Thursday, July 24, 2008

The return of the toxic plume?

.....Our old pal Matt Coker has a worrisome piece in the OC Weekly today concerning the “toxic plume” beneath the Great Park (it’s beneath IVC, too). (See TOXIC SOUP DU JOUR.)
.....We here at DtB have occasionally drawn attention to the plume. But nobody seems to give a damn, 'ceptin' strange people in far-away lands.
.....In today’s Weekly piece, Matt notes that, maybe a decade ago, opponents of the El Toro airport played the “toxic plume” card, citing studies. The plume is contamination that seeped into Irvine’s ground water, mostly from military activity starting in 1942. (See Navy, Wavy, Gravy, April 2000.)
.....Soon thereafter, pro-airport forces (including Newport Beach Richy Rich types) sought to quell the growing “Great Park” movement, so they whipped out those same studies. (See Noxious Talk, January, 2002.)
.....A year later, the Weekly's Anthony Pignataro described Larry Agran (Irvine Councilman and promoter of the Great Park) and his curious shifts in position about the plume, depending on the needs of the moment. (See Toxics? What Toxics?, April, 2003.)
.....Well, as we all know, the Great Park forces (Agran, Fuentes, NIMBY, Gumby, et al.) prevailed against those nasty big-business “airport” people with their dollar-sign eyes.
.....According to Matt, when Irvine gained control over the El Toro property in 2005, “the toxic soup talk went away.”
.....Recently, there’s been lots of hoopla about the Great Park, and Agran remains the ringmaster. We hear about the big orange balloon. But we don’t hear much about the big orange toxic plume, even though a part of the "park" master plan is housing developments.
.....Curious, isn’t it?


.....Very recently, though, the plume came seeping back. According to Matt, the Financial Times News reported on an alleged cover-up of the toxic danger. (See.) This report created some buzz in Irvine in the last two weeks, owing to fliers and such. It's affected the real estate crowd some.
.....One problem though: nobody seems to know quite where to locate this “Financial Times News” story. There's a newspaper by that name, of course, but (says Matt) its fonts don't match those of the article that's been distributed. (I guess the Weekly is too cheap to pay for an online subscription.)
.....But other media have gotten into the act, including NewsOc.org. Their page has a link to a story by salem-news.com that reports on former El Toro Marines and their worries about exposure to the carcinogen TCE.
.....Yeah, I remember TCE. It was all over our reporting about the plume.
.....The latter ("Salem") story includes a YouTube video, which follows a former Marine onto the dilapidated base:



.....What’s it all mean? Dunno. Could be a bunch of hype. Not sure. We know the plume exists. Is it dangerous? Are we drinkin' it? Our earlier posts revealed that there are facilities that seek to push the plume around and maybe filter out the toxins. There's some 40-year timeline, as I recall. About 8 years ago, some Irvine residents got steamed about how they were filling one of those fake Irvine lakes with the plumage. Check it out.
.....Then forget, for ignorance is bliss.

Dissent's old posts about the plume:

The “toxic plume” 1/06
Photographic updatery 1/06
Don't read this story! 1/07

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't understand. Is there a danger to people or not? I mean, isn't the plume hundreds of feet beneath our feet? I can see why you wouldn't want to drink it, but I don't see the problem with standing on top of it from a distance.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 6:50, maybe it's like the huge deposit of DDT on the ocean floor just off Long Beach: it's there, it's toxic, it's too expensive to clean up, so they just "capped" it, poured a bunch of sand, on top of it, to make it stable. Or similar to asbestos in old houses: it's not a problem until someone uncovers it and stirs it up.

Of course, I really have no idea whether any of this is right or not...just speculating. The plume may be as dangerous as hell for all I know, right from where it is.

Anonymous said...

For sure, I wouldn't drink the water.

Under my college, the water is radioactive from naturally occurring uranium (or so I am told). The city tests it and will shut down a well that tests "dirty," but then the same problem occurs in the other wells. (It is the same basic water table, of course.) Lots of people--faculty and staff and spouses--get cancer. Brain tumors, breast cancer, etc.

There is controversy, of course, as to whether we have here a "cancer cluster," or what the cause of it is if we do, but many of us suspect that we do have a much higher incidence of cancer, especially brain tumors, and that it's from the uranium.

No one in authority seems to be taking the problem too seriously here, either. I try to remember not to drink any water from the fountains on campus or from any tap in the area.

Some of us have moved further away from the campus. Few faculty live near campus anymore. Nice, eh?

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...