Login

In his op-ed piece ("It's Not the Radium Advisory Board, "Nov. 11) Richard Bangert declares my article about the Radium Advisory Board's (RAB) cutback an "insult," that I "ridicule," "instill fear and distrust," use "the word radium four times ... because [it] sounds more frightening" and that I "irresponsibly state that Alameda 'will eventually inherit a brownfi eld.'"

I suggest he re-read my piece and attend more carefully to actual meaning. Meanwhile, I agree that the board is not named after radium, or any of the other contaminants at Alameda Point.

These contaminants include arsenic, benzene, caustic cleaners, cadmium, chloroform, chromium, copper, cyanide, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), the organochlorine pesticide DDx, degreasers, diesels, dioxin, fuels, gasoline, industrial solvents, inert and unexploded ordnance.

Also included among the contaminants are lead, machine oils, medical waste, mercury, naphthalene, nickel, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), paints and strippers, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), radionuclides, silver, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), toluene, trichloroethylene (TCE), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), vinyl chloride, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), xylene and zinc.

Neutral, generic "restoration" is a misnomer, too: "restoring" the Point would reproduce marshland, albeit still contaminated. The EPA's defi nition: "brownfi eld site means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant."

Indeed, my basic assumptions about the cleanup were not dissimilar to Bangert's and his wife, Irene Dieter's, when I conducted an audio interview with them in February 2011, prior to Bangert joining the RAB.

Better sorry than safe? Alameda residents have just one opportunity to ensure the cleanup is "clean enough" and that contaminants are not seeping into the Bay and other sensitive environments. While city government views Alameda Point as a gosling that will grow up to lay the golden egg, I am not convinced that fi nances are more important than the health and well-being of generations to come. Are you?

Consider that a consensus of experts — from among other groups like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) — determines hazard ratings after evaluating all available laboratory, epidemiological, and occupational data for a particular type of toxicity (cancer, reproductive harm, etc.) but no fi rm conclusions exist about chemicals' effects on humans since toxicity data does not exist for many chemicals, and not all types of toxicity are studied in detail.

An internationally recognized epidemiologist explained that actual risks to humans and the environment can be evaluated only by knowing both the inherent hazards of, and actual exposures to, chemicals. Moreover, tests of lab animals inaccurately refl ect the potential hazard to humans since animals are exposed to a single test chemical while humans may experience a synergistic effect when exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously (as in, say, liquefaction during earthquakes).

We know contaminates at the Point are hazardous but no one knows how a particular child or adult would react to low-level exposure over time. It can take 15 to 20 years for unanticipated side effects to become apparent and humans have different susceptibilities and genetic differences in their ability to detoxify and eliminate toxic substances. Alameda's RAB works hard to educate community members; so do I. Join us and let's work together for long-term health and safety — free of suspicion, posturing and mud-slinging.

Visit www.alamedacommunity radio.org and http://alamedapoint cleanup.blogspot.com for further information about contamination at military sites.

Susan Galleymore is an Alameda resident.