Candelora Versace
Apache Ridge Property Owners Association
ARPOAboard@gmail.com
ARPOAboard@gmail.com
2010 Board: Candelora Versace, Kristin Ryan, Gustav Kocsis and Terri Jerry.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy Holian <kathleen.holian@comcast.net>Date: December 9, 2010 10:33:58 AM MSTTo: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;Subject: Two Resolutions: Nuclear Weapons and Local Food
Dear Santa Fe County citizens,
Our last Board of County Commissioners meeting was fairly simple and straightforward (and it ended before 5:00!). There are, however, two issues that I would like to highlight -- both resolutions. Just to clarify, resolutions set policy, as opposed to ordinances which create legal code.
I am very interested in hearing your feedback on the issues below. Also, please feel free to forward this message to whomever you think might be interested.
Sincerely,-Kathy
Resolution on CMRR-NF:
This joint City/County resolution that called for a new Environmental Impact Statement for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) prior to construction at Los Alamos National Laboratory (a.k.a. "the Lab"), was passed unanimously. By way of background, the proposed CMRR-NF would house laboratory space for research on radioactive materials (primarily plutonium) and vault space for storing radioactive materials (up to 6 metric tons).
There currently is a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building at Los Alamos. However, plans to expand the capabilities and to include more storage capability have been in the works for some time. Part of the reason for this is that the overall vision for the national nuclear weapons complex is to make the Lab the site for manufacture of plutonium pits ( the so-called "primary" part of nuclear weapons). I personally think this is not a good idea: we have 14,000 or so of these, and they are going to last 50-80 more years, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
But first, let me explain why I think it would be appropriate to conduct a new Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed CMRR-NF building. TIn 2003, an EIS was completed completed for the new CMR building as planned at that time. However, the concept then was to build a structure of about 200,000 square feet, costing around $400 million. Since that time, the scope of the project has expanded greatly. The current proposal is for a building of approximately 400,000 square feet at a cost of somewhere between $3.5 to $5.7 billion. Yup, you got that right: BILLIONS.
Part of the reason for the increased size and cost is that the building as currently proposed would be situated on a thick layer of tuff (a soft volcanic ash deposit, in spite of the name that sounds like "tough"). There are definitely seismic issues in the Los Alamos area, and tuff behaves somewhat like landfill in the event of an earthquake. That is, the tuff can virtually "liquify" with strong enough seismic activity, completely undermining the solid foundation of a building, leading to collapse. (This happened near the border of San Francisco Bay in the earthquake of 1987. Buildings built on landfill in the Bay Area suffered the most damage by far.)
So, the plan is the dig out all the tuff underneath the building and to pour in concrete laced with rebar reinforcement. The amount of concrete required will be on the order of 40,000 dump truck loads. And the foundation for the building will be about 125 feet below the surface of the ground, rising halfway to the surface.
The original conception for the building was considerably smaller and restricted in scope. That is why I believe it is reasonable and appropriate to conduct a completely new Environmental Impact Study, not just a supplement to the original EIS.
Part of the purpose of this building is to support an expanded capability of the Lab to manufacture large quantities of plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. In the past at the Lab, there has been some minor amount of manufacture of nuclear weapons. However, these were for prototype weapons that were exploded at the Nevada Test Site prior to the above-ground nuclear test ban treaty, until later, when President George Herbert Walker Bush (the First) declared a moratorium on underground tests, too.
My primary concern, as related to Santa Fe County, is the transport of fissile material. Plutonium manufactured in nuclear power plants will have to travel long distances to the Lab. After being manufactured, the plutonium pits will have to be transported to wherever the weapons will be assembled and/or stored. All of these loads will come through Santa Fe County. Since the pits will probably go to the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas, the route in that case would be along U.S. 503 (down "the Hill" from Los Alamos), to U.S. 84/285, around the Relief Route Hwy. 599, then south and east along I-25 past Arroyo Hondo and Sunlit Hills, and then down U.S. 285 through Eldorado.
This transport of radioactive material has been happening all along. However, expanding the manufacturing capability will also significantly increase the rate and volume of transport. This is the most vulnerable part of the whole plutonium operation. I am sure that every effort is being made to ensure that it is safe; however, accidents do happen. In addition, these transports might actually be a target for terrorists: people who are up to no good.
I have other concerns related to the Lab itself. I believe that the Lab employs a unique workforce -- one that has an extraordinary amount of scientific talent. This expertise could be used for technical initiatives other than design of nuclear weapons. For example, there are many areas in energy research to which the scientists and engineers at the Lab could contribute, including energy efficiency and renewable energy. However, if an extraordinary amount of security is required at the Lab, and a whole bunch of money is dumped into the Lab's budget for the manufacture of significant number of plutonium pits, that will change the nature of what was a scientific laboratory into a more factory-like atmosphere, tending to make the people at the Lab very expensive and very isolated as well.
In any event, there are significant changes occurring at the Lab. The people of the neighboring communities have not been consulted. But, they will be affected.
In conclusion, at both the County and the City, the resolution passed unanimously.
Resolution on Support of New Mexico Agriculture:
This resolution (again passed unanimously) supported legislation at the State level giving purchasing preferences for local New Mexico food products (produce and meats, for example) as well as for food products that are processed in New Mexico. The resolution was the recommendation of the City/County Food Policy Council.
New Mexico, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, has a long and rich history of food production. However, in recent years, people have become dependent on food supplies coming in from outside the state. In fact, here are an interesting pair of statistics: about 95% of the food that we consume has not been produced in our state; on the other hand, about 95% of the food we do produce goes to markets outside the state.
There are many good reasons for us to support our local agriculture. For one thing, agriculture and ranching provide many direct and indirect jobs. And in our region, locally-grown food is an important component of the tourism business -- think green chile!
Another great reason for consuming food that is grown locally is that it can be much fresher and therefore more nutritious. It is worth pointing out that ready access to New Mexico farm and ranch-raised food will help reduce many diet-related diseases and will provide better nutrition for our children. (There is a direct correlation between adequate nutrition and a child's development and school performance.)
Also, food grown locally does not have to travel as far, thereby saving lots of fossil fuel. If the costs of fossil fuel go sky-high, so will the costs of food. This is an important consideration for all of us whose budgets are already stretched.
Finally, growing food locally provides food security. We are very dependent on long supply lines now, and if something were to happen that cut those supply lines, we would be in big trouble.
One reason that so much of our locally-grown produce and meat end up out-of-state is that we have insufficient facilities to process our foods. For example, we have almost no capacity anymore in New Mexico for butchering and dressing animals for sales in our local grocery stores. Unfortunately, the goal of producing and then consuming our own food products will not be solved overnight. Gradually however, state and local governments can partner with the farmers and ranchers to provide the infrastructure that we need if we are committed to this goal.
I believe that improving our food security is one of the most important actions we can take to build up resilience in our community.
No comments:
Post a Comment
To protect the security of our neighborhood, comments will go to the ARPOA private mailbox first and then posted if appropriate. This is not the place for disputes, grievances or complaints; please contact the Board if you have a problem.
Thank you.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.