RE: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado

[Harry Pollard]

Lawry,   One of the saddest things I came across was the remark by a 19th century Welsh coal miner to the effect that the pay is higher than working in the fields. They went down deep in the earth in Stygian darkness facing serious danger in order to provide a little better life for their families.   Why do people live on flood plains? Why do they build in tornado areas or on earthquake faults?   And there is settlement in New Orleans, obviously because there is no available safer land.   Yet, for example, the USDA in 1997 said that less than 5.4% of California was developed and the 2000 Census showed that 94.4% of Californians live on 4.2% of its land area.   Wonder about the unsafe settlement in this enormous country and perhaps things will become clear.   Harry   ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042 818 352-4141 *********************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:10 PM To: 'Darryl and Natalia'; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado   Hi, Natalia,   Rocky Mountain Flats affects the area between Denver and Boulder – not the whole state by any means. Uranium mining is carried out in the western part of the state, and does represent a danger to miners and those who live close to tailings. But the bulk of the state is not exposed. There have never been nuclear bombs detonated in Colorado. People live and work in those areas where there may be an environmental hazard for the same reason that people work in steel mills, or in a bureaucracy, or as advertising hacks: they can earn income and sustain their families.   Most people, I suppose, want what the Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi calls the ‘quiet miracle of a peaceful life.’  Few of us have the privilege of living lives without compromise, without dangers and discomforts.  Few of us have the ability to see beyond the common myth.   Cheers, Lawry   From: Darryl and Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado     All mail scanned by NAV   Actually I was implying the opposite: that people do know, but continue to settle down in Colorado anywhere, anyhow.   People keep trying to move there, many from Canada. It's not just about the Rocky Flats though; a lot of nuclear testing and manufacturing has and still takes place in the state; some major bombs were allowed to be detonated there (and in Nevada) in past decades, and I doubt that activity has altogether stopped because of the terrain that it is. Drinking the water let alone breathing the air would negate for me any sane reason to set foot in either state, yet folks claim its dry air is good for their lungs. To live there, one risks becoming a casualty of experimentation in that nasty, slow death kind of way as a diurnal experience, coupled with the hovering threat of catastrophic accidents that would really, really hurt.   Not like deciding on Florida, where you can always drink bottled water from Colorado springs, right???   Speaking from the lovely fault line island that is worth the risk because unlike the rest of the continent, it will stay afloat!   Natalia  ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence de Bivort To: 'Darryl and Natalia' ; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado   Why in the world, Natalia, do you assert that people are ‘totally oblivious’ to Rocky Flats?   Cheers, Lawry   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Darryl and Natalia Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:22 PM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado     All mail scanned by NAV   People may like Colorado weather, but really, are they totally oblivious to its extremely hazardous corporate/government activity? For decades, it's been on the list to avoid for its nuclear wasteland. What gives?   Natalia     A.V. KREBS, PROGRESSIVE POPULIST - On February 14 some 12,000 homeowners downwind from the shut down Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, near Denver, Colorado won a $553.9 million judgment from a federal jury after a four-month trial that charged the plant's former operators --- Rockwell International Corp. and The Dow Chemical Company --- of contaminating their land with plutonium released from the plant. However, the defendants who operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energy from 1952 to 1989 will be indemnified by the federal government, meaning that the DOE will pay any judgment and has been paying the companies' legal fees. . . Rocky Flats opened in 1953, and before it was shut down in 1989 it produced more than 60,000 nuclear weapon parts. Its closing came after the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the site, fearing that radioactive materials were being illegally discharged. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework