Mayor Sam LaGrone
City Hall
425 N. Richardson
Roswell, NM 88201
Dear Mayor LaGrone:
Thank you for meeting with me, on March 16, 2007. I am glad to hear that you are not the person that initiated communication with the Department of Energy for the purpose of having Roswell and Chaves County subjected to a feasibility study related to the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant, that the County Commissioners had nothing to do with initiating it, and that you are going to keep an open mind.
Please correct me if I am incorrect about this. If I heard you correctly, you aren’t really sure who initiated this feasibility study, but you "think it was the Marleys." I know many, and am friends with many in the Marley Family. But I don’t know all of them. I am not sure which Marleys this could be. Whoever it was that initiated this feasibility study to determine whether or not the people in Roswell should be placed in harms way is making me feel threatened (assaulted) and insulted. Considering the insidious way that the WIPP site was brought in, it would be good if we could permanently put an end to this threat.
As our March 16 meeting was ending, I mentioned a nuclear waste reprocessing plant called Windscale, and that it has gone through some name changes. I have since found a couple of more names for the Windscale nuclear waste reprocessing plant. One of these names is Sellafield. The other name is Thorp. The reason I found Windscale to be so significant, while mitigating the damage that a nuclear waste reprocessing plant would bring to Roswell, is that there was an incident, which caused the distribution of milk to be banned for 200 square miles around the Windscale plant. Here is a paragraph from an article describing this incident:
"....Radioactive analysis of milk over a larger area showed that the ban on milk distribution had to be extended to a total area of 200 square miles, beginning 2 or 3 miles north of the plant, extending over a strip 7 to 10 miles wide to a distance of 30 miles from the plant. The use of milk by the population in the restricted area was prohibited for 25 days. For the most highly contaminated areas, the prohibition was maintained for 44 days."
Source: http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/windscal.htm
If you read the entire article regarding the ban on using milk around Windscale, and read later studies[,] you may be able to see how the government downplayed the potential impact that this incident could have on the health and safety of people (general public) living there. I have found, as we discussed in our March 16 meeting, that government studies often downplay the health and safety impact that incidents like this have on the general public. Correct me if I am misquoting you, but my memory of your response to my presenting to you the concept of government downplaying the impact on health and safety to the general public, you said that you agreed that the government cannot always be trusted.
During our March 16 meeting, I tried to describe to you what I had witnessed while dealing with the chemical plant in Arkansas in response to its management subjecting many kids from Roswell to high levels of toxic chemicals, as the company’s owner and managers publicly declared that the community surrounding the chemical plant was safe. I tried to describe some of the behavior of government employees that I witnessed as they helped this chemical company deceive the surrounding community, including the kids from Roswell. If my memory is correct, I heard one of these kids tell me about being related to the LaGrone family. During our hour-long March 16 meeting, I didn’t have time to go into all of this. It would take more time than we have, right now, to describe all that I have learned about how our government has helped the chemical industry and nuclear industry deceive communities near industrial plants. But it would be irresponsible for me not to illustrate what I mean by government studies downplaying [the impact] to health and safety. So I will use the following facts to illustrate this as concisely as I can.
On January 31, 2007, a group of federal government scientists testified in front of the Oversight Committee for Government Reform. These scientists described how their bosses (appointed officials) often deleted and changed important information in their scientific publications. This changed the meaning of the findings in their scientific studies, and gave the general public a false sense of security. I have recently talked with an EPA scientist, who witnessed "Congressional tampering of data," which also obviously [gave] the general public a false sense of security.
Back in 2002, soon after I found out what had happened to the kids, from Roswell, at my family’s camp in Arkansas, I was informed that, when a scientist at the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) was shown the location of the camp pond on a map, his first words were "Those kids were fried!" Then, the group of government scientists in the room shut him up, and explained how they were not allowed to say anything.
Between 2002 and 2007, I have listened to many government scientists tell me that they would be fired if they were caught writing what they told me.
Some have, also, told me that they had colleagues that had been fired for doing what they were, legally, supposed to do.
The US Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted a health assessment for the chemical plant next to the camp that started in 1992. The chemical company’s owner paid the person who had initiated the health assessment about $100,050,000.00 in 1998. An ADEQ inspector appears to have received stock from the chemical company, and it appears that he invested a large sum of money exceeding a million dollars in stocks with several other companies in 1998. A lot more things like this happened. Then, the ATSDR published the health assessment in 2000 declaring that the chemical plant posed no threat to the surrounding community.
There is a scientist that works for the ATSDR who told me that[,] if they did what needed to be done for the kids at the camp[,] it would open the gates for a thousand of similar situations.
Considering the information you have received from me, and considering all of your personal experiences that made it easy for you to agree that the government cannot always be trusted, think about what would likely happen if the Department of Energy and the Defense Department would find out that their nuclear waste reprocessing plant is leaking and harming milk production in Chaves County. Then, think about what they would do if they find out that it is harming the people of Roswell.
I found the name Sellafield, which is one of newer names for Windscale, in the toxicology studies that are attached to the March 15 letter that I wrote to you. Please make note of the excessive deaths among plutonium workers from cancer of the pleura, breast cancer, and cancers of ill-defined and secondary sites.
pleura
(PLOOR-uh)
A thin layer of tissue that covers the outside surface of the lungs and the
inside wall of the chest cavity.
Source: http://www.breastcancer.org/dictionary/pleura_t.html
During our March 16 meeting, you talked about how France has most of their energy coming from nuclear power plants, and elaborated about how good it has been for France. Considering the excessive deaths among plutonium workers from cancer of the pleura, breast cancer, and cancers of ill-defined and secondary sites at the Sellafield nuclear waste reprocessing plant, I believe that it would be appropriate to see how the cancer rate in France compares to the rest of the world.
The information below is from Institut National du Cancer web site.
According to the Cancer Steering Committee’s report (January 2003), France has the highest rate of premature cancer-related mortality in Europe, i.e. before the age of 65 and 20% higher than the rest of Europe.
Cancer kills 150,000 people each year in France, i.e. 400 deaths per day, the equivalent of a "September 11" every week. It is responsible for a third of deaths in men and a quarter in women."
It [Cancer] is the second main cause of death in France, behind cardiovascular diseases, i.e. approximately 28% of deaths. However, it is already the leading cause of death in men, all ages combined.
Four in 10 cancers [in France] appear before the age of 65, and three will lead to death before that age.
Between 1980 and 2000, the number of new cancers [in France] increased from 160,000 to 278,000 per year, representing a 63% increase in twenty years, affecting men (66% increase from 97,000 to 161,000) slightly more than women (60% from 73,000 to 117,000).
… 800,000 French people currently live with cancer and 2 million have suffered from it at some stage….The cost of cancer to the health system was estimated at [$]15 billion in 2002.
Source: source: http://www.e-cancer.fr/Cancer-Information/The-figures-speak-for-themselves-France/op_1-it_452-la_2-ve_1.html
Considering what the Institut National du Cancer has published about cancer in France, perhaps the nuclear energy isn’t such a good thing for France.
Again, I would like to thank you for meeting with me on March 16. I agree with you in that we should oppose anything that would not be good for Roswell.
I hope to see you at the public meeting on Tuesday March 20 at the Public Library between 6:00 and 8:30 PM.
Sincerely,
Frank McKinnon
903 N. Missouri Ave
Roswell, NM 88201
Office (505) 627-3391
Cell (505) 420-8199
www.frankmckinnon.com