Pictures from Curiosity’s Mars mission are a welcome relief from our earthbound travails.

It’s no wonder media outlets hyperventilate at the mere thought of such reliably happy material.

But one important aspect of the mission is routinely overlooked in news coverage; and that is the role that plutonium has played in fueling Curiosity’s race through space.   The success of this mission ensures that more will be attempted using the same method of propulsion.  Therein lies the concern.

Nasa has been at great pains to downplay the risk posed by plutonium fuel, insisting that the pelletized fuel is “unlikely,”  even in case of an accident, to be released into the human environment:

It is manufactured in a ceramic form that does not become a significant health hazard unless it becomes broken into very fine pieces or vaporized and then inhaled or swallowed. Those people who might be exposed in a Mars Science Laboratory launch accident would receive an average dose of 5-10 millirem, equal to about a week of background radiation. The average American receives 360 millirem of radiation each year from natural sources, such as radon and cosmic rays.

When examined a little more closely, this argument fails to comfort.  The “360 millirems” cited by Nasa as every American’s dose from natural sources (so-called “background radiation”) refers to external radiation, and assumes that in case of an accident, human exposures to radiation would be limited to external, and therefore finite doses.  

However, the greatest danger from plutonium is posed by its effect when taken internally.  In which case it remains in the body indefinitely, constantly  bombarding surrounding cells with enormous destructive energy.  Even the tiniest possible particle of plutonium has devastating potential for the human body.

Internal exposure can result when plutonium “dust” becomes airborne following an accident that destroys the matrix in which has been captured, thus distributing it in such a way that it can be inhaled or absorbed into the food chain.

Witness the EPA’s take on the effects of plutonium:

External exposure to plutonium poses very little health risk, since plutonium isotopes emit alpha radiation, and almost no beta or gamma radiation. In contrast, internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the kidneys.

Even though the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the launch of Curiosity put the odds of a plutonium release from the overall mission at “one in 220,” as one concerned commenter observed:

The EIS says “overall” on the mission, the likelihood of plutonium being released is 1-in-220. It puts the odds at 1-in-420 of plutonium being released in a launch accident. This could “release material into the regional area defined…to be within…62 miles of the launch pad,” says the EIS. The most densely populated part of that area is Orlando.

When the overall record of rocket failures over the course of the race for space is considered, those odds don’t look particularly good to me.  If we are about to embark on a new era of space exploration amid the cost constraints  and privatization that is likely in the twenty-first century, there is genuine reason for concern should more and more deep space missions be fueled with plutonium rather than the solar arrays of the past.

I hate to poop on the parade, but as we celebrate the achievements of Curiosity shouldn’t we, also be wiping our brow with relief and reflecting that, this time, the worst did not happen?

It seems Republican Vince Illuzzi is having a tough time finding talking points for his run at the auditor’s office. In today’s Free Press, he takes poorly aimed pot-shots at public employees without encumbering himself with a whole lot of facts.

His Democratic opponent Doug Hoffer points out that, in framing the “three part plan” regarding overtime that he would advocate as auditor, Mr. Illuzzi seems to have failed to read the existing Human Resources Manual that pretty much has all that covered.  

According to Hoffer:

I was surprised to see Mr. Illuzzi’s suggestions today since the core elements are already part of state’s Human Resources Policy Manual (see below).

The auditor has an important role to play in ensuring compliance with policies and procedures. But any recommendations should come after conducting the necessary research, not before. In this case, Mr. Illuzzi admitted that he had “not yet had the opportunity to assess agency by agency and department current controls that may be in place.” He should have done his homework.

In fact, the third part of Illuzzi’s overtime management plan has nothing to do with overtime:

Ensuring that agency assets such as vehicles, cell phones, equipment, and other agency resources are used only for official business.

According to the Free Press, Illuzzi alleges that

supervisors are providing inadequate oversight of employee time sheets. He said also the de­tection and prevention of time sheet fraud is not a priori­ty for some departments and there is often a failure by some management to establish procedures to monitor overtime claims.

And he knows this for a fact?  Apparently not.

Hoffer, however, noted Illuzzi said he had not had the opportunity to assess agency by agency and department current controls that may be in place.

While Hoffer agrees that the overtime issue must be reviewed and any systemic failures addressed, it isn’t very productive making blanket statements about agency mismanagement without any concrete information.

Doing so only alienates the people with whom the auditor will have to establish a respectful relationship in order to do an effective job.

This raises the question of Illuzzi’s personal style and how it might hamstring the work of the auditor’s office.

Old habits die hard.  If Mr. Illuzzi cannot resist the temptation to shoot from the hip; or if he forgets himself and attempts to legislate from the auditor’s office, he could potentially be an even less effective auditor than the perennially distracted Tom Salmon.

There is some bitter satisfaction for opponents of the St. Albans Walmart project in the weekend Messenger.  I am one of those opponents, and my satisfaction is bitter because the news does not bode well for St. Albans; or for any community that must rely on the judgements of VTrans and the Act 250 system.

Messenger ace, Michelle Monroe reports that neither the District 6 Commission, nor the Environmental Court based their traffic mitigation requirements for the Walmart permit on the recommendations of the 2007 Hoyle and Tanner Corridor study commissioned and paid for by VTrans.  

Instead, they simply endorsed the wholly inadequate and fundamentally mistaken mitigation proposed by the developer, that will ultimately have to be completely undone in order to address the likely safety and congestion issues that will result.  

The accepted mitigation plan was based on a 1997 Vtrans study that failed to take into consideration the fact that the proposed Walmart would add nearly 700 car trips in peak hours!   It also includes a local traffic diversion that would be the exact opposite of what was recommended in 2007.  A complete debacle.

How often have I bemoaned the fact that Ms. Monroe didn’t come onto the Messenger’s staff until nearly all of the Walmart permit process had concluded!?

So, now all of the permits are in order for Walmart developer JL Davis to go ahead with traffic alterations that will simply make the north end of St. Albans a traffic and pedestrian nightmare.  It appears that this fact is not even in dispute; and it seems to have been apparent to those responsible early in the Act 250 process.

“The corridor plan may call for different and innovative solutions and the Walmart improvements would have to be torn up.”(VTrans traffic expert) Byrne told the (District 6) commission.

In his written testimony to the District Commission in 2006, Vtrans Traffic Engineer Bernard Byrne stated that, although the traffic mitigation proposed by Walmart for the entire corridor… was sufficient for vehicle safety, “there may be a better way.”

For this reason, Byrne recommended that the immediate traffic mitigations required from Davis be limited to those essential  for the entrance to the proposed Walmart; but also that a further requirement  to contribute to a fund for “long-term corridor improvements” be a stipulation of the permit.

The District Commission, and later Judge Durkin of the Environmental Court, nevertheless chose to ignore that recommendation and simply endorse the developer’s own traffic proposals.

Which brings us to 2012 when JL Davis appears poised to begin work at the site with a fatally flawed traffic plan still approved. But will that really happen or is Mr. Davis himself going to apply the brakes?

Therein lies what may now be a convenient escape hatch for Mr. Davis.

It is now coming up on a full year since the Walmart permit had final approval from the Vermont Supreme Court.  

Why is it that there is no Walmart “brand” at the proposed site, and the only other potential project reported for the JLD Properties land is a credit union  to be located on the far south end of the property, at the junction of Route 7and the entrance route to I-89?

Does it sound to you like Walmart is still coming to town?  It doesn’t to me.

Expanding on my earlier topic of Facebook collaborating with Walmart;  a simple fact about the relative wealth of the Walton heirs, gleaned from a tweet posted by Bernie Sanders and judged “true” by PolitiFact.com, bears emphatic repetition on GMD.  It absolutely blew my mind.

“Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

PolitiFact.com teased out the statistics in support of Sander’s claim, and found that the net worth of just six Walton heirs is greater than that of forty-nine-million American families.

When held in contrast to their legendarily parsimonious treatment of Walmart “associates” and suppliers, the Walton’s hoarde becomes all the more grotesque.  

Do American’s really love people who have succeeded in accumulating disproportionate wealth as much as Mitt Romney would have us believe?

Czarist Russia had nothing on capitalist America, and look how that came out.

The indefatigable Al Norman of Sprawl Busters, just brought to my attention this latest reason to resist the lure of Facebook.

Through Sprawl Busters and its  network of sympathizers, Mr. Norman, of Northfield, Massachusetts has maintained a constant vigil since the early nineties against the growing threat to local economies and social systems posed by the meteoric rise of big box store development.  

According to a Reuters report,

(Facebook  CEO, Mark) Zuckerberg and his senior management team will spend two days at Wal-Mart Stores Inc’s Bentonville, Arkansas home office this week, meeting with executives of the world’s largest retailer and discussing ways to “deepen” their relationship.

The object of the exercise seems to be to reinforce the mutual opportunities provided by “data mining.”   Those practices have long been in place at the giant retailer, where every customer transaction is carefully logged, then assessed by a massive data management system for the twin purposes of inventory management and sales opportunity.  

Marrying that capability to personal information that may be collected and assessed through Facebook’s twenty-four hour virtual “surveillance” of users’ lives is an obvious next step that will no doubt be accepted with the same relative indifference that has met each revelation of Facebook’s expanding invasiveness.

Remember those futuristic books that creeped us out in middle school, like “Farenheit 451” and “1984?”  The ones where populations are controlled and rendered compliant by sinister powers through ubiquitous media systems?  

Not so remote from reality now.

Chittenden senatorial candidate, David Zuckerman just picked up another significant endorsement for 2012:

Professional Firefighters of Vermont President Matt Vinci stated “Dave has a proven track record of supporting working families and firefighters and we want you to stand with us in sending David back to Montpelier to represent Chittenden County in the Senate.”

The Firefighters made special note of the leadership shown by Rep. Zuckerman in securing passage of legislation banning the use of DECA, a toxic chemical used in manufactured furniture as a fire-retardant.   Due to the nature of their work environment, firefighters in particular were at risk from repeated exposures to the substance, which has been identified as a hazard affecting multiple functions including reproduction.

Entergy and the NRC are downplaying yet another radioactive leak at Vermont Yankee that occurred last weekend but is only now reaching the press>

The loss of 2,700 gallons of “mildly ” radioactive waste water Sunday from the pool, which holds thousands of Yankee’s old, highly radioactive fuel rods, was caught in a radioactive waste tank, according to Entergy Nuclear spokesman Robert Williams.

The incident is being blamed on procedural error on the part of an employee.  Though Williams would not say if the employee is new to the job, the procedural error, which involved the misalignment of valves, suggests that the employee who made the error may have been lacking in experience and supervision.  

Water drained from the pool for thirty minutes before the problem was discovered.  What might have happened had the leak remained undetected and the 300,000-gallon tank continued to drain for hours is very troubling indeed!

That Entergy does not seem to fully appreciate this potential is betrayed by Mr. Williams characterization of the water as “mildly” radioactive.  Is that anything like being a little bit pregnant?

Susan Smallheer of the Rutland Herald quotes Fairewinds Assoc. Arnie Gundersen as saying the mistake was not insignificant.

“That’s a gross procedural breakdown,” said Gundersen, who said the Public Oversight Panel had been very concerned about similar employee errors as the experienced staff at Yankee leave or retire.

And, while we’re on the subject, I took a look at Meredith Angwyn’s fanpage for Vermont Yankee, Yes VY,  and besides a rather personal screed against Mr. Gundersen, I found her complaining about the very nerve of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel to be asking Entergy whether it was making changes in light of lessons learned at Fukushima.  

She seems to be under the impression that, even though Vermont Yankee continues to operate on Vermont soil, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s preemption on safety issues extends so far as to mean the state can’t even ask questions about safety.  

What is the concern here?  That the people of Vermont might actually learn something about how prepared or unprepared VY is for an emergency?

Ms. Angwyn’s railing that the State Nuclear Advisory Panel should not even discuss safety issues is reminiscent of the idiot legislature of North Carolina which is considering  prohibiting government agencies from even considering the potential three-foot rise in sea level, due to climate change, over the remainder of the century.  

Does she think that just by talking about safety concerns, the Advisory Panel is affecting VY’s operating license?

If she is suggesting that the state doesn’t even have the right to think about evacuation concerns and other possible collateral safety issues in the event of a disaster at VY,  she has lost all grip on reality.

There is really nothing new about the latest scandal emanating from Fukushima.

Industry manipulation of radiation data has been a recurrent theme throughout the history of nuclear energy; but this story gives us some idea of one of the ways in which it can be done.

media reports have confirmed that subcontractors were told to cover their dosimeters with lead shields in order to manipulate or underreport their radiation exposures.

Previously in the region surrounding Fukushima, we have seen radiation data to determine evacuation zones deliberately hamstrung in its accuracy and completeness.

At each house the inspectors measured two spots-in the yard and at the front door-at heights of about 20 inches and one yard (one meter). In choosing the spots, the inspectors were warned to stay away from areas such as drains, shrubbery and rainspouts, where radioactive elements tend to gather, potentially skewing results.

In the astronomically costly aftermath of Fukushima, the nuclear industry is desperate to maintain the illusion that it’s product can be cost effective.  It therefore is vital that something be done  to eliminate the “inconvenient truth” that, in the event of accident, vast areas of habitation must be evacuated and lost from productive use. Consequently, the dose of radiation deemed “acceptable” was raised in Japan, and industry bedmate, MIT helpfully produced an extremely flawed study that would seem to support the hypothesis that evacuation might not even be necessary!

Doesn’t that just make you feel a whole lot safer?

What’s this I see about perennial butterfly, Vince Illuzzi?

Now that he has finally settled upon an office to seek, it unfortunately highlights some of his own self-auditing issues:

Democratic candidate for State Auditor Doug Hoffer today said the July 16 campaign finance report of Vince Illuzzi is at odds with his July 2011 filing and that an amended report may be required to clear up the confusion.

According to documents available on the Secretary of State’s website, the report filed by Mr. Illuzzi in July 2011 reported a carry-forward of $30,923 from his Senate Campaign account.[1]

Mr. Illuzzi’s July 16, 2012 finance report shows a contribution of $13,105 from his Senate Campaign Account.[2]  It is characterized as “surplus” which suggests that it is all that remains from that account.  Since there has been no election for Senator Illuzzi since July 2011, there remains a question about what happened to the other $17,818 from his Senate campaign account.  Mr. Illuzzi did not file a finance report for his Senate campaign.

“There may well be a good explanation for the inconsistency but it is for Mr. Illuzzi to clear it up.”

OUCH!  One more strike against the feisty senator’s credibility.

Why’d you ever give up the safety of your senate seat, Vince?

The heading on page 5A in today’s Freeps carried the message that big pharma wants us to read and accept:

Study: Medical marijuana ineffective

End of story; but not quite.  

A more thorough reading of the article reveals that nothing has been accomplished by the University of Arizona “study,” except to demonstrate that there is insufficient data available to prove conclusively that marijuana is an effective treatment for a laundry list of ailments, including anxiety, depression, migraine, and post-traumatic stress disorder.  

As  Dr. Sue Sisley, a medical doctor and assistant professor of psychiatry and internal medicine, also at the University of Arizona, observes, scientific evidence of efficacy is an

“…unattainable standard”  because it is very difficult to perform peer-reviewed studies on drugs that the federal government says have no medical uses.

Witness the University’s own policy with regard to cultivation of medical marijuana.

While the use of Medical Marijuana is legal in the state of Arizona, Cannabis spp. remains a Schedule 1 illegal drug under Federal law and as such, Arizona Cooperative Extension cannot be involved with this plant in any form or context-including advice on appropriate applications of pesticides such as insecticides, herbicides and fungicides to control pests or of growth regulators, fertilizers or other substances to improve the growth of Cannabis spp. plants, or advice on appropriate engineering controls or design, growing conditions or environments, and other information used to grow, propagate, manage or enhance production of Cannabis spp.

Assistance with medical marijuana plant health questions will not be provided by Extension faculty.

Individuals requesting such information will not be provided referral information

Dr. Sisley points out that Arizona’s state health director, Will Humble who together with Arizona’s Republican governor Jan Brewer, opposes medical marijuana, is relying on this obstacle to continue supporting his position.

“He knows we’ll never be able to do that (prove its efficacy),” said Sisley.

But I suspect the overarching story, once again, is the power of big pharma’s long arm of research funding.

It’s a familiar pattern to anyone who has taken a look at other university “research” projects whose findings all too predictably reinforce the position of corporate funders.  

We saw that with MIT’s highly publicized and tainted study that supposedly “proved”  no harmful effects from exposures to low-level radiation over long periods of exposure.

What was glaringly evident of MIT’s bias, ie. the tremendous investment and embedding of nuclear industry interests in its research efforts, can no doubt also be observed in big pharma’s relationship with the University of Arizona research facilities.

In short, the headline should read:

“Big pharma continues to get the results it pays for.  Patient needs be damned.”