Nuclear Bevatron to be Demolished

How does knowing what was done in the building matter to disposal? All that is relevant is the levels of radiation in the debris and that can easily be measured with a geigercounter. This article seems like it's only purpose is to get people scared.

Thank you for caring,

It seems these days it's hard to get people to move on a issue to save their own lives and the lives of future generations (7 generations). This subject of UC Berkeley first pulverizing the Bevatron which will greatly endanger the workers taking it apart but also all the hill resident in and around Lawarenc Hall of Science but also communities like Orinda and Walnut Creek. When they decide to transport over 100,000 tons of thius carcingenic waste down University Avenue for the next three years with 4700 truck trips with it covered by a tarp, we will get an entire poisoning of the East Bay. The problem could be solve by doing little maintenance($$$) by sealng the walls of the Bevatron and leaving the hazardous material in the walls of the Bevatron.

1. Who has $72 billion dollars? How much does it cost to decommission the bevatron and leave it where it is? Oh yeah, it already was decommissed in 1993. Physicists can afford a few minutes to transport themselves to a separate site whenever they need to visit the new machine.
2. "The demolition will last 3½ to 8 years": Really now, someone must be able to produce a smaller-toleranced estimate. This is 2009, with 100 years of systems analysis behind us.
3. "...the radioactivity it is imbued with decomposes and morphs into who-knows-what substances." : Many people do know.
4. Yes, indeed, the author is trying to scare us. "science fiction","No one knows exactly how dangerous they will be","the lab put these things in place in our community, with no community involvement, because they could","worry that this will mean radioactive and hazardous dust released into the air—all this in close proximity to the children’s science museum","development of hydrogen and uranium bombs","how can we trust what occurred there?","
5. "When knowledge is found and disseminated, how can we be sure it is only used for good?": That's Science for you! :)
6. "...prospects for groundbreaking science with a super-x-ray laser have yet to be realized": Again, that's Science.
7. $72 billion dollars for unnecessary demolition. Can someone explain please?

The two "tinfoil hats" comments are just nasty and strangely defensive.

I thought the article was a useful report on an issue that probably isn't getting a lot of mainstream coverage. It contextualizes the Bevatron's demolition, pointing to its history, the way it was/is seen by the public, and poses the question of environmental justice.

I think it's completely understandable for the public to be concerned about how the Bevetron is demolished. If the public is misinformed, then I think this is a failure of the scientists who should be educating and listening to the public/community. Science does not and should not happen in a vacuum.

So glad to see a robust discussion in the making. Heavy on the logos,
and with a heaping helping of snide innuendo on top of that, these are the
signs of a good controversy in the making. We the tribe of the supposed
"tin foil hats" (see comment above)--the fear mongering
chicken-littles of the world--are not dissuaded. Our opinion
remains fixed.

So what of this acerbic and accusatory stance? Are we to dismiss the significance
of the decommission process? As though no issue of public safety, health
and secondary contamination were of importance? Surely the writer jests.

High ratings for glibness--the tin foil hat caricature as a kind of ad hominus
insult--is not winning stuff in the game of higher truth. We're talking survival here,
so best to put aside the wanton and the snide in favor of brass tacks and
"rational deconstruction".

Moving to the logos of the contentious and dismissive tirade (above)--
there remains the authentic
appeal to reason, the argument about geiger counters and panic attacks.
Herein lies the rub, and the real reason why this author ought to "check himself".
Because the matter of toxic exposure assesments ought to have been
divulged by those running the sludge. In a city that explicitly noted its
concern for this matter by passing a nuclear free zone initiative,
we not only have a flagrant violation occurring in plain view.
Even worse, the very authorities who have a history--a "pattern of
conduct" to put it legal terms--of talking out both sides of their backside--
committing wanton environmental and human rights atrocities by of
toxins and mass epidemics (see the work of Ellen Silbergeld
of MIT and John's Hopkins fame, the top toxicologist on these topics)
while waxing sanctimoniously over the supposed disreputability of
all us "chicken littles"--these very "authorities" who parade about
the public square wrapped up in the banner of so called "public service"
and the apriori attribution of "honor" that the norms of the world
preferentially grant to such figures--these are the ones who set us
"chicken littles" of the world for the ultimate prize that is yet to come.

Today's chicken littles, with tin foil hats and all manner of pejorative
and falsely ascribed regalia, must endure the slings
and arrows of false detractors and push forward.
And why not? After all, if we imagine ourselves to be correct
then certainly time will ultimately vindicate us, so that those of us
who appose the dismissive stance--the ever inviting sloth of the arm chair,
the television, the beer can and weekends of ritualized immersion
in the bread and circus routine of professional sports--
those of us actually trying to DO SOMETHING ABOUT
saving the world, might ultimately get an authentic "listenning".
Logos first, tin foil hats second, the higher ground and the common
ground granted to those who called it right, the chicken little of today
should expect vindication by way of the catastrophes to come,
to serve as some kind of lesson to the broader community.
That by way of events that confirm wisdom of heeding the
precautionary voice in a proactive manner, one would
expect to see a metamorphosis of being in our midst;
such that those who favored the false comfort and complacency
of the establishmentarian narcosis might actually wake up,
smell the coffee. that denial is not "just a river in Egypt",
and that those of us carrying the burden of the pejorative
smear and the Scarlett Letter might someday be graced
by the sounds of acknowledgement of error.
that apologies might be sounded. that the chicken littles
of today might therebye become the accepted voices
of reason tommorrow.

Yeah sure. In a world of the reasonable, one might expect such
reasonable outcomes. but of course, we don't. Just as today's
supposed "alarmist" may often correctly reads the "signs" so as to make the
most important prognostications, so as to preempt catastrophe,
"to sew the [proverbial] stitch in time",
he or she must endure the sight of his or her sociological "elders"--
those who performed the same function in a past era--
suffer a manner of existence so humiliating and degrading
as to greatly deter further action of any kind.
Because the social world--the world of lefty activism included--
is not one where good deeds are known to go unpunished.
In this regard, today's tin foil hat wearing "chicken little"
knows well, that the future vindication by way of an easily
foreseen catastrophe itself constitutes a perverse reward at best.
A victory of ego--vindication by way of events that confirm
the truth of a personal stance--
is achieved at the expense of the sacred.
In the case of the Bevatron waste, one shudders to imagine
the consequences.

Even worse, the status of having been right confers not that title
of the wise, but that of the "messenger", an ominous ascription if ever
there was. He or she can not therefore plausibly expect reward
by way of later acknowledgement and apology. there's no big
"win" here, by being right. Instead, there is only insult heaped upon
injury. Yesterday, the one mocked and ridiculed into the margin
who is vindicated by fact, is tomorrow's scapegoat.
that's just the way it is.

Try to raise the point
in conversation, so as to curtail the tendency of the football addicts
to run their mouths into mind numbing tirades and cheap shots,
so as to open minds and eyes to the challenges that remain,
and again, it's the same old routine. yesterday's "chicken little"
who tries, by way of allusion to the depressing parallels of the past,
to bring a deeper dimension to the debate on one hand,
and to establish his or her own credibility vis a vis the
TV, the court and the academician--are to be regarded
as too "negative". We're not the ones who get rewarded for our work.
We're the one's who are tarred and feathered before the storm.
And then after the fact, when the proverbial "sky" itself
has indeed "fallen" upon us--the consequences of our complacency
and failure to timely act broadly manifest--when the call of
principled conduct rightly should compel those tossing spit balls of BS
to refrain and to apologize for a legacy of behavior that was
unwarranted from the start--it is at this time when the insult
is added to the injury of failed outcomes.

And so what do we have to look forward to?
4700 truckloads--upwards of 100,000 metric tons--of decommission
waste being dug, aerosolized and trucked across city streets.
No estimate offered regarding the actual radioactive burden contained,
one would think the scientists of UC incapable of operating a
geiger counter. And that's just the point. the fact that the geiger counter
based tests have not been performed, or publicly discussed
is itself a fact that ought to affirm the perception of wisdom
in the "alarmist" camp. because there's this thing called "reason",
and from it derives an understanding of what constitutes a
"reasonable expectation". It establishes
a standard by which we in the public may hope to evaluate
the legitimacy of conduct, so that we in the public may independently
evaluate this matter of guilt and innocence on one hand.
And in the case of guilt, we may likewise hope to establish
a standard of culpability that further aligns
us with the orthodoxies of power that prevail in the courts
themselves, that one may hope to establish in mind
a standard that likewise allows for the discernment
of official transgression, so as to evaluate a more precise
point, whether it be criminal or negligent in nature.
So that the cause of justice may ultimately be served.

I mean, come on! The burden is on the transgressor, to prove
that standards of public safety are being met, and that defines
a standard of conduct that any lawyer would recognize,
called "due diligence". Because with power comes responsibility--
a lesson that any parent of teenager in transition to independence
would know--hence we may readily conclude.
the failure of public disclosure regarding contamination levels
should not be viewed as cause for complacency
in favor of puddling droole before the spectacle professional sports and
Roman-like stadiums. Such an interpretation is what we in
the philosophy world regard as a "false inference"; one that has
been sold to the reader by way of a whimsical allusion to tin foil hats.
As though that were a rational argument. which it is not.

The understanding about the relation of power and responsibility
that gives rise to the standard of "due diligence", allows
us to view the failure of public disclosure vis a vis geiger counter
readings and alike, as nothing less than a crime of wanton negligence
all unto itself. And even worse, this otherwise inexplicable failure
of conduct--that itself opens the institutions to credible charges
of actually criminal negligence--can be understood likewise
as establishing the an even more damning accusation
against officialdom.

It's about this thing called "consciousness of guilt".
Many of us recall the term from past media coverage;
it was the basis of the whole Martha Stewart fiasco of a few years back.
It's the idea that one can infer from the conduct of the accused
"after the fact" that they were aware of their criminal guilt
vis a vis a prior event simply by way of evidence that shows
the accused altering evidence. We see in the Bevatron decommission
the failure of "due diligence" vis a vis toxic assesment,
and we can readily discern the emergence of a credible
argument in favor of "consciousness of guilt", hence
premeditation. In other words, by way of failure of disclosure,
the UC officials are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Granted, the formal definition of "consciousness of guilt"--
as demonstrated with the case of Martha Steward--
is said to apply to actions after the crime itself.
While it may be readily counter argued therefore,
that this most damning inference of the tin foil hat brigade
itself wouldn't stand in court, a counter to this should
serve to bring our minds to a place where the importance
of old saying about "all politics [being] local" should
emerge in its full luster, as a kind of magical key to the
would be activist in training.

because the legal definition itself, by which the alteration of
evidence PRIOR to the crime is itself arbitrarily exempted
from statute, should truly serve to up ante a bit.
Because it really is not logical to do so. Far from any kind
of "objective" means of inference, it can be seen from
the Bevatron case and so many others like it in the sordid
history that pertains, that it's always the suppression
and alteration of evidence PRIOR to the crime that most
unambiguously serves to indict the powerful for crimes
against humanity itself. And therefore, quite convenient
is it not? that those of the apriori "honorable" who run
the courts and dictate the orthodoxies of the norm should
arbitarily construe the rules of justice itself so as to
facilitate this broad, systemic and wantonly obvious
modus operandi?

4700 truckloads of nuclear tainted waste is no joke.
and the matter of addressing the issue by way of sounding
the alarm in the public square is no laughing matter either.
it's an issue that cuts to the core. that is both local and global
in dimension. it's the one that earns the ascription of the tin foil hat
and the looney fringe, and the destiny of being hated Mr "I-Told-You-So".
It's a big ocean of boo hoo and sorrow and no doubt the mere
raising of the issue is NOT going to make many friends.
Pride is not the motive here. this is not about vanity any more
than fear mongering. If the tin foil hat to be worn by those
who raise the alarm, who distinguish themselves by way of
committing to an authentic and caring discussion,
then so be it.

in fairness however, I should like to be pictured alongside my detractor
who so recklessly tosses about pejorative innuendo in favor of Scarlett
Lettered sloth. Me wearing my tin foil hat,
and he in turn wearing a dunce cap with a propeller.

(the propeller can be understood as an allusion to another issue of great
importance that the Chicken Littles of Berkeley likewise find themselves
confronting with dismay. it's this matter of paramilitary overflights
in civilian areas and the prospect of impending martial law.)

I can't help but ask if the people of Berkeley, CA are suicidal. Everyone knows that uncontained radioactive waste is lethal to plants, animals, and people. And yet, very few people in Berkeley are protesting the removal of 47,000 truckloads of uncontained nuclear waste down the city streets. What's worse, the few brave souls who are standing against this atrocity are being ostracized by the rest of the community. In the home of the free speech movement, it is now uncool to speak up about what matters most; our environment.