Bowling Green Daily News, By Scott Sisco, ssisco@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3256 http://www.bgdailynews.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?200307/30+barren20030730_news.html+20030730

-----------------

GLASGOW — Barren County held an eighth forum – the last one currently planned – to discuss a possible land-use policy, drawing more than 100 county residents Tuesday night.

A panel, made up of people experienced in dealing with land-use planning, answered questions that were submitted in writing by the audience.

The panel included Tom FitzGerald, an attorney and the director of the Kentucky Resources Council, which offers free legal advice to people on environmental issues; Dean Watts, Nelson County judge-executive; John Matheney, who works for the Barren River Area Development District; John Colliver, vice chair of the Jefferson County Soil Conservation District and a Barren County native; Robin Bennett, who works for the Barren River Health Department; and Scott Young, administrator for Barren County-Glasgow planning and zoning.

“No one ever calls me when they are having a good day,” FitzGerald said.

Most of those calls come from people living in counties without land-use plans, he said.

“Right up to the point where the junkyard moves next door, we want less control over our property,” FitzGerald said.

FitzGerald told the people to think about what they value about their community and ask themselves if those values endure without planning.

Nelson County implemented land-use planning almost 30 years ago. Property values have increased, as has industry recruitment, Watts said.

“There will be tight times ahead and disagreements, but your children and grandchildren will thank you,” he said.

Matheney told the farmers in attendance that planning will not tell them what they can grow in their fields.

“Land development regulations primarily affect urban-type development,” Matheney said.

The panel was asked what the county will look like 15 years from now without planning.

Matheney said development on the fringe of the county will affect development in Barren County.

“You sit here and do absolutely nothing and the number of houses you have will grow,” he said. “The number of people and motor vehicles will increase.”

Young said some people in the county fear that there is already an ordinance waiting in the wings to be approved by the fiscal court establishing planning regulations.

“This isn’t where it stops, this is where it starts,” he said. “Barren County will be charged with developing what’s good for Barren County.”

One property owner submitted a comment saying he believes that since he pays taxes on property, he should be allowed to do what he wants with his property. FitzGerald asked what that person would do when a neighbor, who also pays taxes, does what he wants with his land.

“Growth has a way of creeping up on you,” Colliver said. “I think Barren is primed for growth.”

Another question was whether regulations for billboards will be included. An outer loop is being constructed around Glasgow and most of that loop is in the county.

“No regulations mean unsightly billboards and other uses,” Young said.

Another question was whether state and federal regulations could do the same thing planning regulations would do.

FitzGerald said those regulations aren’t specific enough to stop some unwanted uses of land. Planning regulations are designed to do that.

“It’s neighbor law,” he said

By Will Herrick

For 35 years, I have lived on the North Fork of the Kentucky River near the Wolfe, Lee and Breathitt county lines. In that time, I've become very familiar with the wretched state of the river, and it's slow healing.

In fact, the decline of flotsam and trash in the North Fork is largely because of the implementation of effective garbage collection in rural counties combined with volunteer efforts like those described in the Herald-Leader. The PRIDE program has been a big help in covering the capital cost of open-dump remediation, but the real numbers are in the daily collection of household trash.

PRIDE also deserves great credit for the effort to eliminate straight pipes. However, it is important to note that that effort began as an initiative in Letcher County, the headwaters of the Kentucky. The impoundments, like Carr Fork and Buckhorn, also play a big role as "primary filters" that capture large quantities of solid waste.

It is the combination of all these efforts that has led to the Kentucky River's improved water quality. It is important to note that most of this effort began as local initiative.

There is a natural alliance between those upstream and down. It is in both our interests to improve the river's water quality. It is imperative for Central Kentucky's economic future that the Kentucky's waters be as clean and plentiful as possible. It is important to those upstream that the river be clean, safe and attractive. That alliance is not always well understood. While the Kentucky River Authority, the state Division of Water, Kentucky Water Watch, the Kentucky Waterways Alliance and similar statewide organizations have long understood the role of folks upstream in quality remediation, it's been my experience that organizations with narrower agendas and focus have not.

As Lexington faces the water issue head-on, choosing to regain control of its water supply by condemnation, it seems a good time to invite the reaffirmation of the alliance between the upper basin community and Central Kentucky consumers.

Regardless of the success of the condemnation initiative, it's incumbent on the voters of Central Kentucky to join with those upstream to implement programs that make their water cleaner and safer. Those programs have to succeed upstream, so the benefits can come downstream.

The state legislature must work with counties to implement mandatory garbage collection; pass legislation that improves the anti-degradation policies on the Kentucky River; further limit the soil-disturbing, acid-runoff-producing practices of the mining and forestry industries; stop the destruction of watersheds by mountaintop removal mining and broaden the scope of the straight pipe initiatives. A bottle bill would be a terrific help, too.

The tire fee program needs revision. The current system pays folks to pitch tires into the river -- I counted 1,800 tires in an 11-mile stretch between Frozen and Primrose recently. The fee should be paid only when the tire is properly disposed of, not when the tire is received by the guy at the gas station. It's in his interest to dump the tires and pocket the money. Large tires go for $5, and you can bet that there are a disproportionate number of them in the river.

If Central Kentucky voters join with Eastern Kentucky voters, Frankfort will act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Will Herrick lives in Wolfe County

KRC suggests changes in pollution control standards for the Ohio

By AARON ARNOLD

The Independent

LOUISVILLE A Kentucky environmental group thinks the quality of the Ohio River, while getting better over the years, still has much room for improvement.

The Kentucky Resources Council Inc. recently submitted its ideas on water pollution control standards to the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO).

Cincinnati-based ORSANCO is currently reviewing those and other comments it received before the July 4 deadline and deciding what changes are needed to minimize pollution.

"ORSANCO and the KRC both have identified some areas of concern in water quality, but their language was a bit too lenient," said KRC Director Tom FitzGerald. "The Ohio River has become cleaner over time but there is still a long way to go."

The KRC is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization whose membership includes individuals who use the resources of the Ohio River system, but would like to improve the water quality of the river and its tributaries.

Peter Tennant, deputy director of ORSANCO, said the council's comments are appreciated, adding he was impressed by the group's thoroughness.

"They are a very well thought-of group," Tennant said. "We actually miss their comments and suggestions on things when we don't get them."

Among the KRC's suggestions: a "Mussel Concentration Area; to identify where mussels live in the river; permanent discharge markers to help the public identify where discharges take place so illegal ones can be reported more easily; and mixing zone restrictions.

Mixing zones is the term given to an area where rainfall combines with discharge from business and residential sanitary sewers. In some areas, these mixtures flow into tributaries of the Ohio River, according to FitzGerald.

"The KRC has identified mixing zones as a significant problem and wants to put an end to them," he said.

Both groups agree they need to work to locate all the mixing zones before they can put a stop to them.

Tennant agreed that the quality of the Ohio River has improved in recent years.

"There are more fish today that can live in the Ohio River than ever before," Tennant said. "This makes fishermen happy and is an encouraging sign to us."

Some local fishermen feel there's still plenty of room for improvement.

"It would help if the standards were revised to improve water quality, but they still have a long way to go," said Charlie's Pro Bass owner Charlie Sheltie of Ashland. "There is too much barge traffic to keep the water from not being polluted."

More revisions to the Ohio River's Pollution Control Standards could take place in the future, Tennant said.

.

AARON ARNOLD can be reached at aarnold@dailyindependent.com or (606)326-2656.

NewScientist.com news service

Cadmium is astonishingly good at mimicking the effects of the female sex hormone estrogen, new research on rats has revealed. The discovery raises concerns that the metal, and others like it, could increase the risk of illnesses like breast cancer in people.

Cadmium is widely used in batteries, and is present in cigarette smoke and sewage sludge spread on agricultural land. It is best known for obvious toxic effects on the liver and kidneys.

But new research by Mary Beth Martin's team at Georgetown University in Washington DC shows that, at much lower doses, cadmium can cause very similar effects as estrogen.

Martin gave cadmium to female rats whose ovaries had been removed, so they could not make estrogen themselves. The animals received doses comparable to the level set by the World Health Organization as a tolerable weekly intake for people. The results were unexpectedly striking, with the effects of the cadmium appearing almost identical to those of estrogen.

*Denser tissue*

Rats given cadmium rapidly developed heavier wombs, denser mammary glands and thicker womb linings - just as they did when given estrogen itself. They also began to make milk, and two genes usually activated by estrogen were switched on.

And when Martin's team gave cadmium to pregnant rats, their female offspring went through puberty sooner and developed denser mammary gland tissue, again matching the effects of estrogen.

Denser tissue in mammary glands is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and Martin's team is now studying this possibility. But she notes that more work needs to be done before the implications for people become clear: "We have to look closely at human exposure."

The main dietary sources of cadmium are wheat, grain and other cereals, potatoes and rice. Limits for the safe consumption of food ingredients are set by a joint expert committee of the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

This met in June and re-adopted the existing limit for cadmium, before the Georgetown team's data was available to them. But the limit is unlikely to be reconsidered in the near future, says a WHO spokesman.

Journal reference: /Nature Medicine/ (DOI: 10.1038/nm902

CRITICS SAY IT WOULD THREATEN COMMUNITIES *By John Heilprin* *ASSOCIATED PRESS*

*WASHINGTON - *Environmentalists say they are alarmed by an agriculture industry proposal to give factory-style farms a two-year break from air-quality and toxic waste-cleanup laws if they take part in a planned $11 million research program.

Environmental Protection Agency officials said yesterday the negotiations with industry are meant only to address concerns raised by the National Academy of Sciences last year about the difficulty of measuring emissions from animal-feeding operations.

The academy's report faulted EPA's system for measuring emissions from manure of pigs, beef and dairy cattle, and poultry, and said the lack of certainty makes it hard for government regulators to do their jobs.

The Sierra Club circulated a statement Monday saying the Bush administration was holding closed-door meetings with livestock and poultry industry officials to exempt them from government lawsuits and clean-air laws. Stench and waste from corporate farms have increasingly become issues as they have irritated neighboring communities.

"Exempting animal factories from basic environmental laws like the Clean Air Act would quite simply put thousands of communities at risk," said Brent Newell, a Sierra Club attorney.

The club also released a copy of a nearly year-old confidential memo to EPA officials from Washington-based agriculture lobbyist John Thorne proposing two years of industry-paid research -- at an estimated $11 million -- into the science behind air-emissions monitoring.

During that time, Thorne said, EPA could provide immunity or "safe harbor protection" from government lawsuits to the several thousand farms expected to participate.

J.P. Suarez, EPA's enforcement chief, said that under the deal, EPA would not sue participants during the two years of research, but any agreement would require animal-feeding operations to eventually comply with clean-air and Superfund laws.

"We would gather data, and at the end of the day we would evaluate which farms would be subject to the Clean Air Act," Suarez said.

Robinson Forest: Stumbo, UK should bury mining proposal

No matter how many trial balloons Grady Stumbo launches, more strip mining in Robinson Forest will not fly. The University of Kentucky would have to retract every point it made 12 years ago to get the main forest legally designated as "lands unsuitable for mining.''

UK battled a powerful coal company then to protect the core of Robinson Forest for educational and scientific purposes. Now the trustees are going to turn around and say, "Never mind; we lied about the forest's scientific value in '91''? They'd look like fools.

Does trustee Stumbo seriously think that UK could afford the cost -- not just in legal fees but also public image -- that such a reversal would exact? Or that UK would succeed in undoing a legal designation that it aggressively sought? Environmental organizations would fight tooth and nail to block UK from rescinding the forest's legal protection so it could expand strip mining.

Robinson Forest is Kentucky's premier outdoor classroom and laboratory, the gem of UK's forestry program. It's a rare living repository of mature forests and healthy watersheds in a region that has been ravaged by strip mining.

"The university would have a difficult case to make that its previous evidence and unequivocal position in opposition to mining was in error and that the protections it sought are no longer appropriate or necessary,'' the Kentucky Resources Council said in a presentation to the East Kentucky Leadership Conference last weekend in Hazard.

For the second year in a row, Stumbo, chairman of the conference and a UK trustee, used the annual meeting to float the idea of expanded mining as a way to save a UK scholarship program for mountain undergraduates. Preserving the Robinson Scholars is a worthy cause. But it's important to remember that the Robinson Scholars program is running out of money because of the way UK officials spent almost $25 million in coal and logging income from the rest of Robinson Forest. If the money had been prudently invested instead of scattered willy-nilly, the scholarship program wouldn't be facing early extinction.

That bad decision by an earlier administration does not justify another bad decision. Trying to strip more of Robinson Forest would be wrong. It also would be a waste of time, given the likely futility of trying to rescind a legal protection that UK sought.

Since Robinson Forest was protected from strip mining, time has only made the long-term research, natural inventories and scientific baselines in the forest more valuable.

At Stumbo's instigation, the trustees will soon receive a report from UK's administration on how Robinson Forest should be used in the future. Strip mining should not make anyone's list.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andrew Melnykovych April 15, 2003 (502) 564-3940 ext. 208 (502) 330-5981 (cell)

FRANKFORT, KY - The Kentucky State Board on Electric Generation and Transmission Siting (Siting Board) today denied the application of Kentucky Pioneer Energy LLC to construct a 540-megawatt generating plant near Trapp in Clark County.

The Siting Board based its denial on Kentucky Pioneer Energy's failure to demonstrate compliance with local planning and zoning regulations in effect on the date that the application was filed. The Siting Board rejected Kentucky Pioneer Energy's contention that it is exempt from local planning and zoning requirements.

The proposed plant would sell electricity on the open, wholesale market and be fueled by synthetic gas produced on-site from a mixture of coal and refuse-derived fuel, created by processing municipal solid waste.

The Siting Board was created by a law enacted by the 2002 Kentucky General Assembly in response to concerns about a large number of proposals to build merchant power plants- also know as independent power producers, or IPPs - in Kentucky. In 2001, Gov. Paul Patton placed a moratorium on new IPP construction until the General Assembly had a chance to address the issue.

Local concerns, including planning and zoning, are at the heart of the law creating the Siting Board, the board noted in its order.

The language and history of the law "not only demonstrate the Legislature's commitment to local planning issues, but also require the (Siting) Board to carefully consider local concerns in rendering its decision," the order says. Furthermore, the law makes clear "the General Assembly's intent to subject proposed merchant plants to local planning and zoning guidelines."

-more- -2-

While Kentucky Pioneer Energy met some of the criteria set forth in the siting legislation, that does not compensate for its failure to comply with planning and zoning requirements, the Siting Board said. The Siting Board also noted that Kentucky Pioneer Energy, in its application, certified that it would comply with local planning and zoning requirements, but later claimed it was not subject to those requirements, in effect withdrawing the certification.

Given that the application could not even be considered without the certification of compliance with local planning and zoning, the Siting Board said it had no choice but to deny Kentucky Pioneer Energy a construction certificate.

Nevertheless, the Siting Board denied the application without prejudice. If Kentucky Pioneer Energy complies with Clark County's planning and zoning requirements within the next six months, the Siting Board will reconsider the application.

The Siting Board last year granted a construction certificate to Kentucky Mountain Power LLC for a 520-MW coal-burning facility in Knott County. Three other companies have filed notices of intent to submit applications. They are: * Thoroughbred Generating (Peabody) - Muhlenberg County * Estill County Energy Partners (Calla Energy) - Estill County * Westlake Energy Corp. - Calvert City, Marshall County

The Kentucky Pioneer Energy order and other documents in the case are available on the Siting Board Web site: http://www.psc.state.ky.us/agencies/psc/siting_board/merchant.htm.

The case number for Pioneer Energy is 2002-00312.

-30-

Andrew Melnykovych Director of Communications Kentucky Public Service Commission 502-564-3940 x208

The Bush administration has effectively gutted the "new source review" provisions of the Clean Air Act. These provisions were meant to ensure that older, dirtier industrial facilities use the latest technologies to minimize pollution when major modifications to the plants result in increased emissions.

The thinking behind these provisions was that newer, cleaner technologies will gradually replace older, dirtier ones, and that the nation will progress toward cleaner air.

However, the Bush administration has seriously weakened these provisions to the point that William Becker, executive director of the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (hardly a bastion of radical environmentalism) says that these new rules "will result in unchecked emission increases that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health."

It is estimated that these new rules will affect about 17,000 power plants, oil refineries, paper plants, incinerators, chemical plants and other such major sources of pollution.

These provisions will have a disproportionately greater impact on Kentucky because about 90 percent of our power generation comes from coal-fired power plants, which are the most polluting power sources.

According to the Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet, Kentucky industrial facilities released 106 million pounds of toxic substances in 1999. This statistic does not include the hundreds of thousands of tons of other pollutants, such as nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide, that create smog and acid rain, and many chemicals that are not even measured.

We are already paying a price for this pollution. According to data generated by Abt Associates, the company that the Environmental Protection Agency uses for its studies, Kentucky leads the nation in per capita deaths due to power plant pollution. There is a statewide advisory for pregnant women, nursing women and children against consuming fish caught in Kentucky because of excessive levels of mercury, of which power plants are the major source. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that mercury contamination might be affecting the health of adult men, too -- although this connection is not clearly established.

Data generated by the EPA indicates that Jefferson County, which includes Louisville, ranks first out of 736 Southeastern U.S. counties in terms of health risks caused by hazardous air pollutants.

Kentucky needs less pollution, not more, and the Bush administration's policies are hurting, not helping.

Industry officials, whose lobbying led to the weakening of these rules, will try to argue that this action will not lead to more pollution. In fact, the modifications announced by the Bush administration will effectively nullify the new source review program and increase pollution.

According to documents obtained by The New York Times, EPA officials argued that the new rules will "vitiate" the nation's clean-air policy.

These officials have repeatedly questioned the legality of the rules, arguing that "they lack a solid legal rationale" and are "hard to justify from a legal perspective."

Political appointees and higher-ups in the Bush administration have overruled these officials, and EPA has been forced to endorse this policy. It is no wonder that several EPA officials have resigned in protest.

Nobody disputes the fact that air pollution affects human health. It is also universally understood that children and the elderly are disproportionately victimized by air pollution. Yet the Bush administration rewards polluters at the expense of their victims and the environment. It is unfortunate that our elected representatives, including U.S. Rep. Ernie Fletcher and Sen. Mitch McConnell, routinely side with polluters and do not work to protect the health of Kentuckians.

Luckily for those of us who like to breathe clean air, officials in nine other states have promised to join environmental groups in attempts to have these new rules overturned in court. Ramesh Bhatt of Lexington, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky, is active in environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Give counties a say over all garbage importation

Kentucky's new power plant siting board has until April to consider a plan to convert processed garbage from New York and New Jersey into electricity in rural Clark County.

No matter how that decision goes, a big question will remain hanging: Shouldn't local governments have a say when out-of-state waste is imported into rural Kentucky?

A state agency says not in this case, that Kentucky's landmark 1991 solid-waste management law does not apply to the plan to generate electricity with gas produced by mixing coal and up to a million tons a year of pelletized municipal garbage from the Northeast.

The agency's decision is being appealed by Clark County resident Charles Waters, who is represented by Tom FitzGerald of the Kentucky Resources Council.

We wouldn't venture to guess how the technical and legal questions finally will shake out.

We also wouldn't hesitate to say that Kentuckians do not want this state to become a final destination for New Jersey's milk jugs, New York's Pampers and we shudder to think what else.

Never mind if the garbage comes by train, truck, barge or in the form of pellets, or if it's buried in a landfill or "gasified" by an unproven technology, as is the case about 30 miles southeast of Lexington in Trapp.

If the state Division of Waste Management is correct and county governments are excluded from this kind of decision, then lawmakers should fix that weakness in the law as soon as possible.

The 1991 law was enacted to stop a tide of out-of-state garbage from overrunning rural Kentucky. It required county governments to develop waste-management plans and empowered them to limit the amount of waste coming into their counties.

Enacting added protections, if necessary, would be worth lawmakers' time even if market forces kill the Trapp project, as seems increasingly likely.

Cincinnati-based Global Energy has been unable to obtain necessary financing to construct the 540-megawatt project, even though the company would be paid for taking the garbage and has support from the U.S. Department of Energy.

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, which already owns and operates a coal-fired generator in Trapp, has notified Global that if financing is not in place by Jan. 31, the co-op will cancel its 20-year contract to buy the plant's electricity. The original deadline for financing was June 30, 2001.

East Kentucky Power already has started building a coal-burning generator in Mason County to provide about half the power that was supposed to be produced by Global.

If East Kentucky Power no longer needs the new generating capacity to serve Kentucky consumers, the proposed garbage-to-power project becomes just another power merchant, polluting here to create electricity for sale elsewhere.

By James Bruggers (jbruggers@courier-journal.com) The Courier-Journal

A power company has applied for a key permit it needs to build a 540-megawatt plant in Clark County, Ky., south of Winchester, that would burn gas produced by coal and garbage pellets.

Kentucky Pioneer Energy LLC, which already holds an air permit from the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, now wants permission from a state power plant siting board created by the General Assembly earlier this year.

The company needs both permits to secure financing and begin building the $500 million project near the community of Trapp, said Dwight N. Lockwood, vice president of Kentucky Pioneer Energy. It is a subsidiary of Global Energy Inc. of Cincinnati, which has lined up $60 million in federal support from a so-called clean coal technology program.

However, the project still must clear other hurdles, including a threat by its main prospective customer, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, to back out of a 20-year contract.

The co-op has notified Global Energy that its deal is off if the power plant builder fails to secure financing before Jan. 31.

It's unlikely that the Public Service Commission, which announced the company's permit was complete this week, can act before then, especially if anyone requests a hearing in Clark County as anticipated, said Andrew Melnykovych, spokesman for the commission.

''We have a contract with Global Energy, and we will abide by it,'' said Kevin Osbourn, spokesman for the co-op, which provides wholesale electricity to 16 distribution cooperatives that serve more than 456,000 Kentucky homes, farms, businesses and industries across 89 counties.

''We hope they can live up to their agreement as well.''

Lockwood acknowledged the Trapp plant, first announced in early 1999, has suffered from delays. But he insisted that the deal with the co-op ''was still in play'' and he expects the project to proceed.

Earlier this month the Kentucky Resources Council, an environmental group, threw up another roadblock. It challenged the state Division of Waste Management's decision to exempt the plant from solid waste management regulations.

At issue is whether the receipt, storage and use of an estimated 1 million tons of processed garbage requires a waste permit, and whether local officials have any say on how much is brought into their county or how it is managed, said Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council.

Melnykovych said the garbage pellets will likely come from the Northeast. Lockwood said that's possible, but they could come from Chicago, and eventually from Kentucky, too.

The plant will use relatively new technology that subjects the pellets and coal to intense heat, producing hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas that will fuel three steam turbines.

The gasification produces no emissions, and most potential pollutants such as sulfur are removed before the gas itself is burned, Lockwood said. The gas-powered turbines will emit some pollutants, much as a natural gas power plant would, he said.

Instead of producing a powder-like fly ash waste, gasification would yield an inert slag that could be used in concrete or roofing materials, he said.

FitzGerald acknowledged that the plant would be cleaner, and that gasification of garbage produces less emissions, than direct burning of garbage. But he said it's wrong to suggest the plant won't affect air quality or the environment.

The deadline for requesting a local hearing on the proposal before the Kentucky State Board of Electric Generation and Transmission Siting is Jan. 20.

Ironically, FitzGerald's career impeaches Niebuhr's claim. Fitz's years of work on behalf of Kentucky's environment have been worth it, for all of us.

But you wouldn't know that from looking at the Kentucky Resources Council's collection plate, which barely draws enough donations to keep the effort going.

If you are looking for a place to make a civic tithe, this is it. KRC accepts no government or corporate money, but all individual, group and charitable foundation gifts are tax-deductible. Address: Kentucky Resources Council; P.O. Box 1070; Frankfort, KY 40602.

The sheer breadth of KRC's work is mind-boggling, especially since FitzGerald does most of it himself, with no phalanx of assistants trailing him and no office full of paper-pushers meeting his every administrative need.

He's got good help, but not a lot of it. Donations to KRC are not wasted on overhead. Nor are they wasted in the more important sense. He gets results, again and again, battle after battle.

FitzGerald was at his best last week in his speech to a meeting of Kentucky Professional Engineers in Mining. It was a litany of expertise. It exuded the usual detailed knowledge of the subject at hand -- in this instance, mining and its attendant environmental challenges.

He knows his stuff better than most of the suits who represent the coal boys.

And he refuses to trim his sails. After all these years, and while maintaining the respect of his antagonists, FitzGerald still takes it to them.

He told the mining engineers, "The short-term question is whether, in an effort to lower costs in order to maintain market share, the industry will continue to cut corners on mine safety, reclamation and protection of the public. . . ."

"You are professionals," he reminded the coal operators' engineering help, "like accountants of the many corporations now under the magnifying glass of the press. . . ."

For the first time in some years, he told them, production-minded companies are asking them how to comply with changing rules. He added, wearily, "Their lawyers usually have one answer -- to hunker down and oppose any changes that alter business as usual."

He doesn't grandstand. Behind closed doors, at close quarters with those same lawyers, he more than holds his own. So says a participant in behind-the-scenes negotiations that led to the 1994 passage of a highly controversial measure, Senate Bill 266, that dealt with rules for disposing of the ash and sludge produced by burning coal.

Sponsored by then-Sen. Kim Nelson, one of the coal operators' faithful hod-carriers, SB 266 was written to relax state regulation. House leaders forced a private negotiating session in which FitzGerald confronted a lineup of industry go-fers. So great was his expertise, so deft his arguments, that he sent the legislative tide running in the opposite direction.

By the time the bill emerged, it actually strengthened the state's hand! It passed, easily.

Self-effacing, and abjuring any public gloat over such victories, he preserves a working relationship with lawmakers, and often with his corporate targets.

He says he carries around in his head the prayer of Marian Wright Edelman, that great leader in the fight to protect and help America's children:

"Lord help me not to be a taker but a tender. Help me not to be a whiner but a worker. Help me not to be a getter but a giver. Help me not to be a hindrance but a help. Help me not to be a critic but a catalyst for good."

He is as good as his prayer.

In the spring of 1995, the great Kentucky philanthropist Mary Bingham wrote a letter to Phillip Shepherd, then head of the Cabinet for Human Resources and Environmental Protection, promising that in the coming year she would lead an effort to build a million-dollar endowment to sustain Fitz's work over time.

At the time, she was chairing a $4.4 million library drive, raising money for the Center for the Arts and preparing to raise money for Ben Chandler's political campaign. But, she said, "Next year I could devote myself solely to Tom's cause if I can lay hands on enough money to see him through this year." That was five days before she died.

She was a giver, and, at 90, still a fierce advocate. So should we all be.

In terms of spiritual survival, as Niebuhr said, hope is essential. But to change the world, it usually takes hope and money.

David Hawpe's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays in The Forum. To contact him, write dhawpe@courier-journal.com.

by Tom FitzGerald, Director, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

Sustain magazine Fall/Winter 2002

Few issues affecting agriculture have been as controversial and divisive as that of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). ¹ The displacement of traditional, low-intensity, livestock operations with industrial-scale facilities where farmers under contract with corporate “integrators” feed and house the corporate-owned animals for a fee under controlled and confined conditions, has profound economic, environmental, social and political consequences.

These intensive livestock operations are a component of a system of industrial production of pork and chicken products through an integrated structure of companies, investors and contractors. These operations reflect an industrialization of agriculture, where the processing and production operations are controlled by fewer and larger businesses that either purchase farms to produce the products they need (called vertical integration) or make contracts with farmers to produce these products. Under the contract model, farm-level control over agricultural production decisions is replaced by corporate control through the contracts, relegating farm-level workers to the role of hired labor. ²

A modern industrial-type swine operation includes one or more hog houses holding potentially hundreds or thousands of animals, an automated feeding system, slatted metal floors with feces and urine collection system, an anaerobic lagoon, and fields for land disposal of partially decomposed wastes. Hogs produce a large amount of waste per animal, various estimates give figures of 2 to 10 times as much as a human per day. ³ The waste products of such facilities, although posing environmental and health concerns not dissimilar from human waste, are managed in a less rigorous fashion that creates a significant risk of on and off-site environmental contamination.

Intensive poultry operations, where chickens are raised in confined conditions, produce a waste litter that absorbs much of the liquid waste, but the operations generate significant waste material, odor, flies and associated air and water pollution problems otherwise similar to those of intensive hog operations.

The intensity of local opposition to concentrated poultry and hog feeding operations in Kentucky and catastrophic lagoon failures in eastern North Carolina, prompted action by the Patton Administration to impose a moratorium on permitting of industrial swine operations. By Executive Order on July 25, 1997, Governor Paul Patton directed the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet to develop regulations sufficient to assure that livestock operations are conducted “in a safe and environmentally sound manner to ensure a safe, healthy and beautiful environment and the continued and renewed ability of the Commonwealth’s farmers to maximize production on their farms now and in the future[.]” The intervening 41 months since the issuance of that Executive Order have seen a tug-of-war between industrial livestock operation advocates and those favoring more rigorous regulation of such facilities and a model of lower intensity livestock production. It is a battle for survival of independent small farms v. agribusiness, being waged in part on the battleground of the environmental and community impacts, with executive and legislative policymakers at an impasse on whether to subsidize industrial agriculture by maintaining lax environmental requirements, or to require industrial agricultural operations to fully account for and mitigate environmental and community impacts, thus creating a less “hospitable” economic climate for such facilities.

In September 1997, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet published emergency regulations addressing certain aspects of concentrated animal feeding operations. From that time until the present, there has been a frustrating cycle of efforts by the Cabinet to adopt regulations establishing setbacks between such operations and natural resources and to require the corporate integrators to share in the liability for environmental compliance from such operations; rejection of regulations by legislative oversight committees, expiration of the regulations at the end of the following legislative session; unsuccessful efforts by industrial agriculture proponents to enact legislation foreclosing the Cabinet’s regulations, and a new set of regulations after the end of the legislative session. ⁴

The two issues in contention in the regulations are the use of “setbacks” in order to avoid environmental impacts from the feedlot and waste disposal areas of the concentrated animal feeding operations, and whether the corporate “integrators” who own the livestock, supply the feed and any additives, and exert substantial control over the conditions of the livestock production, and who reap the lion’s share of profits, should be required to bear commensurate risk by being jointly liable for environmental contamination or releases from the facility.

The potential for concentrated animal feeding operations to adversely affect the environment, including the quality of life of neighbors in rural areas, is well documented. The environmental problems associated with intensive poultry and hog operations arise in great extent because too many animals are confined in one place, creating a significant waste and wastewater volume containing high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other constituents such as certain metals that must be managed and disposed. Rather, the debate centers on whether Kentucky should lead or follow in the area of extending regulation to the environmental and human consequences of these facilities, or to await federal leadership.

The old adage “Your freedom ends where my nose begins” was never more appropriate than when addressing industrial-scale livestock waste management. The concentration of significant outputs of nutrients in waste into a geographically compact area, and use of land areas for disposal of partially treated wastes, is a legitimate matter for government concern. Intensive hog and poultry production operations can be significant sources of air pollution; odors, surface and groundwater pollution, and can if improperly sited, constructed or operated, create a public nuisance. The debate over environmental and human health costs associated with these industrial-scale operations and the management of the wastes and wastewaters generated by these facilities focuses on whether these impacts will be fully accounted for by the facilities and those who control the production decisions, rather than being placed on the contract farmer or externalized through groundwater or surface water pollution, contamination of agricultural land, and loss of property values and of use and enjoyment of other properties due to airborne odors, pathogens and air toxic emissions.

Among the concerns associated with industrial-scale livestock production are these:

- odors and gases within confinement buildings and emissions from anaerobic lagoons and land application, which are major sources of ammonia and other noxious and toxic emissions, posing risks to workers and neighbors alike. The physical and emotional toll of odors associated with these operations on “downwinder” neighbors has likewise been documented;

- excessive or inappropriate land application of wastes and wastewaters can cause surface water pollution since up to half of the nitrogen applied is not utilized and is transported through leaching, evaporation or runoff, along with phosphorus, copper, zinc and other trace metals and compounds;

- disposal of carcasses and of manure (CAFO operations can attract significant fly populations, which can be vectors of several diseases in humans);

- surface waters may be affected by the atmospheric deposition of ammonia off-gassed from lagoons;

- excess nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, minerals and metals) loading into streams resulting in nuisance algal blooms, hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and anoxia (complete loss of oxygen), causing fish kills. Excessive application of manure results in leaching of nitrates through soil into groundwater. The costs of improper management of animal wastes on fisheries and natural resources are potentially significant;

- animal wastes are a significant health concern because they contain a vast array of pathogens. The need to carefully control the management of swine wastes because of the possibility of transmittal of flu viruses and other diseases from swine to humans and from poultry via swine to humans;

- nitrate contamination of surface and groundwater supplies is a significant public health concern.

Against this backdrop, the Cabinet has been unsuccessful in adopting a durable set of regulations providing even a modicum of controls. The Cabinet has chosen to utilize two tools – first, it is has employed the use of setbacks as a tool for minimizing air and land transport of water pollutants from waste management and landspreading areas. Setbacks, creating a spatial buffer between the activity and sensitive human or ecological receptors, is a commonly-employed tool in managing the odors, airborne toxics, disease-causing organisms and other air contaminants associated with these facilities.

In establishing appropriate setback distances, varying distances have been utilized by states and localities. ⁵

The second controversial tool that the Cabinet has employed is to impose on the contracting corporations joint liability for environmental compliance with permit conditions. The inclusion of integrator liability rests on the principle that primary or joint responsibility for compliance with water discharge (KPDES) permit conditions rests with the owner of the animal generating the waste, and the one who is directing the manner in which the animal is raised and managed.

The imposition of responsibility for environmental compliance on the party contracting with the local producer is not without precedent, and is particularly appropriate in this case since the input and output decisions are largely dictated by the corporations and their integrators. The question is whether responsibility for environmental compliance should be shared by the corporation and integrators, or borne entirely by the contract farmer or other third party. The imposition of joint liability is fully consistent with the proposed EPA strategy for addressing confined livestock operations, and consistent with EPA’s recognition that “operator” is a term that is interpreted to include the corporate integrators, in order to assure that the responsibility and accountability is placed on those who own the animals and who have the ability to direct the operations of the facility.

The regulations are far from a comprehensive effort to manage the environmental impacts of CAFOs. Stymied by the legislative policy that creates a regulatory “ceiling” of federal “floor” pollution control standards, a more comprehensive regulatory framework awaits state legislative action or finalization of regulations and regulatory policy by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture. ⁶ Such an effort would include a comprehensive nutrient management plan addressing pollution runoff potential from all site activities, (including litter storage and landspreading, storage of feed and mineral or chemical additives and inputs; disposal of wastewater associated with the cleaning or disinfection of the facility); siting provisions; standards for construction and design of facilities; protection against catastrophic failure, leakage, odor from lagoons; liner and seepage standards for lagoons; characterization of wastes and wastewaters for all potential pollutants including disinfectants, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, heavy metals in feeds, bacteria, and viruses; standards for control of odors, air pollution, potential for spread of disease, and water pollution associated with use of anaerobic lagoons and land application for waste and wastewater treatment; evaluation of the feasibility of alternative waste and wastewater treatment systems; controls on run-on and runoff from all waste storage and disposal areas; controls on land application, a comprehensive nutrient management plan demonstrating that the waste and wastewater will be managed so as to prevent nuisance and pollution; characterization of the waste, wastewaters and manure; controls on land application of wastes and wastewaters, including controls on application rates to assure that any land application will not exceed soil and plant uptake, and measures to address the problem of long-term concentration of salts and metals in soil, and movement of those salts and metals into the groundwater; litter and waste storage controls; prohibitions on aerial spraying of wastewater and requirements for immediate incorporation and injection; plans for management and disposal of dry chicken “litter” from broiler houses and layer cages and “wet litter”; and characterization of the geological setting proposed for land application of wastes from such operations. Such a program would also include consideration of the past compliance history of all owners and controllers of the applicant and a prohibition against issuance of new permits to any facility which has an outstanding unresolved violation of any air, land or water pollution law; financial assurance that some funds will be set aside to assure proper closure of the facility and clean-up of any spill or release is needed; liability insurance to pay any judgments or claims from third-parties; appropriate reporting obligations; a ban on anaerobic lagoons and landfarming wastes or wastewaters for intensive hog production operations; public participation; and use of Best Available Waste Management Technology for new or expanded large-scale operations.

The siting and operation of these concentrated animal feeding operations has been the subject of intense regulatory activity and legislative debate, pitting large corporations, the Farm Bureau, and livestock associations against small farmers, rural neighbors, urban and rural conservationists, and the cities and towns that are faced with the nuisance caused by concentration and landspreading of substantial volumes of minimally-treated wastes. Whether concentrated animal feedling operations will be required to fully account for and mitigate environmental impacts, will in turn affect the economic viability and environmental “sustainability” of this method of production. Whether the deep pocket corporations who have, through contracts of adhesion, shifted the liability and economic risk downwards in the integration model onto the contract farmers while maximizing control and profits up the chain, will be required to stand accountable in the environmental area for the compliance of those operations, will likewise determine whether the state is viewed as an environment accommodating to this model of production of livestock.

The environmental issues concerning concentrated animal feeding operations are a facet of the larger struggle to define the future face of agriculture in our state and nation - a struggle for survival of independent farms against the vertically integrated contract farming model. The issues concerning the trend of increasing concentration of agricultural and livestock ownership, control and market power in the hands of a few corporations, and the economic and social effects of introduction of contract livestock production on communities and local markets must be understood and assessed in order to shed light on the dramatic consequences of the policy choices that this Commonwealth will make in the next few years.

There is strong evidence that vertically integrated and contract-based livestock production operations have negative, rather than positive, economic effects on state and local economies, with attendant negative social and health consequences for communities. For those farmers who attempt to maintain independence, the advent of corporate livestock production is a significant threat. As the percentage of livestock production under contract to the corporate integrators increases, market availability and the sale price for the independents drops precipitously. Measured in local economic impact, vertically-integrated contract operations produce less permanent jobs, less local retail spending, and less local per-capita income, than independent farm operations. For every job created, factory farms displace many more jobs both on and off the farm. ⁷ Vertical integration means often that local suppliers of fuel, feed and farm supplies are shut out of the market and that the profits are shifted out of state. ⁸

Overall “a change towards corporate agriculture produces social consequences that reduce the quality of life for rural communities.” According to a 1990 Study by sociologist Linda Labao, summarizing fort years of empirical research, “an agricultural structure that was increasingly corporate and non-family owned” tended to lead to population decline, lower incomes, fewer community services, less participation in the democratic process, less retail trade, environmental pollution, more unemployment and an emerging rigid class structure.

Kentucky is in a somewhat unique position relative to other agricultural states. Kentucky has the highest number of family farms, many of which have been at least in part reliant on tobacco allotments for financial stability. The dramatic changes in the tobacco program which are anticipated in the near future, as well as structural changes in the agricultural economy, make this a particularly unsettling and vulnerable time for Kentucky’s farmers. In such a time, the potential for victimization by a system of integrated contract livestock and poultry production is heightened. ⁹

The environmental issues concerning concentrated animal feeding operations have also become a significant field of battle between the branches of state government over the implementation of regulatory policy. A legal challenge to the emergency regulation adopted after the 2000 General Assembly session resulted in a determination that under KRS Chapter 13A, the new regulation was “substantially similar” to the former, rejected regulation and thus could not be lawfully promulgated. ¹⁰ That decision is in abeyance pending resolution of a declaratory judgment action filed by the Governor, ¹¹ spawned in no small part because of this policy impasse, asking the Court to declare that the legislative oversight committees lack the power to determine a regulation invalid and to cause it to expire at the end of the next legislative session unless enacted into law.

The resolution of that case could affect more than merely the survival of this regulation. Propelled by the myth that economic development suffers from rigorous environmental regulation and high environmental standards, the legislature through the oversight committees have caused the expiration of numerous environmental regulations deemed to be “more stringent” than the bare minimum required by federal law. The legislative review process by which the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee and the substantive committee of jurisdiction review administrative regulations, has never resulted in the strengthening of a regulation proposed by the Governor, but instead has been a “no man’s land” in which any effort to extend protection of the laws to air, land and water resources more rigorous than mandated by federal law to states choosing to manage the federal environmental programs, is determined “deficient” and placed in jeopardy of expiration. The delegation of the power to determine law to a relative handful of legislators and the heavy-handed manner in which that review authority has been wielded in the environmental arena has affected not only the survival of the regulations, but has created a climate in which the agencies are loathe to attempt to propose a regulation more appropriate and comprehensive in approach. The result is the rejection of a modest regulation that, by any fair yardstick, is far short of the goal of the Executive Order.

The fundamental policy question that has to be asked is whether the state will follow a policy of allowing, even sanctioning, the development a corporate model of vertically integrated or contract-based industrial agriculture, in which the prices at the farm gate are kept low, the risks are disproportionately shifted to the backs of the farmers, and the farmers are required to have the best technology and to bear the risks associated with retiring the debt on such technology; or whether the state will help to foster locally-owned value added opportunities and help to create processing cooperatives that will enable farmers to obtain higher prices and to successfully compete with similar corporate-owned facilities for market share. Agriculture in Kentucky is at a crossroads, in which we can choose a path of replacing an uncomfortable dependency on tobacco production with an equally uncomfortable dependency on contract livestock production, or where we can cultivate and grow an agricultural economy which is locally owned and operated, capable of competing in the marketplace, and sustained by independent farmers cooperating in development of value-added agriculture.

As the state debates agricultural policy in the 2002 legislative session and allocates tobacco settlement money, the legislature has a fundamental policy choice that it must promptly face, lest inaction lead to de facto adoption of a policy that favors through inadequate economic policy and through inadequate environmental regulation, the displacement of local farm economies with vertically-integrated industrial-scale corporate farming. The question of industrial agriculture is not merely one of significant environmental problems associated with the intensity and density of such operations. It is, in fact, a question of whether we will seek to encourage, cultivate and sustain “a Kentucky where family farms, natural beauty and strong communities are enduring legacies to our children.” ¹²¹³ Agricultural economist John Ikerd, describing the industrial model of livestock production as tomorrow’s problem disguised as today’s solution, concluded with this observation:

"The primary advantages for rural areas in the twenty-first century will be the unique qualities of life associated with open spaces, clean air, clean water, scenic landscapes, and communities of energetic, thinking, caring people. Communities that sacrifice these long run advantages for short run economic gains may have a difficult time surviving in the new century. Thus, my number one concern is that large-scale, corporate hog operations are tomorrow’s problem disguised as today’s solution. They may keep rural people from doing the things that need to be done today to ensure the future of their communities. Large-scale, corporate hog operations will not create communities where our children and their children will choose to live and grow. Communities with a future must take positive actions today to ensure a desirable quality of life for themselves, their children, and rural children of future generations."

1 The determination of whether a livestock operation constitutes a “concentrated animal feeding operation” depends on the number of livestock housed, the conditions under which the animals are confined, the type of waste management system, and the environmental impacts.

2 One contract grower likened the relationship of integrator to contract farmer to a feudal relationship. “You are like a serf on your own land,” said Mary Clouse, a North Carolina grower. The integrators, through the contract, control the quality of chickens (and health) delivered, the composition of the feed, the type of equipment to buy and when to use it. Southern Exposure, “Ruling the Roost.” Summer 1989, Volume XVII, No. 2.

3 Cahoon, Hogs Threaten Disease As Well As Pollution, (1995).

4 The website for the Kentucky Division of Water on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/cafo2.htm, contains an extensive chronology of the regulatory history of this issue, with links to court decisions, regulations, statements of consideration in response to public comments, and other supporting information. EPA maintains a website at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/cafo/index.html with access to supporting documentation concerning their strategy for addressing water-related impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations.

5 According to an article in Environmental Health Perspectives, (December 1995), the National Pork Producer’s Association recommended new hog operations be located 1,500 feet from houses and 2,500 feet from schools, hospitals and churches. The research conducted by Dr. Schiffman at Duke University indicated that swine odors tend to drift in a plume, and that the plume is not attenuated at significant distances, and is offensive at extremely low concentrations.

North Carolina’s legislature, in 1996, proposed a 1,000-to 1,750-foot property line setback, depending on size of operation, 1/4 mile to any waterbody (minimum), up to 1/2 mile for significant waterbodies (down to 500 feet if lagoon is concrete lined); 500 foot to any well, 100 foot to any ditch or swale; which setbacks may be expanded depending on location relative to the 100-year floodplain, soil type, location in watershed, nutrient sensitivity of receiving waters, slope, proximity to other pollutant sources, and parklands. In Lincoln Township, Missouri, setbacks depend on the lagoon storage and volume with 1 mile setback from dwellings for lagoons of greater than 20-acre feet.

J. Paxton Marshall, Virginia Tech Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics (deceased), recommended setbacks of 1 mile from any group facility and .5 mile from any residence for large swine facilities (100 to 250 breeding stock); and for industrial scale operations, (greater than 250 head of breeding stock) 1 mile from residences and 1.5 miles from any group facility, with the possibility of individual waivers if all owners within the prescribed distances waive such setbacks.

6 In March 1999 EPA and the USDA announced a joint strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. In August 1999 EPA issued a draft “Guidance” for state water discharge permitting of concentrated animal feeding operations. On January 12, 2001 EPA published proposed revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and the Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding.

7 Illinois Stewardship Alliance.

8 A University of Minnesota study found that livestock operations grossing under $400,000 a year spent 79% of their business expenditures within 20 miles of the farm; but that larger operations spent only 49%.

9 The lack of equal bargaining position of the contract growers relative to the corporate integrators has been the subject of recommendations from state Attorneys-General, growers association, and others, for adoption of state laws mandating fair contracting and reporting. In Kentucky, the plight of the contract grower and the adhesion contracts common in the industry drew little legislative attention, until the parallel concept of contracting for tobacco production highlighted the potential for overreaching in such contracts and the need to assure fundamental fairness in contracts that affect the public interest as does agricultural production and the health of the farm economy.

10 Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet et al., Franklin Circuit Court Case No. 00-CI-00706 (Decided May 25, 2001, decision on Motion to Vacate, Alter or Amend pending).

11 Patton v. Sherman and Wunderlich, Franklin Circuit Court Case No. 01-CI-00660 (2001) pending.

12 Executive Summary, p.7, Kentucky farms and markets: emerging policy opportunities, Office for Environmental Outreach, Kentucky Department of Agriculture

13 In his essay on the “Top Ten Reasons for rural communities to be concerned about large-scale, corporate hog operations,” agricultural economist John Ikerd, of the University of Missouri, Columbia noted the arguments in favor of locating large-scale corporate hog operations in specific rural communities, including jobs, tax base, maintaining the agricultural base, the inevitability of “progress,” consumer preferences for uniform quality, and the economy of scale.

Ikerd outlined ten top reasons for local communities to be concerned about hosting these facilities: odor, the grueling work, problems with concentration of wastes, lack of consumer benefit, continuing regulatory problems; loss of local control over future of community;

Divisions caused in communities by these facilities; and the degradation of the productive capabilities of rural residents. In concluding that the “solution” of factory farms are really tomorrow’s problem disguised, Ikerd notes that in one generation, large-scale industrial livestock operations will wipe out the “vast treasure of public confidence and good will” towards agriculture that has resulted in special privileges, exemptions, and variances to agriculture under a whole host of public policies—from taxation to environmental regulations—because they were trusted to behave in the public interest. The destruction of public confidence in agriculture is a possible outcome of these industrial-scale operations, according to Ikerd.

Recycled uranium was shipped worldwide from 1952 until 1999, when distribution was halted by revelations of its contamination with plutonium and other radioactive elements.

USA Today, citing an examination of more than 1,000 pages of new reports and documents on recycled uranium, said the reports showed that the recycling program yielded 250,000 tons of tainted uranium, twice the amount estimated two year ago.

It said the material was handled at about 10 times the number of sites revealed previously, reaching more than 100 federal plants, private manufacturers and universities.
Read the article here.

This site's webmaster is the son of two people who worked at Columbia University for the Manhatten Project developing the gaseous diffusion isotope isolation technology used in Paducah and Oak Ridge. I hope you find these links interesting too.

Chernobyl children show DNA changes

  Scientists say there is evidence that low radiation   doses can cause multiple changes in human DNA, that   are passed on to future generations.   Click Here to read the BBC article.

Plutonium Memorial Contest

Basically, we want to create a memorial to plutonium, that nasty substance that stays radioactive for thousands of years, can be made into nuclear bombs, and is deadly if ingested. But hiding it away, as conventional notions dictate, will prevent the world from learning anything from its folly.

We're also giving away more than $3,000 in prizes to the person or persons who come up with the best design for our "Plutonium Memorial."

So we invite you to submit your drawings, architectural models, schematics, blueprints, or other representations to the Bulletin. A panel of experts will judge the entries and present the winners in an issue next year. There are a few technical details that must be followed (plutonium, after all, is tricky to handle). Follow these links to learn more about the care and handling of plutonium and the contest rules: