[IP] Washington State vote against nuclear waste vindicated
------ Forwarded Message
From: Larry Tesler <tesler@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:04:24 -0700
To: David Farber <farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Washington State vote against nuclear waste vindicated
Dave,
If you think this might be of interest to IP, please pass it along.
Initiative 297 on the November 2004 Washington State ballot was
designed to prevent the U.S. DOE from transporting 70,000 truckloads
of additional radioactive waste to Hanford, the most contaminated
storage site in the nation, before the waste that was already there
got cleaned up.
One issue raised by supporters in their ad campaign was that
transporting so much waste through populated areas would threaten
public health. A WashPIRG newsletter said, "The DOE's own analysis
estimated that up to 75 accidents will occur as the waste is
transported, potentially exposing entire communities to radiation
contamination. In addition, the trucks could make attractive targets
for terrorists."
The main arguments by opponents were that a NIMBY attitude by state
residents would encourage other states to follow suit, and that the
Bush Administration would challenge the measure in court (they did)
and would probably win (still to be seen). But few states have waste
sites with as sordid a history as Hanford. And challenging a public
health initiative approved by 69% of voters is hardly a wise
political move.
The Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi, could not
publicly endorse the measure because it conflicted with Bush
Administration policy. But with polls showing that the measure
enjoyed widespread public support, he could not oppose it and win the
election. His solution was to take no position on that or the four
other statewide measures on the ballot. Despite his evasion, or
rather thanks to it, he came within a hair's breadth of defeating
Christine Gregoire.
Meanwhile, Initiative 297 passed in 37 of 39 counties, winning 69% of the
vote.
Were Washington voters fooled by environmentalist scare tactics? Or
were they smart enough to realize that the dumping plan was as
dangerous as environmentalists portrayed it to be?
Part of the answer may lie in the middle of this excerpt from a
Seattle Times story:
"[On April 12, 2005,] a tanker spewed hot roofing tar across all four
northbound lanes [of Interstate 5 in downtown Seattle]. ... State
Patrol spokeswoman Kelly Spangler said the gooey mess oozed out in a
15-foot-wide swath that was a good 2 inches thick. ... A double
tanker truck owned by LTI Inc., a company with offices in Washington,
Oregon and Idaho that specializes in transporting hazardous
materials, struck a guardrail ... The rear trailer rolled sideways
and split open, spilling the hot tar. ... After striking the
guardrail, the truck's driver 'continued driving about 100 yards
before he stopped,' she said. He was cited for driving too fast for
conditions - a $101 ticket." -- full story at:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/displ
ay?slug=truck13m&date=20050413
Anybody want to live near a road where radioactive waste is
frequently transported?
Larry Tesler
Seattle, WA
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/