Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

Comments about Rocky Flats Book

Posted on by

I published “An Insider’s Review of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked” free at the book link on this web site or as a paperback on Amazon a little less than a year ago. The centerpiece of the book is description of the government raid of the nuclear weapons component production plant with sensational allegations about environmental crimes while I was Manager of Environmental Management. The government raid and two and a half year Grand Jury investigation failed to find evidence of any of the crimes alleged in the highly publicized search warrant. However, the government managed to extract a trumped-up guilty plea and an $18.5 million fine from Rockwell, the contractor who operated the plant at the time, to save the reputations of Justice Department officials who had been duped by tips from people who didn’t like what the plant manufactured. I wrote on the back cover of the book, “An apology from the government to the people who worked at Rocky Flats is overdue.”

I was uncertain what kind of reception the book would receive, especially since it told a story much different than what had been widely reported by the media and was highly critical of government actions. The comments have been dominantly positive, with many compliments from fellow Rocky Flats employees. Some people contacted me to reinforce what I wrote about the FBI raid, the fact there wasn’t midnight burning or illegal discharges of toxins, and other events. I’ve also received positive comments from activists who protested the plant and others who were interested observers.

The first critical comment I received was, “I skimmed through your book and couldn’t help but notice that you cite ‘Ambushed Grand Jury’ as one of your sources, then cherry pick two sentences from that book to make it look as if the arguments in the book support your own. Really, aren’t you ashamed of yourself just a little?”  I responded to the message that I wasn’t ashamed of myself or the book and provided details about the several positive comments I made about the Grand Jury. I copied one of the authors of the “Ambushed Grand Jury,” but did not receive responses from either the commenter or the author.

The second critical comment was from a former DOE manager who took me to task for writing Dow tried to prevent using the 903 pad for outdoor waste storage. (Contamination from that storage area resulted in the largest amount of plutonium lost off site in the history of the plant.) I blamed the Atomic Energy Commission for the decision, but I now accept that Dow management also deserved its share of blame. What was done is easy to criticize with hindsight; it was a different world then with the country engaged in a nuclear arms race with the Soviets. The decision to store waste outside in barrels was consistent with the practices accepted in those times despite the fact that everyone now wishes things were done differently.  I’ve done more research, and posted a blog on September 14th that gives details of what I’ve learned so far. A short summary is that bureaucracy prevented both Dow and AEC from taking common sense actions to reduce the amount of plutonium dispersed.  I intend to keep looking for information on the subject.

I believe the criticism from the DOE manager was justified, but I wasn’t personally bothered by it. I wrote what I believed to be true based on the information I had been told by coworkers. The challenge caused me to dig into the issue in more detail, and I’m pleased to have now presented a more accurate assessment. However, I’ve now received a comment from a person I always respected that questions what I wrote about how the source involving a tritium release was identified. I wrote that the manager who had hired me called to suggest samples be collected from a glove box where some material from another site was processed. I wrote that I collected a sample as suggested, and that sample identified the glove box to be the source of the release. The responder wrote that he collected a sample, delivered it to me, and heard nothing about the results. He then brought a second sample to me, but still received no information. I have no reason to question the memory of this person, but I’m hoping that the first sample he mentions was delivered before the equipment needed to analyze for tritium been received and put into operation. I don’t recall receiving either sample from him, but have no doubt he delivered them to someone in the environmental testing laboratory. I assure everyone that I believed in the accuracy of what I was writing at the time I wrote and published it. I will take some solace from the fact the incident was too embarrassing to everyone who had believed the tritium couldn’t have been from the plant for any rewards to have been given to anyone involved in identifying the source.

I continue to solicit comments on my book or other stories about Rocky Flats. It was a huge, complicated place, and as I’ve written previously, there is no such thing as a “Rocky Flats expert.”

Comments about the Book, “Making a Real Killing”

Posted on by

The book by Len Ackland is a well-researched source of information about Rocky Flats that I recommend. I posted a two part review of the book on that link of this web site, and committed to not editorializing in writing that review. The first part posted 9/7/11 is mostly about the history of Rocky Flats tied to the Church family, and the second part posted 9/14/11discusses operations, legal actions, and controversies. This posting discusses my disagreements with some of what Mr. Ackland wrote, and I suggest reading my book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked” for another perspective. That book is available free on this web site or from Amazon. I’ve heard that “history is interpretive,” and the differences between Mr. Ackland’s presentation of the history of Rocky Flats and mine confirms that observation. I intend to provide the content of the two part review and this posting to Mr. Ackland

There is criticism in “Making a Real Killing” about the selection of the Rocky Flats site for construction of a new nuclear weapons component production facility.  The book says the AEC knew they wanted Denver to be the location, but they went through the motions of an open selection process. I’ve read the Project Apple report (the report about the selection of a site for the plant), and there were compelling reasons given in that report for selecting a Denver location.  All of the other locations in other states had high humidity, and the production processes needed low humidity. Denver also was judged to be a good location for attracting and housing skilled workers. The author observed that the evaluation used wind data from Stapleton Field, and that actual Rocky Flats wind data “…should have eliminated Rocky Flats…”  The Stapleton Field wind rose showed the wind blowing to the north just under a fourth of the time and to the south about ten percent of the time. The wind would be blowing toward a populated area at all times from either Stapleton Field, Rocky Flats, or from any of the other six Denver locations considered, including the alternate location adjacent to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I posted a more detailed discussion of the Project Apple report on July 27, 2011.

The book mentions that “Building D,” which would later be designated Building 991, was the first built at Rocky Flats. The author calls it “…the atomic bomb assembly building.” Rocky Flats constructed components for atomic bombs, but no atomic bombs were assembled there.

The 903 pad was largest source of plutonium contamination released by Rocky Flats, and it is mentioned that the drums were removed from the pad in 1968. “Then, reflecting the same nonchalant approach to nuclear waste that led plant managers to create this temporary storage area in the first place, the field sat uncovered and subject to wind dispersion until July 1969. I have been challenged about the discussion in my book blaming AEC for the problems and stating that Dow argued against the pad and the way it was managed. That has led me to seek more information, and my search isn’t over. However, I’ve been consistently told that the paving project was held up for several months because engineering groups in the AEC Albuquerque Area Office and AEC headquarters were in dispute about the design of the cap that was to be added. Part of the delay was to complete a required Davis Bacon Act review. The act required that all federal construction exceeding $2,000 total cost must pay workers on-site no less than locally prevailing wages. I have been consistently told that there was frustration that the paving wasn’t completed more quickly, but I’ve found little evidence that the delay was caused by taking a “nonchalant approach.” I intend to continue looking for information about this issue, and hope to do a more detailed posting in the future.

There are several observations that worker safety and fire safety took a backseat to production, and the Building 771 fire in 1957 and the Building 776/777 fire in 1969 certainly proves there should have been more care taken with fire safety. I know that fire safety wasn’t ignored before the 1969 fire, because one of my tasks after that fire was to test remaining glove box windows to determine which ones contained fire retardants. The fire retardant windows were obviously installed for fire safety, but that didn’t prevent the windows in the lines affected by the fire from melting and burning. The retardants created dense smoke that made the efforts of the fire fighters much more difficult. The information about a million pounds of Benelex to provide radiation protection to workers contradicts at least in this one instance the inference that worker safety was downplayed, although the Benelex played a major role in the 1969 fire. Also on the subject of worker safety, interviews with Union officials often focused on that subject. I will point out that the Union found safety gave them significant leverage in getting concessions from management. The Department of Energy also discovered they could obtain substantial increases to funding by criticizing health and safety practices.

In my experiences, safety concerns were given priority over schedule; the need to operate safely was discussed at least daily. There was never a doubt that we were working with dangerous materials, and that care was required to protect ourselves and our coworkers. Of course there were nearly two decades of operations before I began my Rocky Flats career, so I can’t testify how things were then. However, I will remind that any discussion of why production schedules were important should include remembering the world situation while debating the need for Rocky Flats, what was made there, and whether production should have been given a high priority. I can see no debate that the people working at Rocky Flats were assigned a national defense mission that the military and government determined was a crucial.  Mr. Ackland provides a solid basis to justify why production was emphasized. He writes that the Joint Chiefs concluded in 1949 that the133 nuclear weapons stipulated in “…war plan Trojan…” wouldn’t be enough. By 1950, “The military’s plans meant ‘a greatly increased requirement for atomic weapons’.” In the 1960s, “Most Americans, including the managers and employees at Rocky Flats, accepted the notion that the United States had to win the nuclear arms race to defeat communism.”

The book mentions that the Pugwash Conferences “…founded by U.S. and Soviet scientists in 1957, advocated alternatives to a balance of nuclear terror between the two ‘superpowers’.”  What isn’t mentioned is that the Pugwash Conference was a front for the Soviet Union, (from Wikipedia) “…whose agents often managed to weaken Pugwash critique of USSR and instead concentrated on blaming the United States and the West.” Not mentioned in the book is the World Peace Council. That organization “…received $63 million in Soviet funding, criticized western armaments and weapons tests, and refrained from criticizing Russian arms.” Numerous peace groups were closely connected with the World Peace Council.

Mr. Ackland mentions the ballot initiative that Colorado voters approved to halt “peaceful” nuclear blasts in the state after the AEC detonated four atomic devices underground in western Colorado. I was surprised he didn’t mention that the 1982 ballot included a proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution to “…bring about the cessation of nuclear weapons component production in Colorado…” The proposal was defeated by 584,256 opposed to 326,550 in favor. Voters were said to have been influenced by the thousands of jobs at the plant and the positive economic impact for the Denver area. I think it is fair to point out that the people of Colorado were aware of what Rocky Flats was making by that time and knew of contamination released by the 1957 fire, the 903 pad, and the tritium incident. They choose jobs.

In the discussion of the tritium incident it is mentioned that Dow was criticized “…for its flat denials and inaction in trying to identify the tritium source.”  A Rocky Flats employee was quoted as saying “…I knew what was wrong. I knew Dow was lying,” I attended meetings when Colorado first reported elevated tritium levels downstream of Rocky Flats, and I was heavily involved with the investigation to identify the source of the tritium after the results were confirmed.  Dow and the AEC were both wrong when they denied the tritium came from Rocky Flats, but they did not lie. Tritium was not supposed to be involved in site operations. Material containing tritium was received from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and Rocky Flats was not informed that there was tritium in the material. I attended a meeting preceding a press conference about the release, and the Energy Research and Development (ERDA) manager (ERDA had replaced AEC) told us AEC had failed to control material, and that Dow was blameless in the matter.

Perhaps my strongest complaint about the book is some of the information in Chapter Fourteen titled “Rockwell’s Crimes.” I have no dispute with the statement that “…Rockwell International Corporation pleaded guilty to committing ten environmental crimes—five felonies and five misdemeanors—at Rocky Flats.” I will refer to my detailed descriptions and reasons for the guilty plea in my book, but I give a quick summary here. Rockwell was forced to plead guilty because the Justice Department was threatening to issue indictments that at least some of the prosecutors believed weren’t supported by the evidence. Rockwell knew indictments would ruin lives regardless of the outcome of a trial.  Mr. Ackland accurately writes, “Investigators failed to prove the most spectacular crimes alleged in the June 1989 search warrant.” What he doesn’t say is that the ten “crimes” in the guilty plea would not have been called crimes anywhere other than in a legal document designed to prevent government embarrassment. As examples, sewage treatment plants at places other than Rocky Flats often exceed their permitted discharge limits, and sometimes municipalities and other operators have had to pay fines for those exceedences. However, I am unaware of any other circumstance where the exceedences have been called crimes or where the fines levied were anywhere close to what Rockwell paid. My favorite “crime” was Rockwell pleading guilty to the fact that DOE had submitted a permit application  more than six months after Rockwell had provided it to them and six months after the date it was due. Rockwell pleaded guilty to inaction by DOE and paid a two million dollar fine. The intense scrutiny from a raid by dozens of federal agents and a Grand Jury investigation that lasted over two years found nothing that hadn’t been reported to the regulators before the raid. Rockwell helped save the reputations of embarrassed federal officials by paying millions of dollars in fines for elevated levels of non-toxic pollutants in sewage plant discharges and paperwork errors.

I wish Mr. Ackland would have mentioned that there was no off site impact from any of the ten “crimes,” that they weren’t mentioned in the search warrant, and they weren’t uncovered by the raid. They were “discovered” in official reports submitted by Rocky Flats to Colorado and EPA before the raid. I do credit Mr. Ackland with mentioning that the Radiological Assessments Corporation was hired by the state health department to analyze contamination released by Rocky Flats. He writes, “They haven’t found significant off-site contamination.”  I will point out that the final report said, “The records clearly indicate recognition of the need to control and limit radionuclide releases since the beginning of plant operations…none of the documentation included the occurrence of any previously unreported major events…” Is anyone else fascinated that no historian or investigative reporter has looked into the absurdity of the guilty plea forced on Rockwell?

Can Low Level Radiation Exposure Prevent Cancer?

Posted on by

Those who believe in the idea that radiation exposure is harmful at all levels would answer the question posed in the title “Absolutely not!” and they would probably add some comments that the question is absurd. I’ll be presumptuous to add they would say something such as, “Everyone knows any radiation exposure is harmful.” Those in that camp believe the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation can be estimated by linear extrapolation from effects caused by high doses, and that biological damage will occur unless the level is zero. Their position is supported by the linear no-threshold (LNT) theory adopted by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in 1959.

However, those who believe in hormesis (the word derives from the Greek word “hormaein,” which means “to excite”) would observe that many substances such as alcohol and caffeine that can be lethal at high levels have stimulating effects at low levels. There is compelling evidence that the same is true for ionizing radiation. I’ll mention that there is a cottage industry of investigators funded by government-sponsored research money looking for information to support the LNT theory. There are those in that industry who won’t like the information I’m relaying. You should also expect skepticism from people who have been taught (inculcated) that any amount of radiation is bad despite the fact that the world we live in and our own bodies are radioactive.

I am a subscriber to Access to Energy by Dr. Arthur Robinson, and he published a copyrighted article titled, Radiation and Health, in his May 2011 newsletter. It summarizes a paper, Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? The paper was originally published in the spring 2004 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The abstract of that article begins, “An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life 5.3 y) was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years and unknowingly received radiation exposure.

Intensive studies were performed on the health of the exposed people. It was found that, “Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under the age 19.” For comparison with people not exposed to the radiation in the buildings, “The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 per 100,000 person years…the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children.” Stated a different way, there was about 3% of the number of cancer deaths for the exposed people compared to what was expected for those in the general population. Birth defects were about 6.5% of what would be expected. Deaths from cancer of people living in the buildings steadily decreased as the time of exposure increased, and had been nearly eradicated after twenty years.

One conclusion of the report was, “It appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.” (Emphasis added). The journal that published the article was, according to Dr. Robinson, “… immediately savaged … In this case, however, the credential lovers are overwhelmed.”  He then provides a list of the 14 authors and includes their impressive credentials. Dr. Robinson then proposes that “human cancer deaths…can be reduced 20- to 30-fold by increasing whole-body radiation they receive from their environment.”

Economic Recovery versus Red Tape

Posted on by

The story of two pipeline projects provides one explanation of how a morass of government regulations is obstructing economic activity and recovery. President Obama proposed work on “shovel-ready projects” to spur economic activity, and it would be tempting to think that the number of shovels needed to build long pipelines would be viewed favorably by a government and country hungry for new jobs. One of the pipelines has been completed despite massive regulatory interferences, and will transport natural gas from the Wyoming to Oregon. The other is a planned 1711 mile pipeline that would transport crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.

El Paso, a Texas-based company, constructed the 682 mile Ruby natural gas pipeline at a cost of $3.65 billion in the three-and-a-half years required to obtain regulatory approvals and complete the project. The project came in at 23% over budget and missed scheduled completion by four months, primarily because of delays in meeting demands of dozens of U.S., State, and local agencies.   The project created thousands of jobs and provided revenues for communities, counties, and state governments.

The Ruby project provided jobs not only to construction people but to environmental specialists who had to complete studies and publish a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS had binding requirements for rights of way and endangered species such as the black footed ferret and the Ute ladies’ tresses orchids. There were also descriptions required on how the nearly 6000 workers would be housed. Paleontology rules required that the pipeline had to avoid the “rock stacks” used by Native Americans as navigational tools, even though the pipeline did not cross any reservations. It took two and a half years and 125 meetings and agency “scoping hearings” for El Paso to receive the final signoff to build the pipeline. There were 215 archeologists in the field at the height of construction to “mitigate affects to cultural resources,” as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A Forty-four member team monitored migratory bird protection, and they did succeed at moving a nest containing four eggs. The ditch where the pipeline was being laid had to be outfitted with temporary ramps so wild horses and burros could climb out if they fell in. Apparently the workers couldn’t be trusted to hoist out an animal if one did fall in.

The expensive gamble by El Paso to build the pipeline was initiated in the face of natural gas prices that would be slashed in half during the construction of the pipe line. The workers, land owners where the pipeline was constructed, regulators, and environmental groups (who were paid to secure their cooperation) all profited from the risk taken by El Paso. Property tax revenues were boosted by 25% in some areas.  Pre-filling the pipeline has begun under the watchful eye of regulators. A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission director warmed El Paso that they are monitoring El Paso efforts to prevent the spread of nonnative foliage and will take corrective action if restoration doesn’t meet their requirements.

The other proposed pipeline, called Keystone XL, is intended to deliver tar sand oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. It is estimated that the $20 billion dollar project would produce 13,000 union jobs, and would seem to be the kind of “shovel ready” project that people looking to stimulate the economy would favor despite the fact the jobs aren’t “green jobs.” Applications were filed in 2008, and there have been dozens of public meeting with the entire large mix of regulatory agencies. Even State Department approval will be required because the pipeline would cross the 49th parallel. The draft EIS concluded the project poses little risk to the environment. The EPA didn’t like that EIS, and sixteen months later a new eight volume report that included consideration of “direct impacts to beetles” also concluded “no significant impacts to the environment.” The EIS now goes into a 90 day review to determine whether the project is “in the national interest.” In addition to environmental impact the project must prove economic, energy security, and foreign policy benefits to at least eight federal agencies.

The “green movement has geared up against the project, and there have been organized protests outside the White House. The Sierra Club is warning President Obama that he can’t count on their votes in the next election if he approves projects such as Keystone XL. We’ll see whether those 13,000 workers standing by with their shovels to build a pipeline take precedence over bureaucratic red tape.

Failures of the 1991 Russian Revolution

Posted on by

I posted a review of “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse,” as a companion to this posting. Members of the Soviet Union government who opposed Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms to decentralize much of the government’s power to the republics organized a coup attempt in August 1991.The coup collapsed in only two days in the face of a powerful outpouring of support for a new democracy and Gorbachev returned to power. The failed coup is considered to have led to the demise of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin won admiration for defying the coup attempt by climbing on top of a tank and calling on people to defend the freedom he had promised. Yeltsin promised to transform the socialist command economy into a free market economy and endorsed privatization programs. However, much of the national wealth fell into the control of a small group of oligarchs. People lost their jobs and savings in economic upheaval in 1992 and 1993 and blamed the reformers instead of blaming the legacy of the Soviet system. The result was constitutional crises in October 1993 and a political standoff and the killing and wounding of hundreds during shelling of the Russian White House. Yeltsin put a new constitution in place approved by referendum that gave strong presidential powers. He became widely unpopular and left office after appointing Vladimir Putin as his successor in the last hours of 1999. People were relieved to have a young and strong leader and overlooked Putin’s background in the KGB.

The title of a recent article from the Washington Post by Kathy Lally “1991 revolution’s goal is a thing of the past,” summarizes where things stand today. One observer is quoted as saying, “We saw the old train (Communism) was taking us in the wrong direction, but we thought all we had to do was change the conductor and we would have comfortable seats and good food. Democracy would take us where we wanted to go, not on our own effort. Sometimes you need to get off and push.”

Russia today does not have fair elections, courts are not independent, and political opposition is not tolerated. Corruption is rampant, and the gap between the rich and poor has widened. There are occasional demonstrations in favor of democracy, but they are mostly ignored except by the police. Opposition to the government is not allowed on the news, which relentlessly carries the message that life is better and Russia is stronger under Putin.  The only thing that keeps the country running is the bribes that are necessary to get anything out of the government. The hope that was created by the defeat of the coup in 1991 has been replaced by disappointment, frustration, and nostalgia. The saddest part of the story is that only a tiny percentage of the population, which is declining because of low birth rates, expresses an interest in changing things. The next presidential election is in March, and Putin is expected to make the decision about who will run.

American Tourists in the Bahamas

Posted on by

We recently visited the Atlantis Resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas with our kids and grandkids, and completely enjoyed the luxury of the accommodations, the extensive Aquaventure Water Park, interacting with dolphins and sea lions, the vast aquariums, amazing meals, and impeccable service (at a high but what I judged to be a fair price). The driver who took us back to the airport in Nassau after our vacation made me reflect on our trip when he told us we had missed out by not taking a trip into the town. He pointed out numerous historical sites of interest, including a statue of Christopher Columbus. I realized I had very little knowledge of the history of the Bahamas or its people. I did a bit of Internet searching, and found what I consider to be some fascinating facts I wish I had known when we were planning the trip.  The Wikipedia article I will extensively quote observes the information should be reviewed by an expert, but I didn’t find discrepancies on the official Bahamas history site.

The first inhabitants of the Bahamas were the Lucayans or the Taino people, who arrived between 500 and 800 A.D. from other Caribbean islands. Recorded history begins with the arrival of Columbus in 1492. Columbus intended to sail to India for spice trade, and when he landed on an island in the Bahamas he called it “Indies.” He then named the Lucayans “Indians,” and the error resulting from him not knowing where he was would be repeated when explorers encountered indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.

The peaceful nature of the Lucayans was exploited by the Spanish, who enslaved them and transported them to Hispaniola (now the Dominican Republic and Haiti). There were 40,000 people enslaved in twenty years. The Spaniards decided to transport the remaining Lucayans to Hispaniola in 1520, and found only eleven people. The islands remained uninhabited for 130 years. An English Puritan group from Bermuda founded a colony in 1649 and struggled with food shortages. The colony was supported with supplies provided by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

English privateers established themselves in the late 1600s, and Nassau eventually became the “pirate’s republic” with Blackbeard, Calico Jack., Anne Bonny and Mary Read using the islands as their base. A British governor, Woodes Rogers, arrived in 1718 and pardoned pirates willing to surrender and fought those who didn’t. The Bahamas fell to Spanish forces in 1782, but a British-American Loyalist expedition retook the islands without a fight. Most of the current inhabitants are descended from the African slaves brought to work on the Loyalist plantations established from land grants issued by the British. The slaves were freed after the British abolished the slave trade in 1807. The islands were deforested as plantations were built.

The Bahamas prospered during the American Civil War as a base for Confederate blockade runners. Rum running thrived during the American prohibition, and the enormous inflow of revenue ended with the repeal of prohibition.  Drugs eventually replaced rum, and at one time it was estimated that as much as 90 percent of the cocaine destined for the United States passed through the Bahamas.

The Hotel and Steam Ship Service act of 1898 inspired the beginnings of thriving tourism  by providing government support to the construction of hotels and subsidizes to steamship service. The closure of Cuba to Americans gave an additional boost to tourism. The Bahamas achieved self-government in 1964 and full independence on July 10, 1973, and is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Learning something about the history of the islands increased my appreciation of the friendly service by every single person we encountered at the Atlantis resort. We and the other thousands of other guests were obviously the source of great jobs for large numbers of Bahamians, and our experience was universally positive. However, I can’t quite escape an uneasy feeling about the divide between the wealth of the visitors and the economics of those providing all that wonderful service. That uneasy feeling was reinforced when my wife asked me to go the movie The Help. We joined about thirty women and watched the story of how black maids raised white children and did all the work in Mississippi households in an atmosphere of ruthless discrimination. I hope those who served us in Atlantis were comfortable that we were polite and appreciative of our interaction with them.