Decoding
the Corporate Ad Campaign to Push Through
the Ward Valley Radioactive Waste Dump
BY ERIC H. ROTH
Where does California's low-level radioactive
waste belong—2. 254 sites or 1?" asks an ad published in
the Los Angeles Times on February 16. "The answer is simple:
Ward Valley. "
The ad, sponsored by the California Radioactive Materials Management
Forum, is a textbook case of brilliant corporate propaganda, combining
real information and a powerful exhortation to action, ostensibly
in the interest of public safety. The ad's backers—all of whom
would directly benefit from the proposed Ward Valley nuclear dump,
to be located 20 miles from Needles and the Colorado River—present
themselves as solid corporate citizens protecting the common good.
Further, the ad promotes one solution to the real problem of storing
dangerous low-level radiation as the "only solution. " Finally,
by ignoring several complicating factors, the ad effectively reduces
a complex public-health problem and environmental crisis into a simple
question of "common tense" as pan of a lobbying campaign
to rush approval of an extremely controversial project.
Like all intelligent and effective propaganda, the powerful, nearly
full-page ad outlines real dangers and offers a simple answer. As
die recent 6. 8 earthquake illustrated, several local hospitals and
universities including ones storing low-level radioactive waste (LLRW)—are
less than perfectly safe. LLRW, as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, includes waste from biotech firms, nuclear power plants,
hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies.
Given the number of medical laboratories and hospitals located here,
the fact that LLRW is scattered in 502 separate places around Los
Angeles County alone is understandable. But as the ad notes, this
is hardly reassuring. It's easy to imagine emergency crews, especially
Airing a terrible disaster, unable to contain fires. In such a frightening
scenario, radioactive materials could pox a significant threat to
the popula tion.
Further. Al Pasternak of the California Radioactive Materials Management
Forum, a lobby group for the nuclear-power industry, asserts that
there were "several near-misses" during the Northridge quake,
including a fire at a research center. While not able to provide precise
details. Pasternak also notes the serious damage to local hospitals
that could qualify for radioactive-material licenses. These circumstances
highlight the disturbing plausibility of a nuclear nightmare.
The ad published twice already, argues that "Unless California
is allowed to open its own disposalfacility in the Mojave Desert's
remote Ward Valley, low-level radioactive waste will continue to accumulate
in the populated urban areas where it is produced—an expensive
and unsatis factory condition that no one wants."
Clearly designed to channel fear of nuclear accidents into support
for the Ward Valley project, the ad also tells readers that the site
has already been licensed. The land, however, must be sold to California
by the federal government "Inexplicably, Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt has delayed the land transfer indefinitely, " the ad
goes on to state.
A variety of professional organizations ranging from the American
College of Nuclear Physicians and the National Association of Cancer
Patients to the California Chamber of Commerce top the list of sponsors.
Yet the supporters also include U. S. Ecology—the corporation
that would manage Ward Valley—PG&E, Southern California Edison,
and San Diego Gas & Electric. The ad concludes with the brilliant,
almost Orwellian slogan, "Let him [Babbitt] know the public's
health is more important than politics."
Playing on the general public's distrust of politics in general, the
ad claims the moral high ground while advocating policies that directly
benefit the sponsors' special interests. In addition, it manages totally
to distort the public-health debate, dismissing all concerns about
Ward Valley's safety and proximity to the Colorado River.
The ad also conveniently ignores widespread sentiment that U. S. Ecology
is not to be trusted with oversight of the dump. The company, formerly
known as the Nuclear Engineering Company, has a long and dishonorable
history of mismanaging other toxic sites across the country. Their
Maxey Flats, Kentucky, dump became a Superfund site; their Sheffield,
Illinois, damp leaked tritium, causing damage estimated at over $50
billion; and their Beatty, Nevada, dump closed. These are among the
"inexplicable" reasons mat Babbitt, often rated as the most
intelligent and competent member of Clinton's cabinet, is delaying
the land transfer.
Babbitt, (the former head of the League of Conservation Voters and
governor of Arizona, has another "inexplicable" reason.
Both Governor Pete Wilson and Babbitt had previously promised id hold
public hearings on the controversial land transfer and listen to the
latest scientific evidence, in order to assess the danger of radioactive
materials leaking into the Colorado River. Another broken promise
to environmentalists by the Clinton Administration would look awkward.
Worst of all, the nuclear-industry-sponsored ad basically challenges
the right of the government to protect the public, while expressing
an absolute disdain for democracy. The "politics" the ad
so contemptuously denounces is giving local residents and concerned
citizens the chance to be heard. The ad cynically wants to prevent
from speaking the people who would be the most likely victims of any
tragic "mistake. "
Citizens, often excluded from par ticipating
in vital decisions that direct ly affect their own survival, know
that, as the ad states, "health is more im–portant than
politics. " People seldom vote to expand cancer in their own
neighborhood, yet somehow the an–nual number of environmentally
linked cancer casualties increases yearly. The definition of "acceptable
risk" often depends on who answers the question. A neighbor's
perspec–tive differs from an "expert" hired by a toxic-waste
company. "Affordable'' has a different meaning for an investor
in a utility company and a family living downwind from a nuclear power
plant.
Politics becomes corrupt when politics means secret backroom deals
made by small elite groups. Politicians, who are almost always campaigning
for some office, lose the public's trust when they collect generous
contributions from special interests—even if they only sell "access,
not support. " The euphemisms can't hide the close relationship
between contributors' 'astute" advice to political leaders and
their often selfish decisions that negatively impact the public.
One such decision was the one made by the Interior Department on the
Bush Administration's last day, to sell the 70-acre Ward Valley site
to California. Only a successful lawsuit blocked the title transfer
and prevented this nefarious abuse of power. Yes. "the public's
health is more important than politics. " Where was the ad then?
Clearly, the persistent problem of radioactive waste is a complex
one for environmentalists, medical re searchers, and energy companies
alike. Some hospitals and doctors fear storing radioactive materials
on site for prolonged periods. Meanwhile, residents of Needles, the
small town just west of the proposed dump, ominously note the tragic
history of nuclear dumps leaking materials and warn that the Colorado
River is perilously close to the Ward Valley site. As Susan Da vis
writes in The Greater Los Angeles Green Pages, "Thirty-four years
into the commercial nuclear age. we still don't know what to do with
its radioactive waste."
The ugly reality is that the highly toxic material must be stored
some where, and the only dump site currently accepting LLRW is inconveniently
located thousands of miles away in Barnell. South Carolina. (California
used to ship LLRW to two other privately managed dump sites in Beat-ty.
Nevada, and Hartford, Washington. But the Beatty dump was closed because
of leaks, like three other former LLRW dump sites, and the Hanford
dump now only accepts shipments from neighboring states.)
Complicating matters further is that South Carolina could, under a
widely ig–nored 1980 law called the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act ban nuclear waste from out-of-state sources beginning June
30. 1994. The same law. for better or worse, also requires every state
to develop a dumping ground for LLRW to reduce the danger of transporting
highly toxic materials on highways and train tracks. The shorter the
distance to a safe storage site, the less chance of a tragic nuclear
accident occurring en route. For this reason, some nuclear physicians
argue that on-site storage might be a safer option.
But environmental critics of the proposed Ward Valley dump, including
Greenpeace and Physicians for Social Responsibility, also criticize
the fundamental assumption behind the ad. The environmental risks
could increase exponentially if the Ward Valley dump is irresponsibly
managed and contaminates an aquifer feeding into the Colorado River.
The proposed nuclear dump could conceivably poison Californians and
cause long-term environmental damage. (Some LLRW has a hazardous life
of over one million years. ) The troubled history of U.S. Ecology,
an easy target for environmentalists, increases doubts.
Finally, the ad also champions another favorite theme of Ward Valley
advocates by implying that all LLRW is basically equal. While it is
true that hospitals and medical-research centers would contribute
to the dump, the vast majority of radioactive waste would come from
nuclear power plants. According to Davis. the author of a piece entitled
"Worries in Ward Valley, " even the Department of Energy
says that "more than 90 percent of the waste will come from nuclear
power plants and only two-tenths of one percent will come from hospitals,
research centers, and other medical facilities."
LLRW might be an inevitable byproduct of popular medical procedures,
but more enlightened energy policies can eliminate even the supposed
need for dangerous nuclear power plants. Ward Valley does not need
to be sacrificed for wasteful energy consumption.
Babbitt, a cabinet member considered by Clinton to be too valuable
to become a Supreme Court justice, must weigh the comparative risks
of the unsatisfactory status quo and the potentially greater dangers
of opening Ward Valley. A decision to approve the land transfer, without
another series of public hearings, could prolong.
America's dependence on— and acceptance of—nuclear energy.
A false solution might be worse than no solution to die nuclear-waste
question. Given the lon-term implications, going slow might be the
wisest course of action.
That's just another one of those "inexplicable reasons"
Babbitt has delayed approving the Ward Valley project. But the ad
didn't mention that either.
Back
to top
