• YokweOnline
  

  • Registered: Jul 10, 2002
  • Last visit: Mar 31, 2013
  • Posts: 2558

  Posted: May 15, 2010 - 05:46 PM

  -->Marshall Island…14, 2010 issue
  
  

  DOE, DOI have crept away from agreement

  A former high-level Department of Energy official in the Clinton Administration told the Journal the US government’s push to return people to Rongelap Island in 2011 is “unjustified and unfairly places the burden of protection on the Rongelap people.”
  
  Robert Alvarez (pictured), a Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and Environmental Policy and a Senior Policy Advisor to the US Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary from 1993 to 1999 said last week that without the broad and repeated application of potassium fertilizer on islands that Rongelap people will live on and use, individual doses will exceed the agreed-to 100 millirem limit per year. “It is not clear if the radiological terms and conditions of the 1992 agreement are being met,” Alvarez said in response to questions from the Journal.
  
  
  “At issue are potential doses from eating local-only food in the southern islands.” Rongelap Atoll Local Government has built houses on Rongelap and Jabwan islands (which are connected) but potassium fertilizer has reportedly only been used on a 200-acre area of Rongelap Island. Alvarez said a panel of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the settlement agreement in 1994 and concluded: “A crucial provision of the memorandum of understanding is that resettlement will occur only if no person returning to Rongelap and subsisting on a native-foods-only diet will receive a calculated annual whole-body radiation dose equivalent of more than 100-millirem above background.”
  
  “Until the US government can assure that steps to mitigate doses below 100-millirem are demonstrated, by applying potassium fertilizer, efforts to force the Rongelap people back to the home is unjustified and unfairly places the burden of protection on the Rongelap people,” said Alvarez. “It appears that DOE and Interior have quietly crept away from the 1992 agreement, without verifying that its terms and conditions to allow for safe habitability will be met.”
  
  Alvarez said the burden is on the US to assure Rongelap’s safety because of the 1992 government-to-government agreement concerning Rongelap that involves DOE and Interior. But he expressed concern about the US government commitment to Rongelap’s radiation protection. “While working in DOE between 1993-99, I had occasion to review the agency’s activities in RMI, and found the DOE staff to be resistant to complying with the terms of the 1992 agreement,” he said. “I was told it would involve needless expense and that the risks were not that great.” But, Alvarez said, the 100-millirem limit stipulated in the agreement “should have a safety margin, in which the doses fall beneath this limit to encompass uncertainties.”
  
  “Keep in mind that the limit set for the general public (exposure) in the US by the Environmental Protection Agency is 25-millirems. DOE is self-regulating and has a public exposure limit four times greater. However, DOE is required under the Superfund program to meet the 25-millirem limit as it proceeds with cleanup of (nuclear) weapons sites.”

  
  
  ------------------------------------------------
  "Promoting more information disclosure by the public service, rather than secrecy which may allow corruption to be hidden" - from Nitijela UN Workshop Outcomes Statement, Feb. 17, 2011

  • 
  •  
• barefoot
  

  • Registered: Jan 23, 2008
  • Last visit: Sep 05, 2012
  • Posts: 770

  Posted: May 15, 2010 - 11:16 PM

  IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, I REALLY WONDER WHAT THE RMI, US, AND RALG HAVE TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE OF RONGELAP? IS THE DEMAND STILL "RETURN"? IS SOMEONE SOMEWHERE OUT THERE, IF INDEED THERE IS ONE, WITH A BIG HEART, WILLING TO STAND WITH THESE INNOCENT PEOPLE AND SEEK AT THE VERY LEAST A TEMPORARY OR PERMENANT RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANYONE, ANY GOVERNMENT, OR ANY AGENCY, FROM IMPLEMENTING OR IMPOSING ANY ACTION OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD IN EFFECT FORCE THE PEOPLE OF RONGELAP TO RETURN THEIR CONTAMINATED ISLANDS INCLUDING THE ISLAND OF RONGELAP.

  • 
  •  
• pettittm
  

  • Registered: Jul 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Feb 01, 2013
  • Posts: 1734

  Posted: May 16, 2010 - 08:37 AM

  From Rongelap Atoll Local Government's own Web site:
  
  

  Quote

  Franke is one of the independent scientific experts who was hired to check DOE’s data.
  Historically, Rongelap people have had a high degree of mistrust because of being
  wrongly informed by the US government in the past. Franke has a good reputation and a
  high credibility in the Rongelap community because he served in the independent
  scientific team in 1988 that did research on Rongelap contamination. Proving the DOE’s
  analysis wrong at that time led to the $45 million trust fund that the US Congress
  established in 1996 for the necessary clean up prior to resettlement.
  According to Franke’s actual recommendation concerning the resettlement there is one
  last thing to do before Rongelap people can go back: The second half of Rongelap Island
  should be fertilized with potassium which would probably cost between $100,000 and
  $200,000. “So the people don’t have to ask: ‘Where did you pick up your coconut
  today?’” Franke illustrates.
  The potassium fertilizer put on the ground is absorbed by the local plants instead of the
  dangerous radioactive cesium from the fallout, Fanke explains. This measure reduces the
  amount in cesium in plants to about one tenth. Resettlement could take place theoretically
  very soon — as quickly as one year after the potassium fertilization, he said.
  Additionally, the topsoil has been removed and refilled by crushed coral sand, which
  greatly reduced the external radiation.
  After all these measures the average radiation dose for the worst case that people would
  eat local food only is 11 milirem (mrem) per year, and thus it is below the 15 mrem limit
  adopted by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal in 1998 as the cleanup goal. According to the
  data Franke made, this case is very unlikely because the diet of Marshallese people
  consists mainly of imported food like rice. A survey on Mejatto showed that the
  inhabitants’ diet contains just 18 percent of local food. A mixed food diet like this
  transferred to Rongelap would mean that the radiation dose is likely to be between four
  and eight mrem per year. However, the high-end radiation dose for the unlikely nutrition
  with local food only can rise up to 22 mrem per year. But Franke explains: “You can live
  there without any problems and nourish yourself in a way that you don’t go above 15
  mrem per year.”
  Fundamentally, a 15 mrem per year radiation dose is just a small portion of the amount of
  radiation that any person in the world receives from natural sources. According to
  Franke’s explanation, this dose is about one-tenth of the radiation every human receives
  anywhere. Actually, the total radiation on Rongelap Island after the cleanup is even lower
  than the natural radiation at most places in the world. So the risk for the health of people
  who are exposed to the additional Rongelap’s radiation is extremely small, Franke said.
  “The risk to die of cancer because of a 15 mrem dose a year is comparable to the risk of
  dying in your car when you drive four miles a week, or the risk of dying when you smoke
  two cigarettes a week,” Franke points out.
  An argument against the resettlement could be that just Rongelap Island is cleaned up and
  that all the other islands in the atoll are still contaminated. Therefore they can’t be used
  for growing local food or for other utilization.
  Additionally the people who decide to go back will also be monitored regularly for a final
  safeguard. This whole-body counting will provide a high assurance that the true radiation
  exposure is known to each individual and that the annual radiation dose will not rise
  above 15 mrem, Franke explains.
  But despite his own optimism and his promising data, Franke stays modest and realistic
  concerning the eventual resettlement of Rongelap Island. “My work and my findings are
  only a part of the story. Personal, political and psychological factors play the major role
  to come to a decision,” Franke says.

  
  
  Assuming this has already been done, appears that per Rongelap's own Web site, conditions for resettlememt as all agreed to (for first 50 - 100 people) have been met.
  
  200 acres is not enough land for 50 people?
  
  Also, again from Rongelap's own Web site:
  
  

  Quote

  We can’t wait so long anymore,” Matayoshi tells the Journal. “We really
  don’t want the community to scatter in the wind and disappear forever.”
  Another reason to get the resettlement started soon concerns the limited resources of the
  fund, which are at the Rongelap government’s disposal. “Now and in the next five years
  we have the opportunity to resettle. But if we start in 20 years, it will have passed. It is a
  now or never situation,” Matayoshi adds.

  
  
  This was written in 2006; five years is in 2011.
  
  
  
  

  “I hope the signing of the LUA (Land Use Agreement) allows the Government of the Marshall Islands more time to focus on the biggest issues it faces – how to raise the level of education and health of the Marshallese people and how to create an economy that will be stable after direct US funding ends in 2023.”

  US Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Martha Campbell, as quoted by MI Journal, 13 May 2011, pg 4

  • 
  •  
• E_Kutak
  

  • Registered: Nov 09, 2003
  • Last visit: Mar 26, 2012
  • Posts: 436

  Posted: May 16, 2010 - 01:05 PM

  Dear Mr. Pettite,
  
  In your own views, can't they seek fair justice? Do you think the US as met her obligations to these people fair and square?
  
  
  

  • 
  •  
• E_Kutak
  

  • Registered: Nov 09, 2003
  • Last visit: Mar 26, 2012
  • Posts: 436

  Posted: May 16, 2010 - 01:06 PM

  btw...what you're posting here are just mere numbers. show me the money!
  
  
  

  • 
  •  
• barefoot
  

  • Registered: Jan 23, 2008
  • Last visit: Sep 05, 2012
  • Posts: 770

  Posted: May 16, 2010 - 01:46 PM

  VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION MR. PETTITTM. I KINDLY ASK THAT YOU FORWARD THIS INFORMATION FOR THE MI JOURNAL TO PRINT FOR ALL, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE OF RONGELAP TO SEE. I'M SURE YOU WILL HELP THE RONGELAPESE UNDERSTAND AND MAKE THEIR DECISION BETTER WITH THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION. WHY IS FRANKE HOLDING A VIEW MUCH DIFFERENT THAN YEARS AGO. PLEASE MR. PETTITTM, FORWARD YOUR INFORMATION TO THE MIJ FOR THE PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT WAS SAID AND BELIEVED BEFORE, AS OPPOSE TO WHAT IS BEING SAID THESE DAYS. THANK YOU.

  • 
  •  
• pettittm
  

  • Registered: Jul 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Feb 01, 2013
  • Posts: 1734

  Posted: May 16, 2010 - 03:16 PM

  Actually, all above is from the MI Journal. All appeared in articles published in the Journal and uploaded to the RALGOV Web Site.
  
  My reaction to Mr. Alvarez's statement is, so nothing new. If look at Mr. Stayman's letter in response to Senator Kedi, 30 April Journal:
  
  

  Quote

  . . .a feature of the Agreement, which provides for initial mitigation and resettlement of Rongelap Island but not the others, because it is not known how many people will go back to Rongelap and whether the other islands will be needed for food. Once a sustainable community is established on Rongelap, then the community can decide to mitigate the other islands – if they want to. This was largely a practical consideration. It does not make sense to spend funds to mitigate other islands if the people will have all their food needs met from Rongelap Island and by imports. In any case, the people will be able to occasionally eat food from other islands without significant additional risk but if they want to regularly collect food from other islands, then they should have potassium spread on those islands.

  
  
  So, clearly the US does see that additional space being treated with potassium, as Mr. Alvarez suggests, if need is there - based on people moving to Rongelap.
  
  For initial 50 - 100 people planned, 200 acres is asserted as adequate. Personally, I agree.
  
  If less than 50 people move back or if Rongelap continues to be nothing more than a tourist destination, money available should be spent on other requirements.
  
  
  
  edited by: pettittm, May 16, 2010 - 08:17 PM
  
  

  “I hope the signing of the LUA (Land Use Agreement) allows the Government of the Marshall Islands more time to focus on the biggest issues it faces – how to raise the level of education and health of the Marshallese people and how to create an economy that will be stable after direct US funding ends in 2023.”

  US Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Martha Campbell, as quoted by MI Journal, 13 May 2011, pg 4

  • 
  •  
• YokweOnline
  

  • Registered: Jul 10, 2002
  • Last visit: Mar 31, 2013
  • Posts: 2558

  Posted: May 19, 2010 - 05:50 AM

  Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-AS), Chairman, has just added --> Alvarezto Panel… House Hearing
  
  -->Hearing page
  
  ------------------------------------------------
  "Promoting more information disclosure by the public service, rather than secrecy which may allow corruption to be hidden" - from Nitijela UN Workshop Outcomes Statement, Feb. 17, 2011

  • 
  •  
•  
•  

Users on-line

• 0 users
• and 93 anonymous guests

This list is based on users active over the last 60 minutes.