereas CD4+ T cells underwent cell death at 500 microM DU exposure. Noncytotoxic concentrations for macrophages and CD4+ T cells were determined as 50 and 100 microM, respectively. Lymphoproliferation analysis indicated that macrophage accessory cell function was altered with 200 microM DU after exposure times as short as 2 hr. Microarray and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analyses revealed that DU alters gene expression patterns in both cell types. The most differentially expressed genes were related to signal transduction, such as c-jun, NF- kappa Bp65, neurotrophic factors (e.g., Mdk), chemokine and chemokine receptors (e.g., TECK/CCL25), and interleukins such as IL-10 and IL-5, indicating a possible involvement of DU in cancer development, autoimmune diseases, and T helper 2 polarization of T cells. The results are a first step in identifying molecular targets for the toxicity of DU and the elucidation of the molecular mechanisms for the immune modulation ability of DU.

PMID: 16393663 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

PMCID: PMC1332661
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16393663?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Jill that was helpful. Apparently there is insufficient data on the health effects, but there is apparently enough concern to remove contaminated sand from Kuwait, ship it to Washington and overland to Idaho. Looks like a study is finding that male Gulf War vets have twice the rate of having children with genetic abnormalities, three times for females.

Bubbles you remind of the site workers I grew up around in Idaho Falls adamantly insisting that there's nothing unsafe about nuclear but couldn't tell me the basis upon which they justified such an assertion because what they were doing was secret. The same thing they said about the secret iodine releases when I was a child. My thyroid is failing requiring me to take medication for the remainder of my life but there is "insufficient data" to establish a causal connection between my thyroid failing and those releases. How frickin' convenient.

The cult of arrogance and secrecy surrounding nuclear energy is part of the problem. I also have troubles with internal government reports coming to conclusions that finds the government did nothing wrong. I'm sure you garnered some of these attitudes when you did your time there with the navy so you'll forgive me if I take what your assertions with a grain of salt. I too am after the truth but I'll dismiss strident assertions from both sides if you don't mind. Certainly there is sufficient information that justifies the gross expenditure for a bunch of innocuous sand to raise some eyebrows.
Just to clarify Jill's statement from me...the primary concern from DU appears to be heavy-metal toxicity. It acts in the soft tissues of our bodies (brain/heart/lungs/liver/kidneys etc.) much as lead or arsenic. It needs to be ingested for these effects to take place. Also, the radiological effects of DU are trivial to casual exposure, but again could be an issue if ingested. The primary decay path involves the emission of alpha particles which are unable to penetrate the skin, but can cause damage if emitted from within the body.

That being said, as long as the sand is stored in solid containers and does not seep out or escape into the environment at the waste site, it should result in no measurable effects to harm the general public. But, I wouldn't encourage playing around in it :-).
Hey everyone, look! Larry Craig is still viable!

How much would anyone want to bet that ol' Widestance is behind this? What does he have to lose? How much does his Swiss Bank account stand to gain?
Larry Craig? That seems a bit of a reach. I would bet you 10-billion pounds (since the dollar is like toilet paper right now) that Larry Craig has nothing in it. In fact I KNOW he doesn't. And I hate him as much as anybody. But I have an idea, how about we all jump to conclusions about how bad this is without offering any solutions? For one, when did it become Kuwait's problem? The US caused the mess, we need to clean it up. It seems like dumping it in Kuwait is dumping the problem on them as this stuff has to be monitored and will take up a sizable area. The US needs to clean it up and they need to use a US based company to do it. Oh wait, they are. People should be happy that the money is coming to an Idaho based company. Where do you think the paychecks of American Ecology employees get spent? I am lost about "how did this become Idaho's problem?" It didn't, it became Idaho's blessing. This sand is not going to affect a single one of us in a negative way. Get over it.
There we go, ladies and gentlemen, the expert has spoken. DU is not harmful. 3x lead contamination isn't harmful, being placed next to a major northwest river couldn't possibly be harmful to anyone or anything!

So we should all just apologize and move along and accept our bonus checks like good little people. J. Doe has it all in hand, spin and everything.
Gee. How about the bottom line. How much is Idaho being paid to accept this lethal sand? Follow the money and you will find the real criminal and crime against my Idaho.
Repugnants always go for the money. No matter who has it or what it is for.
He does too, doesn't he? Nothing about the fact that the sand is going to be dumped into empty Titan missile silos, not a contained storage facility with monitoring. And seems we spent many billiions of dollars to rid Kuwait of those pesky Iraqi tanks they had festering in the sand. And now the citizens of Idaho got to pay for that experience and we get to bring home the mess we left.

Irwin, isn't another issue with DU the fact that it becomes aerosol upon impact? Is that material in the sand and can it become airborn again making it easier to migrate and ingest?
Sis,

In talking to Jill earlier, I mentioned that one possible concern would be if the storage facility wasn't airtight and somehow some of the sand could become airborne (from a stiff wind, for example). Again, ingesting the material (even airborne particles) could cause some deleterious physiological effects, but I'm not fully conversant with the biological issues involved.
toxic or not, why on earth would we ever ship any kind of sand from Kuwait to be disposed of here? Who's brain child is this anyway? And who is making money off this deal. no one in their right mind would think this makes any sense at all unless they were profiting directly from it. Follow the money. Since when did the Western states become an international dumping ground...?
Hi all,
RE: "Since when did the Western states become an international dumping ground...? "
That happened in 1951. That's when the first plutonium from Rocky Flats, Colorado was dumped over our aquifer at INL. That's the same plutonium the final CERCLA plan leaves buried, in this flood zone. The 50's started the Atoms for Peace international proliferation of nuclear power plants for US nuke businesses. That foreign spent fuel waste is still being imported into Idaho, while no high level waste dump, like Yucca Mt Nevada is anywhere close to being forced open. We are also stuck with the melted Three Miles Island core.
The main question is are the silo dumps at Grandview going to contain this radioactive and toxic waste for the thousands of years it will be toxic? Since it is labeled as low level waste, they are only required to show it will be isolated for 100 years.
I have not studied Grandview geology, but at INL they have large historic 100 year floods, and even larger 500 year floods. The plutonium there is already leaking from the tineir floods they had in the 60's. When the plutonium ladden water is pumped to the surface for irrigation, the next brownout wind storm will be resuspending plutonium for inhalation, the worst pathway of exposure for kids and adults.
If Grandview is flood proof forever, they would probably suggest it instead of Yucca Mt...Peter
If you study how Idaho votes and what she votes for, then does it not make sense that Idaho should take a substantial share of the consequences of those votes and those beliefs? Idaho vehemently and consistently supports rightwing politicians, some of them horrifically extreme (remember tattooed Helen?) and those politicians support pernicious things like excessive military spending/adventurism that includes stuff like DU weaponry in faraway places. Idaho, as a whole, also refuses to acknowledge global warming and the need to move away from oil and gas (remember Helen the adultress?), which is why all that DU weaponry is in those faraway places. Contrast Idaho's history of support for these things with other places, like Portland or San Francisco or other such places that have been casting votes to try to negate the "Idaho effect," and ask yourselves whether it would it be right for Idaho to vote for elected officials who take us down these paths and then not take any role in the resulting mess? Idaho, as a whole, keeps telling other people, in the east and out in California, that, if they want wolves, then the wolves ought to be in their backyards, not in Idaho. Well, isn't it the same logic that, if Idaho wants rightwing stuff like military adventures to secure oil from corrupt polygamous (yes, them too) hereditary tyrants in Kuwait, then Idaho has to take the result?

To some extent, I'm joking; but, to some extent, I'm not. Idaho gets two senators and some other nationally influential politicians and the votes cast for those Idaho politicians sure cause a lot of other people, across the country, a lot of trouble on a regular basis. Should Idaho then get to evade the results of that trouble?
Mike,
No doubt the symbolic karma has truthful irony. Iduho politicians have volunteered Idaho for front line nuclear duty, and the flag waving has distracted the voters well. But we are closer than anytime, in my 20 years of duty, to the hopeful time when well intended Idaho families realize we are the butt of our politicians joke.
To 6 degrees, and all other detail lovers...
RE: Is the radiation from depleted uranium negligible?
It is not as hot as plutonium-239, and way less than the plutonium-238 that will leak from the pu-238 production cluster that Idaho was selected for in 2004. Please see the Jackson Hole law team and citizens fighting this at http://www.yellowstonenuclearfree.com
But here are 2 NIH website official articles on that subject. Keep in mind, while they slowly watch SOME soldiers with DU, the VA generally refuses to test the urine of ALL vets for DU. It helps them blur the stats, because many soldiers are not downwind of DU, depending on where they serve, and doses vary.
But anyway, bless our soldiers, and here are some quotes and references...Peter

The radiological hazard of DU has usually been downplayed by claiming “Since DU has a low specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard,” [#1 below]. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research
Institute, however, exploring that issue in the same report, stated, “The potential contribution of radiation to DU-induced biological effects is unknown and the involvement of radiation in DU-induced biological effects could have significant implications for current risk estimates for internalized DU exposure.”
In measuring radiation damage of DU, compared to simpler heavy metals, by measuring increased dicentric frequency and neoplastic transformation frequency, on human osteoblast cells, they indeed discovered “Taken together these data suggest that
radiation can play a role in DU-induced biological effects in vitro.”
Leukemia is accepted as a radiation inducible cancer. A 2005 study did detect DU’s ability to induce leukemia as well, [2]. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found, “The growth properties of leukemic cells from bone marrow, spleen, and lymph node were assessed and indicate that the FDC-P1 cells had become transformed in vivo. The kidney, spleen, bone marrow, muscle, and urine showed significant elevations in tissue uranium levels prior to induction of leukemia. These results demonstrated that a DU altered in vivo environment may be involved in the pathogenesis of DU induced leukemia in an animal model.”

[1] Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2002;99(1-4):275-8
Observation of radiation-specific damage in human cells exposed to depleted
uranium: dicentric frequency and neoplastic transformation as endpoints.

Miller AC, Xu J, Stewart M, Brooks K, Hodge S, Shi L, Page N, McClain D.

Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research

Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA.

[2] Mol Cell Biochem. 2005 Nov;279(1-2):97-104
Leukemic transformation of hematopoietic cells in mice internally exposed to
depleted uranium.

Miller AC, Bonait-Pellie C, Merlot RF, Michel J, Stewart M, Lison PD.
Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department, Armed Forces
The Idaho Statesman article on this shipment indicates that the radioactivity level of the shipment is 10 pCi/g, which means that the entire shipment contains only 0.061 Curies of radioactivity; This is equivalent to the amount of radioactivity in 68,000 smoke detectors -- the same type of radiation too (alpha). There are probably more smoke detectors than that in Canyon County. Jill, did you know the level of radiation in the shipment when you wrote your article, and just choose not to include it?

Sisyphus, I'm sorry about your thyroid, but just because you have thyroid problems doesn't mean that they were caused by the iodine release. Did people have similar thyroid issues before nuclear power came about? What those of us who work (or worked, in my case) in nuclear power know is that the risk of low-level exposure is fairly small. ( http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/risk.htm ) Normally, about 2000 people of a random 10000 person sample will die from cancer. If those 10000 people were each to receive an additional 1 Rem of whole body radiation (an amount way more than I got from nuclear power in my 21+ years in the submarine force), an additional 8 persons from that group would die of cancer. Obviously, it sucks to be one of those 8 persons. The question is how much of an economic hit do we want to take to reduce the potential death rates for a given risk.
Hmmm, who is hiding the facts now, Bubblehead?

Radioactive dust from depleted DU has been linked to surges in regions where DU rounds were used. This is completely different than anything you mentioned. The dust is what is important.

But you ignored that. I wonder why?......

But you know, play with people's lives when there is money at stake, that just seems like such the conservative thing to do.
I see the Statesman 'discovered' this story today -- and didn't give New West any credit that I saw.
How has it been linked to surges? Other than by anecdote, that is. Anyway, the "dust" comes about when the rounds penetrate armor after being fired; these ones just fell to the ground in an ammo dump fire, and therefore doesn't apply in this case. I could have an anecdote that people reading posts by people with a screen name like "Jay Kanta" suffer from nosebleeds, but that also doesn't pertain to this particular story. Please provide an actual scientific study that shows a "surge" of something -- preferably one where they just don't ask people "hey, do you have more birth defects after the Americans invaded?". The fact is that U-238 is among the least radioactive substances on earth that is radioactive. As my link above already pointed out, even if a DU dust particle gets embedded in your lungs, the odds of any given U-238 atom disintegrating in the next 50 years are something to the negative 7th power. So, I had in fact already addressed it. And why this insistence that because I call people out for scientifically inaccurate statements that I must be a conservative? I call Bryan Fischer out too when he says dumb things. My point here is not that this shipment shouldn't be questioned. My point is that the people questioning it should be relying on the scientifically-laughable proposition that "DU is a huge danger because of its radioactivity". It's an alpha emitter with a decay half-life vanishingly smaller than its biological half-life! People are much more likely to get hit by the train carrying the stuff that ever come down with cancer because of the radioactivity associated with DU.
Military spin. Thanks Bubbles.

Global Research

More here

Why do so many doctors disagree with you, Bubbles? Where is your medical degree? Where are your papers published?
Most doctors, in fact, recognize that DU is not an appreciable radiation hazard. Just because there are some loud ones who work for organizations with a vested interest in making mountains out of this particular molehill who get journalists to write about their theories doesn't make them correct. (Only 34 cancer deaths in all of Southern Iraq in 1988? Since 20% of all deaths are from cancer normally, do you believe there were only 175 total deaths in the whole region that year?)
I'm not a doctor; I'm just a man of science who's trained in the effects of radiation who wants to keep people from overreacting when it's not required. And since I have no idea who you are, I'll appreciate it if you not to use the term "Bubbles"... that's only for my friends like Sisyphus.
The numbers suggest negligible risk, which suggests we would all be better off if the stuff was left where it was. It's a failure of intelligence, or trust, or both.

Is AE going to leave the stuff in those 306 containers? What a waste of steel. The externalities of this project are fairly astounding, as is the precedent that "any contamination on foreign lands must be shipped back to the United States for disposal" (as per the AE project manager, in the Apr. 15 TDN story) when you start thinking about the Iraq war.
First, thanks PR for stepping in here, and to Irwin as well. I followed DU and its relation to birth defects for a long time and I am convinced that a cause and effect connection exists. Articles on this topic abound on the web, and as Bubblehead so clearly demonstrates, one can find all sorts of dubious writing appearing as science, as well as "science" that is dependent on a corporate paycheck, an all-too-familiar scenario these days at universities and think tanks, but that's another story....

To me, the baseline problem with DU is that govenments and scientists have had to try, over the years, to find something to do with it, because it is essentially a waste product. Besides being used in dental porcelain in false teeth, as well as being put in dyes and pigments (and I believe that at one time France tried to put it in drinking bottles, but found that it leached), and used as a stabilizer in aircraqft, the really only effective use of DU is to put it in weapons. So instead of looking towards a sustainable future in which, for example, we try to cut down on waste, we just think we can eventually contain or burn or use our waste, including using it on innocent civilians. It boggles my mind.

We are just so good at fouling our own nest....
Thanks Tom. You seem to have nailed it. From the debate between Jay and Bubbles, I'm reminded of this quote, "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

I noticed that too Sharon. Jill, excellent job on breaking this.
Oh and Bubbles, interesting that the Statesman quoted the same source of "misleading information" that Jill did. Go lay into them for a while.
Holy moly Bubbles did you really just say this: "The question is how much of an economic hit do we want to take to reduce the potential death rates for a given risk." Thats the same cost benefit analysis that got Ford motor company nailed for the exploding Pinto. One death is too many. The fact remains that substances are used with little thought to their consequences. Is this going to be yet another grand experiment on the human population until they determine that the death rates are just too high, like with ddt and the current controversy surrounding plastic containing bisphenol A? Those iodine releases were completely unnecessary and done in spite of the fact that it was known that radioactive iodine specifically targets people's thyroids. Oh and hypothyroidism is quite rare in men.
Sisyphus said: "One death is too many". Do you really believe this? There are about 43,000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to traffic accidents. Were we to enforce -- with mandatory engine governors, emergency vehicles excluded -- a national 15 MPH speed limit, the vast majority of those 43,000 lives would be spared. Let's see you post over at 43SB a demand that Dem candidates support the National 15MPH speed limit. If you don't believe this would be good policy, then I accuse you of also weighing the economic benefits of being able to get to work in a reasonable amount of time vs. the lives of helpless drivers everywhere.

And I did make a snarky comment over at Kevin Richert's place on this topic. I don't normally wade into the cesspool of the general commenting over at the Statesman.
Bubbles, you seem to be one of those that probably think that the 4063 deaths in Iraq are no big deal too. Hell, that's less than the traffic deaths each year or deaths from lymphoma, or throat cancer, or liver cancer, or oh hell you name it.
You Repugnants anger hell out of me.
Jim,
Actually, I'm a Democrat here in Idaho. I'm also a realist. I'm sorry if someone who looks at the science dispassionately angers you.
I've got two questions....
First, why entertain anyone who makes an argument that DU is not extremely toxic ( that's an obvious attempt at disinformation, and that person is most likely a hack, plant or whatever the preferred description is for someone who willfully spreads disinformation to minimize damning evidence.)

Second, and the big question....
What is the purpose behind shipping the sand from Kuwait to Idaho?
(if that was addressed in commentary I missed it due to the argument with the hack.)
'Environmentally sound treatment and disposal of radioactive and hazardous wastes is an essential service provided by only a few companies in the United States. US Ecology, a subsidiary of American Ecology Corporation (Nasdaq: ECOL) has provided radioactive waste services since 1952, and hazardous waste services since 1968'
http://www.americanecology.com/about_us.htm
"When asked if the sand is dangerous, Chad Hyslop, the project manager with American Ecology said, 'It's not something you want laying around in Kuwait'”

http://www.2news.tv/news/18476139.html
Nothing like a back scratching.

Oh, and Chad Hyslop appears to have been Helen Chenowith's mouthpiece for years.

At least the slime sticks together well.
We obviously owe Kuwait big time; resources, I suspect, liquid and financial. It's not like the sand is going to be "treated." We're simply providing the Kuwaitis with a storage facility. I guess they can't find a place to put it—nor can their Saudi friends. Hell, they don't _want_ it anywhere around them. Wonder why?
Neither do the corporate sharks who have set up shop in Kuwait, I suppose. Another speculation might also be that we've been using Kuwait (and most of the rest of the region) as a testing ground, the least we could do is carry some of the burden of clean up (with Kuwaiti's in mind of course). I mean, what are the health problems of a few Iowans anyway? They have about as much value to the military industrial complex as say, a couple hundred thousand Iraqis. No biggie.
However, speculations are just that... I'd like to know the "official" reasoning behind shipping tons of contaminated sand, overseas, with a war going on, back to the states. I wouldn't mind also knowing the cost, how long it's been taking place (before the watchdog group found out). Was it the result of a deal? What deal....etc.
What the hell is anyone doing shipping 700 tons of sand halfway around the world whether its contaminated or not? What an absurd idea. Aren't there any deserts in Africa? Follow the money!
The unclaimed public domain. The lands not disposed of by the General Land Office. That is what makes Idaho a repository for unwanted goo from elsewhere. The ying to the yang of the Frank Church Wlderness. The great empty. It is public land, and government does own it. People in all those states without the grand benefit of public lands would just as soon it be in Idaho as say New Hampshire or North Carolina. If it were of benefit, the dump would be in West Virginia, and be the Byrd Memorial Spent Uranium Repository.
How expensive would it be to build a big concrete lined hole in Kuwait? Don't they have a little extra cash since the price of oil is $120 per barrel? This is strange....

Your Comment

Name

Email

Remember my name and email address.

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Advertisement

New West Local Sites

Find your town page here

Land for Sale

Vacation Homes