Justification

Submitted by Walter E. Wallis on Fri, 2005-07-29 15:27.

I question whether any of the supposed contaminants at Hanger One pose a detectable risk to either human or animal life. Before any further public funds, and especially defense funds, are spent on this boondogle, we should demand a cost-benefit determination.

login or register to post comments | previous forum topic
( categories: general )
Contaminants
Submitted by Jeff Segall on Fri, 2005-07-29 21:08.

The contaminants at Hanger One are PCBs, asbestos, and lead. PCBs are a known carcinogen that have been banned in the US for decades. They build up in your fat. PCBs really aren't a contaminant in this case because the hanger is built in large part of PCBs, present at levels thousands of times those considered safe. The PCBs are getting out, both outside and inside the building. That's why the building was shut down. In short, the problem is serious to both human health and the environment. This is not a matter of debate.

As to whether defense funds should be spent on "this boondoggle", common sense ("the polluter pays") says they should. Federal law says the same thing.

login or register to post comments
It is a matter for debate
Submitted by Walter E. Wallis on Fri, 2005-07-29 22:31.

It is a matter for debate because I am debating it. The assertion that PCBs are known carcinogens is stretching the truth. Like many toxic materials the dose makes the poison, and there is no mechanism by which the building PDBs could be delivered to a body in any significant dosage. The federal law to which you refer is one of the military bashing laws passed in the kick the army days, and it is already, as in the case of McClellan field, being reconsidered. Tell me how the supposed contamination would enter a body and what the concentration would be. We lost the Challenger a couple of years ago and damned near lost another shuttle the other day because of some brainless acceptance of another stupid EPA ruling. Show the harm or follow my suggestions.

login or register to post comments
Re: It is a matter for debate
Submitted by Jeff Segall on Sat, 2005-07-30 16:57.

It is a matter for debate because I am debating it.

You are right, of course. Anyone can debate anything. Poor choice of words on my part.

The assertion that PCBs are known carcinogens is stretching the truth.

The specific PCB found at Hangar One is Aroclor 1268. It is listed as a recognized carcinogen and a developmental toxicant. A quick google search shows scientific studies that support this determination. Of course, I suppose it's possible this work is just so much garbage. It's my opinion that it's safer and wiser to assume the work is correct, but I recognize that this is just my opinion.

... and there is no mechanism by which the building PDBs could be delivered to a body in any significant dosage.

Interesting! I really don't know how PCBs might enter the body in this instance. It seems to me, though, that if it is true that extremely high concentration PCB-laden dust is raining down continuously inside the hanger, as Navy officials have stated, then breathing this stuff and getting it on one's clothing and skin is probably not a good thing. That's why when this problem was discovered the air and space museum people were forced to vacate the hanger and it was sealed. Given your assertion, I suppose one approach might be to let lots of people, including children, back into Hangar One and over time, see how many of them get sick and die, and then do the cost/benefit analysis you suggested. I don't think it's a good idea to use people as guinea pigs in this way, but again that's just my opinion. The Navy doesn't seem to think this is a good idea, either, and that's why the building is sealed.

Even if it could be proved beyond doubt that there is no way for this junk to enter the human body directly, the Aroclor 1268, (a rare type of PCBs, apparently) has been found in soils downstream from Hangar One. From there, it enters the foodchain, damaging wildlife. And on up the foodchain to humans. Reasons enough to clean it up. My opinion, again, but also the law.

It is my position, and that of the Save Hangar One Committee, that the hanger should be cleaned up in a cost effective way, and the building be made habitable for the people of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, the Bay Area, the country and whole world to use and enjoy. I see Hangar One as a tremendous potential asset if it were cleaned up. Again, just my opinion, and those of some other folks.

The federal law to which you refer is one of the military bashing laws passed in the kick the army days,...

No, it isn't. The federal law I cite is CERCLA. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA) is designed to have parties responsible for pollution pay for cleanup, the "pollutor pays" I referred to above. It applies to all sorts of polluters, like chemical companies, for example. It's got nothing to do with "military bashing" or "the kick the army days".

Show the harm or follow my suggestions.

With all due respect, I don't think you are in a position to make demands of me. As I see it, I'm making a case for my view of the situation and backing it up with widely accepted scientific evidence and the law. I allow that you might see things differently, and might not accept things that I see as facts. And that's just fine with me.

Given the discussion so far, I kinda suspect that there is essentially nothing that will change your opinion that any effort to clean up Hanger One is at best a foolish excercise and more likely an evil and unpatriotic plot against the Defense Department. At least, nothing I can write. And I'll allow that it's pretty unlikely that you will bring me around to your way of seeing things. There is always the chance that someone else is reading this correspondance who might be interested, but this web site is not exactly a CNN.com in readership. Not yet, anyways.

So, barring something really new and interesting, I think this will be my last words on this subject. Mr. Wallis, you have the floor!

login or register to post comments
Opinions sure do vary wildly
Submitted by dblack on Sat, 2005-07-30 21:38.

Opinions sure do vary wildly regarding the contamination of Hangar One, eh? I tend to believe the whole problem is somewhat overblown. If it's such a health hazard, how come we haven't heard more from the thousands of sailors who worked for 60+ years in there? I know a few of them, and they all seem fine to me.

The specific PCB found at Hangar One is Aroclor 1268. It is listed as a recognized carcinogen and a developmental toxicant. A quick google search shows scientific studies that support this determination.
Well, you can find support for any position on the intenet. My google search for PCB's produced this from the EPA:
"There is some evidence that PCBs may have the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL." Doesn't seem too alarming to me.

..if it is true that extremely high concentration PCB-laden dust is raining down continuously inside the hanger, as Navy officials have stated..
I seem to remember the opposite. When the air sampling was completed, I thought I'd heard that the amount of PCB's in the air was below MCL for humans; in fact, you get more exposure driving down highway 101. Maybe there was subsequent testing that shows otherwise.

Anyway, it's just sad that it's got to this state. I think NASA and the Navy really view Hangar One as a legal liability rather that a health hazard, which will be harder to overcome. In my opinion :)

login or register to post comments
Re: Opinions sure do vary wildly
Submitted by Jeff Segall on Sun, 2005-07-31 07:17.

"There is some evidence that PCBs may have the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL." Doesn't seem too alarming to me.

Ah, but what is an "MCL"? MCL is an EPA acronym for Maximum Contaminant Level and refers to drinking water. It's a level for a chemical drinking water that the EPA determines is safe. Saying that a chemical isn't something to worry about because exposure at or above the MCL may not be harmful seems a little circular to me.

The EPA sets the MCL for PCBs is 0.5 ppb, or parts per billion.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/pcbs.html

By comparison, PCBs have been detected in the soils at Moffett at 59.9 ppm, or parts per million, according to the study linked below. That's 120,000 times the MCL. Yes, one number is in soils and the other is for drinking water, but it provides an useful scale, I believe.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/moffett/mof_p2.html#T1

login or register to post comments
I never know where to go
Submitted by Walter E. Wallis on Sat, 2005-07-30 23:38.

I never know where to go when I run into a True Believer. Usually, because it costs me nothing, I bow to invincible ignorance and get on with my life. However, going back to ‘49 when I observed Hangar one while hitchhiking back to Fort Ord, To when I helped design the analog flight similator in that building, and had the opportunity to view the original drawings, ink on linen, shaded rivet heads, [unfortunately lost in a fire] I kinda hate to see it get a bum rap.
Jeff hit me with such a gasconade I went back to see if I, in my dotage, remembered wrong. I did not. For all of Jeffy’s pissing and moaning, nothing but a little chloracne has ever been demonstrated from PCBs. Jeffy asks If I want to allow people back in Hanger one and see how many die. Actually, Jeffy, that experiment has been done and the answer is Tada!!! None.
For 40 years, electricians, myself included, were up to our elbows in Askarel and yet there is absolutely no epidemiology indicating any ill effect, short or long term. I believe the assessments of risk were made by kids whose alternative if they found no risk was back flipping burgers. The trillion dollars spent to eliminate Askarel was pissed down a rathole.
We can be thankful that the recently passed Information Quality Act will eliminate some of these flights of fantasy that have killed one shuttle of astronauts and threatened another, and that kills 4 million people a year with the stupid ban on DDT will no longer be able to burn witches.
Jeffy, not one thing you have said is either novel or relevant. The law, now, must be subject to the Information Quality Act, and when that happens your house of cards falls. I only hope Hangar one still stands without having to pay the extortion money to the forces of ignorance.

login or register to post comments