top_big.jpg (6381 bytes)
left_1.gif (1896 bytes)
left_2.gif (1896 bytes)
left_3.gif (1789 bytes)
left_4.gif (1836 bytes)
left_5.gif (1618 bytes)
left_6.gif (1592 bytes)
left_7.gif (2053 bytes)
left_bot.jpg (10009 bytes)
webmaster

logosm.jpg (19382 bytes)

Why Isn't The Incinerator in NYC?

By David Brinkley

My wife, Susan, and I arrived in Jackson Hole in the spring, looking forward to another summer in this pleasant town in one of the most beautiful settings on earth. The mountains, the cool air, the beautiful clouds, interesting small shops, the wonderfully friendly people.

We found it all to be the same as ever, but we also heard our Jackson friends talking in deep concern about the incinerator. The incinerator? What is that? We soon learned. Everyone we knew in town told us that the state of Idaho, just next door, is intent on building one to burn the plutonium and other poisonous waste from out of state. Why here? Because when efforts were made to build incinerators in other locations with nuclear reactors „ Lawrence Livermore, Rocky Flats and Los Alamos „ legal action by the public stopped them all. And not only that, a panel of scientists at Livermore reported: "We view incineration as a violation of the cardinal principle of radioactive waste treatment, namely containing radioactivity rather than spreading it around." The scientists at Livermore, in short, rejected an incinerator as unwanted at their own location and somebody suggested that it would be welcomed in Idaho, a state with no great industrial base. It came and it was indeed welcomed by the Idaho politicians who saw high-paying jobs coming into a state that badly needed them. So, hardly for the first time, politicians settled for money over any other considerations.

The next stop will be in Jackson Hole just across the state line, where a lawsuit will soon be filed in the courts. A Wyoming lawyer, Gerry Spence, has taken the case pro bono and is filing suit to block the building of the incinerator.

Then it's on its way to the courts for a hearing and a lawsuit that says the winds could bring nuclear pollution into Jackson Hole and Yellowstone National Park, endangering the health of humans and animals. It does not necessarily kill the animals but those commonly used in the human diet, such as cattle and buffalo, are made inedible.

Paul Connet, the scientist, says the incinerator will pump deadly poisons into the air, worst of all plutonium, which causes cancer, even in the tiniest amounts. The would-be builder of the incinerator, the INEEL (The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory) insists that filters will remove any dangerous chemicals but Spence says the filters are unreliable and have failed eight times in the past, endangering lives.

Critics of the incinerator, who are numerous in Jackson Hole, ask: if the project is safe, why was it turned down in the three places having serious histories of nuclear research? Is the industry expecting to use the Idaho incinerator as the national trash can? Why else did it come here?

Idaho's Governor Kempthorne stoutly defends his decision to welcome the new incinerator, saying it brings money into a state that is not swimming in it and has already created the highest-paying jobs in the state and insists that the threats to public health are overstated and that the operation will be safe. But the critics ask: "If the incinerator is all that safe why did they decide to build it out here in Idaho?

"If it's as safe as they claim, they could have built it in New York's Central Park."

Return to the top of this page...