Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

Global Warming is Causing Global Cooling

Posted on by

A recent National Snow and Ice Data Center’s report on Arctic Sea Ice Extent must be confusing to those who have been telling us the melting of Arctic ice is proof that there is global warming caused by human activity.  The first graph shows that ice coverage is still below the 1979-2000 average, but is about a million square kilometers greater than 2006-2007. The written descriptions would seem to want people to think sea ice is still on the decline despite this recent increase. For example, it says, “This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record…” “Ninth lowest” is emphasized while the recent large increase in ice coverage is mentioned in passing.

The global warming theory is that increasing carbon dioxide levels will cause higher temperatures and more ice melting. That isn’t what has happened the last few years. One of the global warming advocates said that the fact temperatures aren’t rising with carbon dioxide levels is a “travesty.” The earth seems to be thumbing its nose at the theories, and that is considered to be a “travesty.”

I’ve written in previous posts that the only certainty is that the climate will change as it has throughout earth’s history. I now think there is another certainty, and that is the global warming advocates will use any data to justify their beliefs. In 2010 the fact that people on the East Coast were in their snowbound homes was “proof” of global warming. The actual words in the article “Climate Change Debate is Heating up in Deep Freeze” by John M. Broder were “…that occasional cooling is consistent with global warming, because ferocious storms and intense weather events are caused by global warming.” And now you know the source of the confusing title to this posting.

Global warming advocates have jumped at the chance to blame recent unusually warm weather in parts of  the U.S. and tornado outbreaks on global warming. I didn’t read that the brutal cold in Europe was also caused by global warming. However, I’ve learned to take for granted that any weather result can be attributed to global warming. Matt Drudge noted on his web site that a 2010 Senate hearing on global warming was canceled because of the weather. The federal government was shuttered by a snow storm.

There are numerous indications that the predicted global warming is not happening. There is a report by Dean Nelson and Richard Alleyne titled “Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds.” The report challenges the 2007 UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035. The new report advocates that half of the 286 glaciers are increasing in size instead of melting. The report also observes that global warming has little to do with what happens to glaciers. The “…key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris—rocks and mud—strewn on their surface.” The debris prevents the glaciers from melting.

My hope is that there is sufficient energy from the sun to cause warmer temperatures. Those higher temperatures along with higher carbon dioxide levels would have all manner of positive effects. There are correlations between warmer temperatures and lower human death rates. Warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels contribute to increased plant growth. Faster growth of forests is good. Increased food production is an even better.

I know that the core of global warming advocacy is directed at convincing us human activities, and especially activities that are involved with energy production and manufacturing, are bad for the earth. I selfishly appreciate having relatively low cost energy to heat and cool our home and keep the lights and computer running. I also appreciate the life style provided by a healthy economy. I wish I could believe that “climate science” is really about science and not about a political judgment that we humans are a scourge on the pristine earth on which we are imposing.

Coal Mining Heritage and Rocky Flats

Posted on by

The United Mine Workers Union was at the center of violent conflict with coal mining companies described in the book “Killing for Coal” by Thomas G. Andrews.  District 50 of that union was certified to be the sole bargaining agent for over 1700 workers at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado in 1964. The union merged with the United Steelworkers in 1972, and that organization represented the workers until the site was closed.

Many of the “bargaining unit” (union) people I worked with at Rocky Flats were in the area because grandparents or other relatives had immigrated to Colorado for jobs working in the coal mines in and around Lafayette and other nearby towns. “The Coal Mining Heritage of Lafayette,” says that that Lafayette was a “major coal town from the late 1880s to until the 1930s.” My coworkers in the Rocky Flats production areas occasionally told stories about how easy we had it and how safe our jobs were compared to what their Grandfathers and other older relatives described about working in the mines.

There was a strike that began a few months after I began working at the plant, and it did not go well for the union. Dow Chemical was managing the site for the Atomic Energy Commission, and they assigned salaried workers to perform the functions required to meet schedules. They also announced that the union had voided the contract, and any worker who crossed the picket lines would be given seniority. As I wrote in “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats,” the union released reports to the news media that stating that salaried workers were ignoring safety rules and charged that Dow was “…letting radioactive pollution into our state.” The strike was eventually settled, but, in my opinion, conflict among the workers was much more frequent and the reputation of the plant was damaged.

News reports about the dangerous working conditions at Rocky Flats began to be published or aired with increasing frequency, and union officials soon learned the issue of safety gave them tremendous leverage. I always found that to be quite puzzling, since I had been impressed about the continual focus on safety of operations since my first days in the research and production areas after receiving my clearance. I didn’t notice that the new focus resulted in improvements in safety, but there were obvious changes in union-company relations. No manager dared rule that a complaint was baseless without the risk of seeing a headline, “Rocky Flats Management Ignores Safety.”

Of course people performing operations should always be listened to carefully when they suggest safety or efficiency or both can be improved. However, forgive me if I was sometimes skeptical that the purpose of the concern was always improvement. I was in the position of building superintendent when a safety concern shut down the movement of material from one floor to another on an elevator. The concern was that the elevator didn’t have an emergency light. I thought that was a good suggestion, and had a flashlight hung on the wall of the elevator. Another safety concern was filed that it might be difficult to find the flashlight if the lights went out. I had more flashlights placed in the elevator and the material was moved about a week after the project had been suspended while the issue was resolved.

I often thought of the contrast between what I and my coworkers were experiencing working in clean, cool rooms with gloveboxes protecting us from the hazardous materials, including plutonium, and the men of the coal mines breathing toxic dust and chemicals while fearing the next collapse of a wall that would crush them. Many of the miners who survived explosions had “coal tattoos” created by the blast force that drove small particles of coal into their skins. I can only guess what the older relatives who worked the Lafayette coal mines would have thought if they could have seen the contrast. I believe they would have been proud of the many union people I worked with who had a strong work ethic and who often made suggestions that made out work safer and more efficient.

 

Another False Alarm about Rocky Flats

Posted on by

There was an opinion article in the New York Times about the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant that was intended to create an emotional response, or at least it created an emotional response from me. The first sentence reports that the author grew up “…in the shadow of a nuclear bomb factory, so I read the just-released report on the Fukushima meltdown in Japan with special interest.” You have to read several paragraphs before you find why the author had a special interest in the Japanese disaster.  “The connection between Fukushima and Rocky Flats was made explicit when recent soil tests for offsite plutonium at Rocky Flats found cesium — from Fukushima.”

Linking Fukushima to Rocky Flats is puzzling. The plant never had a nuclear reactor or a tsunami. There are background levels of cesium around where the plant once operated, but the same can be said of any other location in the world. Am I being too suspicious that the author has written a book about Rocky Flats that might sell better if there is some connection, no matter how tenuous, with a recent disaster?

The local cities, State of Colorado, and Environmental Protection Agency all performed independent monitoring of the site, and probably would find a comment about “little environmental oversight” to be surprising. The State of Colorado funded a massive nine year long project to study Rocky Flats, the environment around the plant, and risks to people living in the area. That one study is an example that oversight was extensive, and “extensive” is undoubtedly understated.

The most shocking statement in the article is that there was “…potentially three tons of plutonium…” released by Rocky Flats. Vincent Carroll has an article in the Denver Post titled “Again, raising a false alarm” (yes, I plagiarized part of my title to this posting from his) in which he describes how he contacted the author to learn the source of that statement.  “She responded in some detail, basing her case on various estimates of what’s known as Material Unaccounted For, or MUF…” She does note that there is “…some plausible explanation for where the MUF went—such as in waste drums buried at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory—hardly pose a threat to metro residents.”

The actual releases ranged from as few as two ounces but less than thirty ounces released from all routine operations, storage areas, and fires over the life of the plant. Details are given in Chapter Twenty-five of “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats” with reference to the Colorado agency that completed the nine year assessment of plutonium releases from the plant.

The New York Times article proves the adage that goes something like, “It is easier to make an accusation than it is to explain the truth.” I do give points for creative language.  I don’t recall seeing “profoundly contaminated” and “drenched in plutonium” in previous articles that were critical of Rocky Flats.

Military Reunion in San Antonio

Posted on by

Thirty one graduates from  the U.S. Army Infantry Officers Candidate School (OCC) who were commissioned Second Lieutenants on March 9, 1967 gathered in San Antonio to remember those who did not survive Vietnam and those who have passed since. I was assigned to the third platoon under the command of Tactical (TAC) Lt. Paul R. Longgrear.

A small but dedicated group of the former candidates had located or learned the fate of most of our fellow graduates and organized the first reunion in Washington, D.C. That reunion included a visit to the Vietnam Memorial where the names of our fallen comrades are included among the 58,272 total (as of 2010).

I resisted participating in the reunions, because the overall OCS experience was unpleasant (proving my command for understatement). The physical requirements were intense and demanding, and I struggled to keep up with those who physically were dominantly like football halfbacks and were agile and could run fast while I was the lumbering lineman.

My wife finally convinced me we should attend a reunion at Fort Benning to take part in the dedication of a plaque with the names of those from our company who were Killed in Action (KIA). She was right; I felt better after we attended the reunion and renewed acquaintances.

We also attended a wonderful reunion in Southwest Colorado in 2011, and I wrote a posting about that gathering. To remind us that we are all approaching the end of our lives, the man who hosted the gathering died of a heart attack a couple of weeks later.

That brings me back to San Antonio and the 45th anniversary of our commissioning. We didn’t arrive until after the visit with Wounded Warriors at the Brooke Army Medical Center. Those who did make that visit were still emotional about what they had seen as they talked to us. They were especially grateful to those who provide the private funds to the Center.

The first event my wife and I were able to attend after a social gathering was one of our comrades reading the letter written by William Barrett Travis pledging that the Alamo would be defended to the last man. The names of our comrades who were killed in combat and those who have passed were then read.

The same gentleman seemed to more enjoy playing the guitar and singing a song of remembrance and a song of faith. That was followed by several of us going on a several mile drive in what I think was a giant circle, parking, and going on a two mile hike along the River Walk. Someone mentioned it reminded them of a forced march with the Rangers during our OCS training. We finally found a restaurant we later learned was about three blocks from the El Tropicana Hotel where we started. Map reading to find a destination is apparently a skill that doesn’t last. (Several of us promised to hardly ever mention the hike.)

The next rainy and chilly day we went on another hike that was advertised as “a few blocks” that turned into several. We walked past the Korean Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, and the Confederate Memorial on the way to Alamo. The Vietnam Memorial is a very large sculpture of a radio man kneeling beside a man who was probably his mortally wounded company commander. We then toured the Alamo and read the names of the volunteers who died there to give the other Texans the time to organize and prepare to defeat Santa Anna.

We had a wonderful sit down dinner at the hotel that evening, and one of our friends arrived at the table sniffing and wiping his eyes. “What’s wrong?” “Allergies.” But he then broke down and began to sob. He had gone to thank Major Graham White for his service, and was called “Sir.” He said, “I wouldn’t even be able to lift his jacket with all those medals, and he called me Sir!”

Major White (the son of one of our comrades) was in dress blues and jump boots, and he gave the keynote speech for the evening. His resume includes multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and he has a long list of commendations including two Purple Hearts and two Bronze Stars. He talked about his Army comrades who had suffered injuries that would have devastated average people, but returned to service after lengthy and intensive rehabilitation. The theme was “Army Strong,” and “This is your Army!” George Orwell wrote something to the effect, “People sleep peacefully in their beds because there are rough men willing to do violence for them.” I would substitute “tough and brave” for “rough,” but Orwell had it mostly right.

There was instruction on how to do a “Texas line dance.” There were some willing to participate and many others of us willing to watch.

I’ll end this by briefly mentioning a speech by Paul Longgrear. He was at Lang Vei, where the North Vietnamese used tanks with devastating effects that caused extensive casualties. I will refer to a review of the book “Night of the Silver Stars” that recounts details of the battle.

Health Care Law Status

Posted on by

The legal battle about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which is commonly called “Obamacare,” has reached the Supreme Court. An article in the Washington Post by Robert Barnes leads with the Obama administration telling the Supreme Court, “Congress was ‘well within’ its constitutional powers when it decided that the way to resolve a crisis in health-care costs and coverage was to mandate that Americans obtain insurance or pay a fine…”  Lower courts have been just about evenly “…split on whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to require individuals to buy something they may not necessarily want.” Two judges wrote, “We are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase Congress could not mandate…” if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional.

There are many who do not believe the Supreme Court will actually rule on that issue at this time of high political drama, and the Obama administration is maneuvering separately to disarm some of the arguments against the law. Robert J. Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebilius is doing what she can to make Obamacare disappear as a liability for the President. She has decided to delegate the final decision on defining “essential health benefits” for minimum health insurance coverage to the states. That decision is crucial to answering the question of how 35 million Americans who are currently uninsured will receive subsidized health insurance by 2016. Millions more who receive coverage in individual and small group insurance markets also will be affected.

Sebelius has disarmed the criticism that Obamacare imposes “one-size-fits-all” by requiring each state to define “essential health benefits.” However, the question of how broad the coverage that is required has been scattered to 51 debates. The two goals will obviously be broad and affordable coverage, and those two goals are in direct conflict. Broader coverage will increase the cost to government to pay for the subsidies. Many expect that employers could begin to freeze raises and cost of living increases to cover their costs for the new health insurance benefits that will be required.

The states apparently can base their decision on ten existing plans. “The choices include, for example, ‘the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the state’s small market group’.” I have no idea what that means but hopefully the 51 states have a better understanding of that and the other nine possibilities. The “good news” is that states that can’t figure out what to do can be granted waivers beginning in 2017, and perhaps that would be the best approach.

The best article I’ve read to try to understand this issue is titled “Dissecting the Health Care Case, Election-year debate makes this term a mirror of the New Deal era” by Mark Walsh. I suggest you clink on the link to this article and read the second page. My quick summary is that the Court might (or is likely to) rule that the current challenge is premature. “Under this view, the law’s individual mandate may not be challenged until individuals who refuse to buy health insurance have to pay a penalty.” One Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to the health care law on that basis. The Supreme Court did not take up that ruling, but “…it did accept the Obama administration’s suggestion to consider the Anti-Injunction Act issue.”  The issue will be argued for one hour on March 26.

There are strong opinions on both sides of the issues, and I believe the key is whether Congress can mandate that individuals must buy something. However, as the article describes, there are politics involved beyond what is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled some of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal laws unconstitutional. My personal favorite was a ruling in Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States in which the Court ruled that (simplistically) the poultry processor had not intentionally sold unhealthy chickens. However, the Court began to uphold his programs in 1937 to stave off FDR’s court packing plan to gain friendly rulings.

I believe the best thing government can do is to get out of the way, and laws that sound as if they are based on good intentions are generally destructive. Obamacare has already distracted the country from the most important issue, and that is how to create a better economy that will employ more people. I also believe the law has already been detrimental in discouraging entrepreneurs from having the courage to launch new businesses. I know I would question my sanity if I decided to begin a new business with the uncertainty of both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank standing ready to crush it with both costs and bureaucracy.

Back to the likely outcome of the Supreme Court and Obamacare, Professor Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court historian, writes, “I cannot imagine that John Roberts intends to go down in history as the chief justice who struck down one of the most significant statues in American history.” My prediction is that the Supreme Court will avoid such a contentious ruling by accepting that the current challenges are premature. The Anti-Injunction Act requires that a challenge is not allowed until “…individuals who refuse to buy the health insurance have to pay a penalty.”

What does all of this mean? Elections matter and the American people elected a President and dominantly Liberal Congress based on anger and fear in 2008. Laws that were intended to “protect and serve” were passed and signed, and now we must deal with the consequences.

Colorado Environmental Film Festival—Rocky Flats

Posted on by

Part I of this posting discussed the content in two of the movies at the festival about water use and misuse.  This posting will be about two movies that discussed Rocky Flats worker illnesses and plutonium contamination near the former nuclear weapons plant.

The second movie shown was “Rocky Flats Legacy” by Scott Bison, and it is about former workers fighting for compensation for illnesses they believe were caused by exposures while working at the plant. I know people who were in this movie, which made it personal and distressing.

As I wrote in “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked,” I sympathize with people who are dealing with devastating diseases. I also understand the frustration and anger of dealing with government bureaucracies. I don’t know how many of the people would have gotten sick anyway, or how to sort out which of them got sick because of workplace exposures at Rocky Flats. However, In Chapter 27 of my book I quote a study of Rocky Flats workers that, “When compared with U.S. death rates, fewer deaths than expected were found for all causes of death, all cancers, and lung cancer. No bone cancer was observed.” These results are remarkable because 26 percent of the workers in the study had some level of plutonium “body burdens.”  I received a criticism that I neglected to mention there were a few kinds of cancer that were higher than the general population. There were very few cancer categories that were higher, and those results were slightly higher. However, statistics are meaningless to someone who has been told they have cancer and can’t prove whether or not exposures at Rocky Flats were the cause.

There were comments in the third film, “No Water to Waste” by Chris Garre, about plutonium contamination at and near Rocky Flats. The film stated there was no way to determine how much plutonium was left behind when the plant was closed and demolished, because the documents on that subject “were sealed.” I would suggest that the film maker didn’t do much investigation, because anyone who wants to research the subject can find more than they would ever want to read in the numerous public documents created during the closure process involving DOE, the EPA, the State of Colorado, and the Kaiser-Hill Company.

The basis of the statement might be from a story floating around that the government sealed 65 boxes collected during the raid of Rocky Flats that “would reveal the truth.” I am convinced that the people in the Justice Department who orchestrated the raid would have eagerly indicted people if there had been actual crimes proven in the “mysterious 65 boxes.” There was an opportunity to look at the boxes that wasn’t taken. Ann Imse wrote in the Rocky Mountain news that no one had requested a review of any of the boxes of documents three months after the U.S. attorney said he would consider allowing Rocky Flats cleanup officials to see the Grand Jury records. The Colorado regulator overseeing the cleanup said he didn’t have the time to look at them. It’s too bad a review wasn’t requested, because those “mysterious 65 boxes” are now part of a conspiracy theory that won’t die until someone looks at the boxes and finds the contents to be just as boring as the content of the other thousand or so boxes sent to the Justice Department by the plant. (I expect my book would have sold many more copies if I had decided to make it a fiction story about horrid crimes at Rocky Flats. The book reveals a less exciting and truthful story.)

Back to the movie, there was a recent news article pertinent to what was presented. A Boulder Camera article, “Study: Rocky Flats contamination still high,” by Laura Snider reports that samples collected by the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center found that “…the area is as contaminated by radioactive plutonium as it was 40 years ago.” The group apparently collected the samples to combat building a parkway past the area, and, in my opinion, confirmed at least three points. One is that the results reported by the site, Colorado, and EPA 40 years ago were accurate. Another is that the plutonium hasn’t blown downwind. The final point is that Colorado Health and EPA officials “…insist the amount of plutonium contamination at the eastern edge of the site is well below levels that would be dangerous to human health.”

On the subject of how much plutonium is dangerous, I considered commenting to the gathering at the Golden Hotel that it is too late for anyone wanting to avoid plutonium contamination. All humans have billions, trillions, or quadrillions of plutonium atoms in their bodies from the many tons scattered around the earth from atmospheric testing.