bias
Posted by John Tauxe on April 26, 1999 at 13:10:44:In Reply to: Permit Issue posted by Joan Seeman on April 10, 1999 at 23:25:51:
Joan -
I'm glad someone responded to my comment. I was beginning to think folks were going to allow me the last word, here. Let me respond to your concerns:
About bias - Well, we all have our biases, don't we? My basic environmental philosophy is that we humans have made some serious mistakes, and have not proved to be capable stewards of the planet. Not that we are supposed to be, due to any sort of external force or what-have-you, but just as de facto stewards, since we are the major manipulative species of our time. Our time is not forever, and we will some day go the way of the dinosaurs, and I would like us to leave a small footprint. Already we have stomped pretty heard on Mother Earth, and I would love to reverse the trend.
Ever since my positive experiences with the Sierra Club in high school in the 70's, I have held strongly to this environmental ethic, and have made choices in education and carrer that reflect that. I studied earth science as an undergraduate, worked for a few years in the field of geoscience research, and decided that although interesting, that line of work was not addressing some pressing social and environmental issues that I felt were important. So, I returned to school to pursue a PhD in Environmental Engineering, with a brief foray into Public Affairs, at the Univ. of Texas at Austin. Instead of just standing on the sidelines shouting slogans that sounded persuasive, I wanted to know the real truth behind how humans are affecting the environment, ane what can be done about it.
During my education, I was appalled to learn of the waste disposal and treatment practices that had been sanctioned by the EPA -- deep well injection being a particularly nasty example. I was among a small subset of engineers that had a geology background, and could see that many of these technologies were farcical. 30 years of monitoring of a landfill is all that is required? Ridiculous.
I also learned of the extent of waste problems and environmental problems foisted on the planet by DOE, and managed to visit Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Rocky Flats, Hanford, Fernald, Sandia, Los Alamos, Nevada Test Site and, yes, WIPP, in an effort to understand the problem. In short, it is astoundingly complex. Yet it all involves engineering and earth science. After seeing all this, I thought to myself, "Now, here is a place that I can make a difference!" And so, since then, I have worked hard to direct the long-term environmental decisions made by various levels of government, including the DOE.
That said, you are likely to label me as a stinking subcontractor to the enemy. I would counter that I have been much more effective in influencing policy "from the inside" than many of those I left screaming on the sidelines.
I admit that doing this kind of work requires an open mind. I have studied WIPP for a long time, and went in with the specific objective of deciding for myself, based on all the information I could gather, whether WIPP was a good thing or a bad thing. For now, I see it as a good thing, but remain open to convincing arguments to the contrary.
Of course WIPP is not perfect. There is no perfect place for any waste our society creates. Once we (as a society) have decided to make it, no matter how misguided that decision, we have to live with the stuff. I'd rather live with it 2000 feet down in a salt bed 500,000,000 old than to have it sitting around in tents scattered all around the country, waiting for the next tornado. The idea of waiting for the perfect solution is absurd. It is not likely to materialize, especially if people are not allowed to experiment with the stuff, and it is simply immoral to leave it to future generations to solve the problem. the last generation did that to us, and where are we now?
It seems that your Colorado State Health Department lied to you, and DOE lied to you, and to all of us. Is this any surprise? No one is more cynical than I when it comes to our government and it's abuse of public trust. But with the example of WIPP, just because DOE happened to develop a reasonable site and may be guilty of overselling it does not mean that it is not a good site. Given the alternatives, it is a great site.
Waste management is always inherently in experimental mode, since we can't wait for centuries to collect the data to guarantee that a given technology is viable. Waste management professionals are responding to public outcry to "Get rid of the garbage!" yet "Not in my backyard!" It's a tough field of engineering to be into, since you are attacked from both sides. Yet I still feel that it is a good place to be to make a difference. The real solution is to STOP MAKING GARBAGE, but Americans especially don't want to hear that -- no, they want to continue blithely burning up resources faster than any other country, and also be the cops of the world, bristling with nukes. I am not in the business of changing those attitudes, since I would not know where to begin. Humans have screwed up and will continue to do so. If we insist on generating more crap, the least we can do is bury it instead of leaving it out in the open. For the sake of future species.