Death by Denial: Armenians

Death by Denial: the Armenians. April 24 comes apace. World War I mid-term test April 2007. Professor Brigit Farley, Washington State University-Tri-Cities.

Question I: The Armenian genocide was among the worst atrocities of the war. Although not initially a participant in the hostilities ,the United States was involved in this genocide and its aftermath from the start. What was the nature of that involvement, and how did it evolve? You should use Balakian's book and the World War I document architect (Ambassador Morgenthau's diary) in composing your answer.

Answer: "Remember the starving Armenians," mothers admonished children with finicky appetites when I was growing up in the 1930s, but we didn't really know what it meant.

The first 115 pages of Peter Balakian's book THE BURNING TIGRIS tells more than this reader can stand to know, having supped full of horrors and refusing to consume another word.The Armenian genocide of 1915 was preceeded by a taste of things to come during the 1890s and had a far-reaching effect on Americans for three decades. It raised a question still vital today: "To what extent are we responsible for crimes of genocide committed in other parts of he planet?" That question haunted me when visiting Auschwitz and Dachau, when touring the killing fields of Cambodia, when seeing the monument dedicated to all the sixteen year-old boys murdered by the Japanese in World War II, and when seeing the film HOTEL RWANDA, reading about the carnage in Bosnia and today in Darfur.Women were in the forefront of demanding moral accountability and positive action when the massacres first occurred 1894-96. In I903 a feminist named Charlotte Gilman demanded American leadership in prevailing "on the "Turkish government to desist from its criminal conduct." During World War I former President Theodore Roosevelt berated President Woodrow Wilson for his failure to take effective action against Turkey's planned murder of 200,000 civilian Armenians by order of the Sultan in 1890s. The carnage lasted beyond World War I and cost the lives of between a million and a million and a half Armenians. American consciousness exploded:. "In 1896 the US Congress passed the first international human rights resolution in American history, condemning the sultan for the massacres." For the first time our country became heavily involved internationally with its attempt to help the Armenians, a large Christian minority culture thousands of miles away in Turkey. Protestant American missionaries were involved with the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey and witnessed the atrocities, which brought their concerns home to the US through eyewitness accounts, personal stories, and newspaper accounts. Concern spread and was expressed internationally in 1915 when the Allies, in the midst of a war, condemned the Ottoman Turks for violating a "fundamental standard of humanity and would have consequences." Historic but empty words -- there have been no consequences and the perpetrators have neve admitted responsibility. Women activists in Boston took up the cudgel in fighting horrors thousands of miles away when news of the massacres arrived by telegraph. These strong-minded energetic women followed in the footsteps of abolitionists and joined with suffragettes. Led by Julia Ward Howe, they "launched America's first international human rights movement." Clara Barton, renowned Civil War nurse, and a group of nurses sailed to Turkey and set up relief stations to treat victims of state-sanctioned brutality and murder. Today, we rend to think ourselves superior to our predecessors, but these Red Cross treatment stations, overseas for the first time, were effective and efficient, financed largely by American donations. Since the Armenians embodied an exotic ancient culture and were "the first Christian in the world," Protestant Americans were emotionally involved and sent missionaries to convert Armenians from its patriarchal ways, teach women their rights, promote education, encourage BIBLE study, and worst of all in Turkish eyes, emphasize human rights for all. Imperialism and a superior attitude toward the "backward" Armenians were part of American zeal, not just in Turkey. Christians and Jews had no legal rights in Turkey, anathema to Americans. Turks and Kurds extored outrageous taxes, tortured, killed, raped, and stole with impunity. All the Armenians wanted were fair taxation, freedom of conscience, public meetings, equality under the law, protection of life and property, the right to bear arms for self-defense, and for the 1878 Treaty of Berlin to be upheld. Instead, Turkish promises meant nothing, and 20,000 Armenians were massacred in the late 1890s. Americans such as William McKinley, William Jennings Bryan, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and John D.Rockefeller, newspapers, church groups, the U.S. Congress, and diplomatic corps affirmed that "Americans had an obligation to humanity." Pres. Grover Cleveland was lukewarm, which did not diminish Clara Barton's relief efforts. The number of Armenian victims rose to 100,000 by 1900, including the Sasun massacre in 1894. This was only the beginning of "Islamic fanaticism and a jihad mentality" fostered by the Turkish government, whose ruler Abful Hamid continued to deny everything and blame the victims.

Things got worse in the 20th century.The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau noted the German presence in Turkey in 1914, describing how effectively German officers trained Turkish troops. Morganthau was assured that the jihad pamphlet urging Turks to kill all unbelievers except Germans did not apply to Americans. Armenians, however, continued to be fair game despite Morganthu's repeated diplomatic protests. By 1922 the death toll had risen to about 1.5 million dead Armenians -- a precursor of Hitler's "final solution" or the Jews. Turkish ruler Talaat Pasha told Morganthau that everything was "the result of prolonged and careful deliberation."Morganthau learned in 1915 that the Turkish government confiscated Armenian property in a "gigantic plundering scheme as well as a final blow to extinguish the Armenian race" while lying to them that "deportation was only temporary." Eyewitness accounts accumulated in Morgenthau's office and "Were the firstbody of U.S. diplomatic literature about a major international rights tragedy." Besides homes, schools, and monasteries, the financially stable Armenian culture was rich in churches.filled with treasures. Morgenthau wrote in his diary, "Turkish gendarmes, under the plea of searching for hidden arms, ransacked churches.. . held mock ceremonies in imitation of Christian sacraments. . . beat priests into insensibility. . . When they could discover no arms in the churches. . . arm the bishops and priests with guns, pistols, swords, then take them before courts-martial for possessing weapons against the law. . . "Labeling people and killing them for WHO they are, not for what they have done compelled Ambassador Morgenthau to confront Talaat Pasha repeatedly about Turkish treatment of Armenians who "angrily replied, 'You are a Jew these people are Christians. . . Why can't you let us do with these Christians as we please?'" True Nazi mentality in the making! Morgenthau replied that the US contained 97 million Christians and about 3 million Jews. He explained that in his ambassadorial capacity, "I am 97 percent Christian. . . The way you are treating the Armenians . . . puts you in the class of backward, reactionary people." But the Pasha saw no reason for complaint: "We treat the Americans all right." Money usually talks, but even Morgenthau's reminder of financial assets gained by Armenian productivity failed. The Pasha cared nothing about commercial loss, having figured out IN ADVANCE of his murderous policy that "it will not exceed five million pounds." In fact the Pasha bragged, "I have accomplished more toward solving the Armenian problem in three months than Abdul Hamid accomplished in thirty years!" What an inspiration for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the warring Balkan countries, and Rwanda in "these enlightened times."Morgenthau received a "mind your own business" message from the Turks, but Americans refused to back off. In 1914 Morgenthau urged Pres. Wilson to "appeal to Turkey to put a stop to the annihilation of the Armenians.. . to appeal to the German government to 'insist' that Turkey stop 'this annihilation of a Christian race.'" Mortgenthaus's urgent plea for the Amenian relief project during the time of deportations resulted in Turkey's cutting off communication lines with American consuls. Missionaries came to Morgenthau's office with tears streaming down their faces as they told of atrocities and declared, "Only 'the moral power of the United States' could save the Armenians from annihilation." Americans and other nations responded in 1915 to Morgenthau's urging with a huge philanthropic effort. The American Committee on Armenian Atrocities was incorporated by Congress, raised more than $116 million and was truly, as Pres. Coolidge, said, "a nationwide passion." By October 1915 the Turks had massacred 800,000 Armenians. The Gemans went on record for "not blaming the Turks for what they are doing to the Armenians."By 1919 Pres. Wilson, who wanted a democratic world order, was opposed by our European allies , whom "he saw as driven by imperialistic designs on the spoils of war." Britain wanted Armenia to have mandated status, under the protection and guidance of European powers already overburdened wirh their own mandated responsibilities. Wilson lambasted the Turkish government. But former Pres. Teddy Roosevelt castigated Wilson for keeping the U. S. out of war against Germany and Turkey, "for the pure hypocrisy. . to protect the missionary interests in the Ottoman Empire, especially their vast real estate holdings. . . worth about $123 million."Insult to injury was a request by a Turkish official: since many Armenians had life insurance policies with two large American insurance companies and were all dead with no heirs, would Ambassador Morfenthau please provide get a list of all dead Armlenians from the insurance companies so the Turkish government could collect on the policies? In 1919 Wilson's Treaty of Sevres required Turkey to recognize Armenia as an independent state, boundaries to include access to the Black Sea as determined by Pres. Wilson, Turkish renunciation of any claim to the land, and for Armenia to assume some financial obligation to Turkey for the land even though Armenians had been abused by Turkey. But the Western commitment to Armenia died fast, and by the fall of 1920 Kemalists continued the massacre. Turkish war crimes trials in 1919 condemned the leader and several members of the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) to death "in absentia," and some were actually executed. But to this day the Turkish government refuses to take responsibility. As recently as 1984 Turkish denial and their attempt to rewrite history expressed itself in a threat not to allow American military bases in Turkey if we did not stop harping about Armenian genocide. It became an issue of power: "What does it mean when . . . Turkey can persuade a superpower like the United States to abandon the earlier stance toward the genocide of 1915?" Yet the Turkish government successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress against a bill, with no legal ramifications, commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.World Jewery has seen to it that the world will never forget Nazi Germany's "final solution" to the Jewish "problem" with its superb information campaign commemorating six million murdered Jews. However, I wish they also remembered the total of 12 million murders, including gypsies, homoxsexuals, priests -- anyone they didn't like - while remembering the six million Jewish victims. Pres. Ronald Reagan dismissed with casual cruelty his visit to Bitburg in 1984 to pay respects to dead German S. S. officers, telling the world no one remembers the past anyway. Reagan had no trouble consenting to Turkish demands that we ignore its Armenian genocide. Sen. Robert Byrd fought in the U. S. Congress on behalf of Turkish denial, and in 1990 Pres. George H. Bush called "April 24 a day of remembrance for more than a million people who were victims of the . . . massacres. No mention of Turkey or the Armenian genocide.

Unlike the Jews, unfortunately, the Armenians have no public relations experts to make Pres. Wilson's words an enduring truth: Wilson said the American public will never forget the Armeniasns, but April 24 comes apace, and how many people today know or care about its significance?

Breast Cancer, Anyone???

You want better treatment? Read this! And ---- Tell this to our U. S. Senators. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray from that cranky political activist Laurel Piippo (three-time cancer survivor of the old school slash/burn/poison trearment):A MESSAGE from MARLENE OLIVER, international expert on cancer treatment. Marlene says:"Even better."A radioimmunotherapy study of metastatic invasive breast cancer (the worst kind) showed complete remission in 100% of study subjects at the proper dosage - I saw the data (G. Sgouros, Johns Hopkins, personal communication, 2007).Marlene"(NCI, CARRA)PS Barbara Blethen, formerly of PNL, succumbed to metastatic invasive breast cancer.PPS Food for thought:US medical practice = profit motiveEuropean medical practice - socialized = /no profit motive/ (except for a few for-profit, private clinics)Mike Fox wrote:>Dennis:>I haven't made this a research project, but I have received similar >reactions, when I've approached various fund-raising tables for breast >cancer research. Try to mention the CTT technology for breast cancer >diagnostics, as Marlene has mentioned, saving $800,000,000 annually in >medicare costs, the women at the tables will not even hear me. Just a >line of chatter on some vague need for more research, with zero >interest in what is being shared with them, seemingly uninterested in >new technology advances, and great clinical trial results. The lack of >interest is very disappointing. >Mike*******************************************************Another advocate for kinder gentler tretment for dcancer from Dennis Fitzgerald:Re: Armstrong/Cance Funding/Better Cures/RES1>>"One voice, one perspective from life in the trenches of America." ©>>What I find amazing is that in the past I have had several>contacts with the Lance Armstrong Foundation about the FFTF and>the critical need for medical isotopes only to be told "the>Foundation is concentrating only on survivor issues". In>addition, Lance Armstrong is on the President's Cancer Panel. >Repeated efforts to communicate with the Panel even before>Armstrong was appointed were meet with silence, except for one>forced acknowledgement after a specific complaint of being ignored. >>I, along with Marlene Oliver, were honored to be "charter members">of the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Consumer Advocates for>Research and Related Activities (CARRA) Program. I was accepted>for a second three-year term, but resigned in disgust over the>bureaucratic stove pipe NCI approach to cancer, where they refused>to take on the DOE to save the FFTF and I was chastised for my>efforts. The NCI's mission "To eliminate the suffering and death>due to cancer" is a tragic hoax.>>Many of you have relentlessly tried for years to get the FFTF and>medical isotope story told and my conclusion - no one cares. The>media spent weeks covering the tragic Shiavo (Sp ?) debacle and>the administration spent tons of taxpayers dollars to save>this ONE life. Yet, the Administration and Congress, regardless>of what party is in control, have shown a continual pattern of>indifference to the plight of the cancer patients and their>families. Yet Congress will vote to spend $15 Billion to combat>AIDS in Africa and Jessie Jackson will jump on the medical isotope>bandwagon because of the potential to combat AIDS among the blacks>in our country. And, sadly, colon caner has returned to Tony>Snow. Here is a case where the Administration and Congress>"leaders" can see "the forest, but not the trees (we, the>people)", no matter how close those are around them who are or>have been afflicted with cancer.>>In the meantime we will have 1,444,920 Americans diagnosed with>cancer this year and 559,650 of our citizens are projected to die>of the disease at a rate of over 1,500 a day.>>My question is: Where was Lance Armstrong when he had the>opportunity to help save the FFTF and reduce the rate of>"incurable" cancers?>>From the trenches, I remain>>Dennis A. Fitzgerald>cancer FIGHTER

Letter to Leonard Pitts of The Miami Herald

Easter Sunday April 8, 2007

Dear Mr. Leonard Pitts of the MIAMI HERALD,

Thank you for your column "Lord, Give Us Strength to Go On" in the Sunday, April 8 issue of the TRI-CITY HERALD in Eastern Washington state. You wrote the response I wish I had written after receiving a mean-spirited e-mail about the blizzard of Biblical proportions and the noble survivors who did not ask for or receive any government aid, unlike the welfare-grabbing survivors of Katrina. The third time it came to me, I finally replied, "This is one of the most mean-spirited e-mails I have ever received, and I hope never to receive it again."There must be a cult of writers who all sound alike as they crank out attacks against John Kerry, who was a decorated wounded combat veteran; or the woman whose son was killed, but we don't need to respect her grief or her demonstrations against George W. because she didn't have custody of the son and wasn't a good enough mother' or the soldier's wife in a restaurant who tells off some anti-war people who have the gall to criticize "my President"; or the soldier in Iraq who somehow has the time and resources to investigate and document all the wonderful things the army is doing while fighting and bringing democracy to the Middle East. I can understand the motivation of the Bush propaganda cadre, but I'll be darned if I can figure out who pays for the teat-jerking sentimental stories we all receive and MUST FORWARD or our hearts will stop beating and everyone will know we're jerks, or worse yet they blather on about our government being based on the 10 Commandments and how and where and when we must all agree to pray. You're a professional writer. Maybe you know who writes this claptrap and why.Thanks again for your editorial. I admire your patience.

Sincerely,

LAUREL PIIPPO,

Retired Teacher of English

Cranky Old Woman Activist

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION CLASSES

NEW PERSPECTIVE ON EDUCATION CLASSES

March 2007

by Laurel Piippo

(Photo shown features grandmother and grandson aboard a cruise ship in 2006)

Nick (grandson) returned tonight from his week in Palm Springs with Micah (grandson).

I attended the two Ed classes he missed and took notes for him as best I could to help him, if possible, and to satisfy my curiosity about Ed classes today compared to mine decades ago. My undergraduate Ed classes om the 1940s were so time wasting I never had any respect for them. As a teacher I was required to take additional credits while paying, tuition, board and room at my own expense of course, during summer school during the school year, just paying tuition and wasting time during the school year. The Tri-City Ed classes taught by imported professors were a waste of time, money, and energy because teachers, especially MALE COACHING teachers, had no time or desire to do any homework, reading, etc. They were just buying credits. It was a phony game we were all expected to play. Classes consisted mainly of people sitting around exchanging ignorances and anecdotes. This did not go over with Cheapo-Piippo, who wants to get her money's worth in intellectual stimulation, challenge, new knowledge. etc.

I had no classes that taught me anything about child development, behavior or psychology, or what to expect at a particular age and grade level. The class that galled me most was a class in psychology from 9 to noon on Saturday mornings. I was eager to learn about child development, adolescent psychology, etc. It is one thing to spend the first three-hour session "getting acquainted," but after spending six Saturday mornings listening to chitchat, I realized we had spend 18 hours of class time with no intellectual guts to anything. I bit my tongue to stop from asking, "WHEN are you going to teach us something about psychology?" What I do remember is hearing him talk about that great work by American Charles Darwin. THAT WAS TOO MUCH. NO MORE POLITE SILENCE. "Charles Darwin was an Englishman," I said. "Since when?" he asked. God help us. I felt cheated.

We were taught nothing about HOW to teach reading or HOW to teach math. Thank God I had the publisher's text book for teaching reading, vocabulary, spelling, etc, because I knew nothing about teaching third and fourth graders.

Later, teaching high school, I was terrified. The girls all looked like movie stars and knew how to style their hair and wear make-up. The boys were creatures from outer space. The only thing that saved me was having been a compulsive reader all my life, and this carried over into being a fairly decent writer who could spell and knew something about grammar...

Anyone who thinks high school homework and a college education will complete his/her education has not been a reader.

Mastery of subject matter is essential in high school teachers.Nick pays horrendous tuition, and so did Kristi (granddaughter). I saw how hard she worked while in the Education program at the WSU campus in Pullman.

Attending Nick's class at WSU Tri-Cities was a real eye-opener. His classes started at 9:10 AM and lasted till 11:50 with a 10 minute break. I wondered how the students or the professors could survive. What a positive experience they gave me!

Every minute was planned, organized, helpful and interesting for a person who wants to be a teacher. I don't know the professors did it, but the classes were helpful and stimulating and ended exactly on time. The professors controlled everything without making us feel controlled. It took an enormous amount of talent, skill and organization.

EVERYTHING depends on the professor in an Ed class whereas even the worst professor cannot kill a course in Shakespeare or Milton or 20th century literature or Greek drama.

The students were just as terrific -- enthusiastic, spontaneous, and prepared. One of them is my former student Crystal, who home-schooled her four children until high school, a feat that awed me. After the professor introduce me to the class, he called on Crystal for some remarks. She stood and gave a brief talk on how a teacher changed her life, and it was all about me. You know how my ego sops up this sort of thing! I wish I could remember everything she said, but the gist of it was that I didn't like the way she wrote and made her improve and even taught her how to use a semi-colon.

From remarks made by the other students, it is clear they care about children and want to be teachers.

The young man sitting next to me wants to be a first grade teacher.When homework was mentioned, one woman said teachers used to send homework home for parents to help hem with, but she had a full-time job plus her family and had no time or energy to help with school work. The Hispanic kid next to me said Mexican parents can't help their children but are touchingly grateful for what the schools try to do for their children.

I learned from the students as well as the professors.

Why Afro-Americans Die Young

My former student and longtime friend, Jaynie Jones, http://EmeraldPrincessOnline.blogspot.com is married to a princely gem of a gentleman, Charles Jones, who has complicated, disabling medical problems and was hospitalized at St. Joseph Hospital, in Tacoma, Washington, last week under his health insurance plan with Group Health Cooperative. He was treated for severe congestive heart failure, runaway high blood pressure, chest pain, kidney failure in "iminent" need of dialysis, and went on to suffer a stroke while hospitalized.

To the family's dismay, Charles was discharged from the hospital the day following his stroke even though he was still suffering symptoms. Jaynie was so distraught about the physicians' decision to send him home so soon after a stroke that she wrote the following letter to St. Joseph Hospital, Group Health Cooperative, all of the doctors, and the nursing staff to have this letter placed in his hospital record for future reference if any adverse events occurred subsequent to Charles' early release from the hospital. She gave me her permission to post the letter here on my blog, http://PiipposPassion.blogspot.com.

TO: Administration, Physicians, Patient Chart, Nursing Staff, et al
FROM: Jaynie Jones (wife of and on behalf of patient Charles Jones)
DOB: Charles Jones
RE: Discharge of Charles Jones from St. Joseph Hospital
DATE: March 14, 2007


Let the record show that…

Charles called to inform me this afternoon that he is being discharged to home from St. Joseph Hospital today. Discharged to home where we have one flight of 15 stairs and another flight of 8 stairs for him to climb up and down. His discharge is premature and alarming to me as his wife and now caregiver that he is seemingly being discharged so soon when his runaway blood pressure (224/117 when first brought in on Saturday) has only been down in a more nearly normal range for less than a day.

Charles told me that Dr. Hwang had been in to see him today and informed him of the results of the CT scan of Charles’ head yesterday.

The CT scan was performed on an urgent basis due to the sudden onset of severe pain behind his right eye, coupled with diaphoresis, nausea and vomiting.

The doctor reported the findings of the CT scan to Charles today stating that it revealed that he has had a CVA, but that it was his opinion that the radiologist had “over-read it.” How dismissive!

Charles has severe congestive heart failure, high-output failure, a fistula in his upper arm that measures 29.9-cm in greatest dimension, no surgical plan for revision of that to reduce the pressure or the heart failure that is now severe, end-stage renal disease despite having had a kidney transplant after four years of dialysis, but now the transplanted kidney is failing.

Charles creatinine’ last week was 2.6, 3.8, 4.1, and now nearly 5. Dr. Hwang informed Charles that with the rapid elevation of his creatinine to nearly 5, he needs to go on dialysis “imminently.” This imminent need for dialysis has arisen out of the high-dose diuretics that have been used in recently days bringing his blood pressure down.

At Group Health Urgent Care, we cautioned Dr. John Vandegrift about how Charles’ transplant had gone into shock in 2000 when he had become dehydrated in Eastern Washington and on our return to Tacoma had presented to the ER at St. Joseph Hospital and had been loaded up with Lasix to pull the fluid off and that further compromised the kidney function, nearly destroying it. Dr. Vandegrift was in complete understanding of that and agreement and was judicious trying to get his blood pressure to a safe range.

After transfer from GHC Urgent Care by ambulance for admission to St. Joseph Hospital, Dr. Bonnie Sand met with both Charles and me in his room and we shared his history in detail with her. She was a thoughtful, completely engaged, intelligent physician who truly seemed to understand not only the history, but the complexity of what was happening at that point in time. She was well-informed and she inspired our confidence not only by how much time she spent with us, but by how carefully she listened to both of us and our concerns. She, too, recognized how precarious it could be, if Charles was diuresed too rapidly and the toll it could take on his renal allograft.

Sadly since admission to St. Joseph Hospital, the rapid diuresis has once again brought the transplanted kidney to nearly complete failure with need for dialysis again being “imminent.”

We well recall what it is like to start back on dialysis. The cramping, weakness, light-headedness, the renal diet, all of these adjustments are ahead.

When Charles first developed ESRD in the early ‘90s, he was admitted to the hospital and time was taken to get his dialysis going and get this smoothed out.

Now, here he has had a stroke one day and is being discharged from the hospital the next day with the same symptoms he had yesterday at the onset of the CVA, and he is still suffering from the head pain, nausea, et cetera, but he is being sent home in this condition and given Vicodin. What kind of logic is involved in this? And yet he needs to be on dialysis, but is being sent home? In this condition? Symptomatic? Having just had a CVA by CT? He feels devalued as a human being and as if he is being kicked to the curb.

In our experience (his and mine as his wife) every doctor always says (in various office settings and in the hospital) that they just don't know why African-Americans have poorer outcomes, dramatically shortened life expectancy and so on, but that research statistics show that it is true that from the standpoint of morbidity and mortality, African-Americans with an array of chronic diseases such as CHF, heart disease, diabetes, prostate cancer, other cancers, kidney disease, et cetera, do not do as well as whites, they will suffer more complications and they will die sooner, at an earlier age than Caucasians. There is an answer to the ‘mystery’ and I can tell them that the answer is no mystery at all: It is because of the way the care is managed for African-Americans, not just relative to access to health care, but how such care is managed. That's what shortens their lives. The decision to discharge Charles to home from the hospital today is one such example.

How can the hospital or physicians involved in this decision send a patient who has had a documented CVA one day sent home to the rigors of stair-climbing and the need for dialysis when that has not been implemented?

I called Group Health and made an appeal to four different people there that Charles’ needs better care, closer monitoring, and consistent follow-up because of the nature, severity, and complexity of his various medical and health care issues.

Were it not for their failure to follow-up and maintain continuity of his care, monitoring his blood pressure, et cetera, this could have been managed and prevented. Instead, he has not seen in clinic by a Group Health physician since last year. There has been no scheduled follow-up. He had no idea about how dangerously high his blood pressure had become, because Group Health just keeps renewing his medications and standing orders for lab work once a month.

The failure by Group Health to consistently and aggressively manage Charles’ extremely complicated medical conditions has resulted in where we are today with Charles, a 41-year-old African-American man who has had one kidney transplant now in failure again, facing dialysis, having had a stroke, rampant, runaway blood pressure, and now he has been left feeling hopeless and depressed, like his life is futile and there just is no hope to get better. He has been told to limit salt and lose weight, lose weight, lose weight, but no one offers any direction for that, no suggestions about how to accomplish that and no recognition for the fact that he has dropped 35 pounds on his own over this past year. He has asked repeatedly about being considered for lap band bariatric surgery. His requests for lap band have been ignored or put down.

So why are African-Americans consistently the ones who come out on the short end of the stick relative to their health care and the outcomes they experience in contrast to the Caucasian-American population? It is decisions such as the one today at St. Joseph Hospital, to discharge someone to home the day after a stroke, when dialysis is “imminent” (but not started), and when astronomical blood pressure has been brought down for less than a day. Let the record show that the mystery is solved about the research statistics and why blacks have those bad outcomes.

Charles and I hope that this will not be one of those times, but just as a patient would be required to sign a form stating that they were refusing recommended medical care and by their own volition going AMA (Against Medical Advice), this situation is essentially the flip side of that. Charles is coming home from the hospital against our better judgment. We both want to go on record that we oppose this plan. I am a blog writer for The News Tribune and I intend to blog about how Charles’ care has been managed.

The nursing care at St. Joseph Hospital has been excellent. The nurses have been consistent and professional in every way. They are compassionate and good communicators.

Should there be any adverse consequences of the physician’s decision to discharge Charles today, it is now documented that Charles and I both objected to it and informed you of our concerns this day for all of the foregoing reasons.




_________________________________
Date: March 14, 2007

World War I Books: REGENERATION, THE EYE IN THE DOOR, THE GHOST ROAD

World War I books

Book review by Laurel Piippo

REGENERATION, THE EYE IN THE DOOR, THE GHOST ROAD by British novelist Pat Barker, focus on historical characters such as poets Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon and psychiatrist Dr. William Rivers.

This is the war that first had to deal with "shell shock" ant its treatment, psychotherapy, or "the talking cure."I am rereading all three of Barker's prize-winning books and have just finished THE GHOST ROAD, last of the trilogy, set primarily in the psychiatric hospital, Craiglockhart, in Scotland, the battlefields of France, and in Rivers' memories of a primitive tribe on an island in the South Pacific.

Actually, the "setting" is in the minds of the characters whose thoughts Barker creates, based on her research and fleshed out with her imagination.

It may be a challenge to tell who is speaking. -- Billy Prior, who wanted Dr . Rivers to "cure" him so he could go back to the front rather than stay in Britain, subjected to the glib conversation of clueless civilians. He was at home with his buddies in the trenches.

The book covers a time span from the summer of 1918 until November 3, almost Armistice Day in November 1918.

Dr.River's' flashbacks of his anthropological research with a tribe of former headhunters in the South Pacirfic are woven among the therapy sessions and scenes of horror and filth in the battlefield -- also a few disgusting sex episodes.

The headhunters have entirely too much in common with civilized Man:"Head-hunting had to be banned, and yet the effects of banning it asre everywhere apparent in the listlessness and lethargy of the people's lives.

Head-hunting is what they had lived for.

Though it might seem callous or frivolous to say so, head-hunting had been the most FUN and without it life lot almost all its its zest.

"This was a people perishing from the absence of war. It showed in the genealogies, the decline in the birth rate from one generation to the next -- the islands population was less than half what it had been. . ."I have felt for some time that we have wars because people like them, fools like Nicholas II of Russia, thought a nice little short war would make him look good, rouse everyone's patriotic fervor, divert them from domestic disasters, and win territory and power (oil).

And of course their grandiose plans never turn out as expected, but thousands and millions of strong young people end up dead and their countries impoverished with the high cost of war.

As a wise woman once said, "The only thing you can control in s war is the first shot," but too many leaders in their bullheaded stupidity keep on doing what doesn't work -- plenty of examples in World War I and today.

My World War I history professor emphasizes the great poetry that came out of World War I, and this gives us some humorous doggerel, too.

She told us that the British soldiers couldn't pronounce Ypres, called it "Wipers": I can't resist quoting: "Far from Wipers I long to be, Where German snipers can't get at me. Damp is my dug-out, Cold are my feet, Waiting for Whizzbangs To put me to sleep."

Try singing the next one to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers!"

"Forward Joe Soap's Army,

Marching without fear

With your brave commander

Safely in the rear.

He boasts and skites

From morn till night

And thinks he's very brave,

But the men who really did the job

Are dead and in their grave."

Energy Fundamentals - Nuclear and otherwise

Friends at Hanford,

The DOE has been broken since it was created in 1977, which is the major reason that FFTF was lost. The
GNEP is just another bit of nonsense - yes it will provide jobs, but will not resolve technical, political, management and other issues that have plagued nuclear power since its beginning.
Following is my response to a letter to me from The President about long-neglected energy issues. My letter:
1. describes major problems resulting from management by the Department of Energy and its predecessors;
2.. proposes a better, success-based approach based on energy fundamentals and lessons learned from experiences;
3. povides: information about energy fundamentals,
an overview of path of the DOE and its predecessors from success to failure and other problems,
ideas for a better approach, and
other recommendations to resolve America's long-neglected energy issues;

4. expresses the hope to meet and work with The President and other leaders of America to further refine and implement this better approach;

5. includes a copy of my biographical sketch from Who's Who in America, as modified/corrected for the 2008 edition.

6. expresses the hope that it will be possible to meet and work with you and others to resolve America's energy challenges
I would be interested in any comments
Here is my letter:
Clinton Bastin, Chemical Engineer, US Department of Energy (Retired),987 Viscount Court, Avondale Estates, Georgia 30002, Telephone 404 297 2005; E-Mail clintonbastin@bellsouth.net
March 3, 2007
The President, The White House, Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I was pleased to receive your letter and learn of your strong belief that America must address long-neglected energy issues. But there are major problems. The Department of Energy:
Has spent most of a trillion dollars since it was created in 1977 to address energy issues resulting from America’s diminishing supplies of domestic oil and natural gas
Has provided little of value and is unlikely to provide future value
Does not provide full and accurate information to Americans about energy and nuclear technoloy and supports misinformation to obtain funding for programs that are not needed
Does not learn from its own and other’s successes, failures and other problems
Does not integrate research and development through design studies and experience to assure focus on needed improvement
Cancels important programs and rejects proposals based on best technology to obtain funds for development of concepts that are often ill-conceived
Dismissed competent corporations that managed safe and successful programs and relies on government laboratories to manage complex technology
Interacts with its national laboratories in a manner similar to that of the former Soviet Union
Rejects important input based on experience
Supported an activity with potential for an accident much worse than that at Chernobyl
Lost capability to produce tritium needed for nuclear deterrence, plutonium-238 needed to explore space, and isotopes needed for medicine, industry, agriculture and research
Has no plan for responsible disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants
Has no incentives for success and incurs no penalty for failure or misinformation
Works for its own and often against America’s interests.
The adverse impact of government management of complex technology greatly exceeds its wasteful expenditures.
Resolving America’s energy issues and ending the adverse impact from government management of complex technology will require implementation of a better, success-based approach based on full understanding of energy fundamentals and lessons learned from experiences.
This letter will provide information about energy fundamentals, an overview of the path of the DOE and its predecessors from success to failure and other problems, ideas for a better approach and other recommendations to resolve America’s long-neglected energy issues.
ENERGY FUNDAMENTALS
1. Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is the ultimate source of all energy. Radiation from decay of nuclear materials in the earth is the energy that keeps earth warm.
Radiation from nuclear fusion reactions at the sun provides energy during the day that partially offsets energy lost from the earth’s surface at night. This energy also purifies and distributes our water and energizes our atmosphere. Energy from within the earth combined with that from the sun makes life here possible.
Radiation is energy. Like other forms of energy, high levels of radiation burn and can be dangerous; low levels warm and are beneficial. High levels of radiation are very effective for destroying cancer. False information about dangers of low levels of radiation is used to justify government funding for work that is not needed. The threshold for danger from radiation is about twenty-five REM (0.25 Sievert); maximum allowable exposures to workers per year is set at one-fifth this amount. A large amount of data indicate a net threshold of beneficial health effects from radiation much larger than the threshold for danger. From personal experience with 65 sieverts of radiation to my face and throat used to destroy a very aggressive cancer, the burn to skin from several sieverts of radiation is comparable to that from about an hour in the summer sun.
The 1979 National Research Council report on energy points out that "the geothermal resource (heat within the earth’s molten core from radioactive decay of nuclear material) represents extremely large amounts of energy . . . but for many reasons direct use of geothermal energy will not be a major contributor to the national energy system until well into the twenty-first century, if ever . . . , (and) cannot be considered among the most important energy alternatives." Present world capability for geothermal production of usable energy is about 8,000 megawatts.
Nuclear materials near the earth’s surface, if used efficiently, are our most abundant energy source to maintain civilization. However, existing nuclear power plants recover less than 1 percent of the energy in uranium and do not use thorium. Efficient use of nuclear resources is essential for disposal of nuclear wastes without need for indefinite safeguards, which cannot be assured.
Nuclear materials have little value except to produce energy and materials for space exploration, medicine, defense and other national needs.
The nuclear fission process provides tens of millions times the energy per unit of mass of life-based fuels and produces tens of millions times less waste. The small amounts of waste from nuclear plants can be safely stored indefinitely and not released to the biosphere.
Because of important design features, US-type nuclear power plants are one of humankind’s safest and most reliable endeavors. They are also highly resistant to terrorist attacks and disruptive weather. Because of the much smaller amounts of fuel needed, nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to transportation disruptions. There has never been a transportation accident where the presence of nuclear materials endangered anyone. Improvements to operations since the accident at Three Mile Island have greatly improved their safety and productivity. A Chernobyl-type accident is not possible in a US type nuclear power plant.
Existing nuclear power plants in the US provide more than 70 percent of the greenhouse gas-free and atmospheric pollution-free generation of electricity. Increased use of nuclear power is the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid global warming and reduce atmospheric pollutants for better human health.
Nuclear power plants are the foundation for international safeguards, the best assurances of nations that their neighbors are not using nuclear technology to produce nuclear weapons
Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is essential for full and efficient use of nuclear resources and appropriate disposal of nuclear wastes. DuPont built and operated the only successful reprocessing plants in the US. Its best-in-the-world reprocessing technology features capability for rapid, remote replacement of failed process equipment and piping and rapid restart after shutdown, containment of radioactivity under normal and credible accident conditions, flexibility for changes to accommodate different types of fuels or increases in capacity, safe use of the facility for hundreds of years, efficient recovery and recycle of nuclear materials with very low losses, provision for integration with fuel refabrication capability that would preclude access to or accumulation of separated plutonium or other weapons usable materials, much lower cost for reprocessing than those of others, remote sampling to ensure good material safeguards and other advantages. The time for restart after shutdown for the DuPont designed "F" canyon reprocessing plant at the Savannah River Plant was a few minutes. This contrasts to eight days for restart of Hanford PUREX and thirty days for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.
The concept for permanent disposal of nuclear waste in bedrock underlying the SRP proposed by DuPont and endorsed by a committee appointed by former South Carolina Governor John West has formidable, measurable geologic barriers that would ensure indefinite isolation of wastes. The nuclear waste repository at DOE’s Hanford Site in Washington and that planned for Yucca Mountain provide good assurances that humans will never be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation from nuclear waste, but are in the vadose zone and do not have formidable barriers that provide full assurances of indefinite isolation. Disposal of used nuclear fuel would not be a responsible action because it would deny use of an essential and abundant resource and would create geologic deposits of weapons usable materials that would require indefinite safeguards that cannot be assured.
Nuclear fusion reactions that we know of occur at temperatures of many million degrees and generate enormous forces. No materials or forces on earth can contain these reactions in a manner that would permit production of continuous, usable energy. There is no scientific basis for a conclusion that nuclear fusion will ever provide significant amounts of usable energy.
2. Life-Based Materials
Life-based materials are needed for food, transportation, chemicals, clothing, housing and home heating, medicines, and many other commodities essential for civilization. They should be used with full appreciation of their origin, limitations and special needs for their use.
Fossil fuels are materials from past life that were produced and processed by earth’s heat into fuels that we are using hundreds of thousands times faster than they were produced.
Biomass is material from recent life. Production and conversion of biomass into fuels will often require more energy than is obtained from their use. The amount of energy obtainable from biomass will be a very small fraction of that obtained from fossil fuels. Ethanol from all the grain produced in the US would be equivalent to 16% of petroleum fuels used for transportation in the United States.
Coal is America’s most abundant fossil fuel and the only source for large amounts of fluid fuels for future generations.
Natural gas is our most precious and most limited fossil fuel. It is needed to heat homes and produce many essential materials. Its use to generate large amounts of electricity is wasteful.
Oil is our most abundant fluid fuel and is needed for transportation by auto and aircraft.
At present rates of use, natural gas and oil resources would be fully depleted prior to the end of this century. However, long before full depletion, the ability to produce enough to meet demands will be exceeded. The US lost the ability to produce enough oil to meet its demands in 1970; the world is on the verge of losing the ability to meet world demands. Any disruption in supply, such as that following Hurricane Katrina, will result in shortages, long gas lines, increased cost of heating oil and gasoline, increased trade deficits and adverse impact to our economy. Oil from tar sands, oil shale and further exploration could extend the time for full depletion, but limitations on its rate of recovery will limit alleviation from disruptions.
The title of the 1979 report of the extensive study of energy alternatives by the National Research Council, Energy in Transition: 1985 - 2010, reflects what should have been but was not done.
Solar Energy
Energy from the sun is intermittent and reaches earth at relatively low temperature. Based on laws of thermodynamics, conversion of solar energy to another form such as electricity will always be inefficient. Because it is intermittent, the capacity factor (time operating efficiency) will always be low - from 10 to 20%. The environmental cost for construction and maintenance of facilities for solar generation of electricity - plus that for supply of electricity when the sun does not shine - will approach or exceed savings from their operation. Use of batteries to assure continuous availability of electricity will also cost as much as or more - in dollars and adverse environmental impact - than is saved from generation of solar electricity. Government subsidies for solar generation of electricity could lead to facilities that are not cost-effective when the subsidies are removed. Solar generation of electricity and storage of electricity in batteries may be justified in remote locations or in space vehicles not too distant from the sun.
Energy from the sun is abundant and could be increasingly important to heat water for household use and to warm buildings properly designed for such use. However, replacement of existing buildings would not be justified solely by more efficient use of solar warming.
Capacity factors for wind power in some locations will exceed that for solar generation of electricity, but careful evaluation is needed. Government subsidies could lead to facilities that are not cost-effective when the subsidies are removed. Use of batteries to store wind-generated electricity will greatly increase its dollar and environmental cost.
The 1979 report of the major study of energy alternatives by the National Research Council says that "the ecological damage per unit of energy produced is probably greater for hydroelectricity than for any other energy source." . . . ."Among the adverse ecological consequences of new dam construction are the loss of habitat in the immediate area of the reservoir, subtle effects on the biological productivity of the river below the dam, damage to scenic area along the wild stretches of the river, damage to the ecological balance of estuaries due to alteration of freshwater flow patterns, accelerated siltation and eutrophication in the artificial lakes behind dams, adverse effects on fish species that swim up river to spawn, and excess evaporation of water from artificial lakes and the resulting increased salinity, particularly in arid regions."
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is not available in nature as an energy source on earth. Cost for its production - including environmental cost - will exceed savings from its use. Hydrogen is difficult to handle and has a low energy density. Fuel cells are very expensive and not very durable.
OVERVIEW OF A PATH FROM SUCCESS TO FAILURE AND OTHER PROBLEMS
This section describes great successes with use of nuclear technology for the Manhattan Project, successes and failures for the Atomic Energy Commission, and how failure to fully apply lessons learned from these successes and failures led to problems and ultimately to the moratorium on new nuclear power plants. I can provide comparable overviews of other paths to problems, such as loss of ability to produce tritium, plutonium-238 and other important nuclear materials; wasteful expenditures for inappropriate treatment of nuclear wastes; and delays in use of a more energy-efficient process for uranium enrichment.
The Manhattan Project of World War II was a great technological achievement because:
Important discoveries: Albert Einstein’s energy = mass times the speed of light squared, Otto Hahn’s nuclear fission and Glenn Seaborg’s plutonium provided a scientific basis for the effort.
Competent, experienced corporations produced nuclear materials.
DuPont introduced nuclear fission technology and provided corporate management for the Clinton Laboratory and Hanford Engineer Works comparable to that for its commercial plants.
DuPont’s core values of safety, health and the environment, ethics and respect for people have been exceptional constants since the Company was formed in 1802.
Manhattan Project scientists were disappointed with the decision to use corporations to carry out projects and programs. They lacked experience with complex technology, but believed that they could carry out the tasks for the Manhattan Project. (The Soviet Union lacked experienced corporations, and scientists carried out efforts for production of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. Radiation exposures to workers were among significant differences. Maximum exposure to DuPont workers at Hanford was less than one RAD/year. During the first two years, Average exposure to Soviet workers was more than 100 RAD/year; maximum exposure was more than 300 RAD/year. Some Soviet workers developed illnesses from the high radiation levels. The commercial reprocessing plant built at West Valley, NY, that incorporated laboratory technology, reprocessed 244 tons of power reactor fuel and 375 tons of AEC production reactor fuels during 5-1/2 years of operation. Operation was suspended by order of the AEC Director of Regulation because radiation exposure to workers averaged 50% above allowable amounts and were rising exponentially, and there were other problems. The exposures at West Valley were about thirty times average exposures to workers at the DuPont-operated Savannah River Plant. The decision was made by plant owner Getty Oil not to restart the plant.)
Manhattan Project Director Leslie Groves developed sympathy for the scientists and approved operation of the Clinton Pilot Plant in a production mode, a violation of good management practice. About 300 grams of plutonium were produced and recovered by reprocessing during this 14-month campaign from late 1943 until early 1945, but some at ORNL believed and claimed that "the first kilograms of plutonium were produced in the pilot plant" ( The actual and claimed production are documented in the report The ORNL Chemical Technology Division: 1950-1994 (October 1994), prepared for the DOE by ORNL.) This false claim of high productivity resulted in support by General Groves for National Laboratories so the scientists could carry out the tasks for which they had conducted research and use inappropriate laboratory technology to reprocess highly enriched uranium fuels at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.
Filters to prevent release of radioactive materials from ICPP operations failed shortly after attempted start of operations and were removed. American Cyanamid Corporation, who had been selected to operate the ICPP, was aware that the plant could not be operated safely or successfully and elected to leave. Phillips Petroleum Company, who was operating the Materials Test Reactor at AEC’s Idaho Site, accepted responsibility for operation of the ICPP, but did not provide corporate management comparable to that provided by DuPont for the Hanford Engineer Works.
General Electric Company replaced DuPont at Hanford, but was not funded to provide corporate management for the effort and serious problems developed. The Hanford PUREX reprocessing plant had to be shut down in 1972 because it - unlike SRP reprocessing plants - could not be operated satisfactorily with a reduced output from Hanford production reactors, nor without release of large quantities of nuclear waste to soils. GE did not learn from these and other AEC experiences and made similar mistakes at its Morris, IL, commercial reprocessing plant.
Former officers of the Army Corps of Engineers recognized the importance of the DuPont effort for the Manhattan Project and urged President Truman to ask DuPont to design, build and operate the Savannah River Plant for the AEC. The SRP was the AEC’s safest and most successful program because DuPont provided core values and management comparable to that for its commercial plants.
Safe and successful use of nuclear power for propulsion of US Navy Ships and Submarines provided full assurances that commercial nuclear power would be safe and successful. But regulators and some nuclear power plant operators did not follow the Nuclear Navy model and did not require full knowledge by operators of the technology and systems for nuclear power plant operation. This became a major problem with larger and more complex nuclear power plants, and ultimately led to the accident at Three Mile Island, long delays in construction and licensing and increased cost of nuclear power plants. This oversight has been eliminated through coordinating efforts of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and good interactions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with nuclear power plant operators, but Americans have not been informed of the improvements.
Nuclear power began in America and other nations with full expectations that reprocessing would be used to permit full and efficient use of nuclear resources and dispose of nuclear wastes without need for indefinite safeguards, which cannot be assured. Successful experiences of DuPont provided full assurances that reprocessing of nuclear power plant fuels would be safe and successful and not result in proliferation or proliferation threats.
Unfortunately, planned use of successful technology for reprocessing of used fuels from nuclear power plants in the US and those in other nations of US origin was cancelled when early nuclear power plant operators accepted gross misinformation in a 1957 AEC report about the success of laboratory reprocessing technology that had failed. (The report overstated productivity of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant by about a factor of thirty.) Subsequent use and export of the flawed technology resulted in failure of reprocessing in America, proliferation in India, and proliferation threats and problems in other nations. (ORNL/ICPP reprocessing technology was used in India to reprocess natural uranium from the CIRUS (Canada Isotope Reactor United States), a reactor based on Canada’s NRX reactor that was largely paid for by the US to produce plutonium for US nuclear weapons, and provided with heavy water moderator by the US.)
French and Japanese reprocessors requested information about DuPont reprocessing technology but were denied access. British reprocessors had access to DuPont technology, but their focus at the time of access was on their own "no maintenance" approach, which they later determined to be inadequate for commercial fuel reprocessing. Soviet reprocessors used the DuPont "canyon" approach for its plant at Tomsk, but instead of five to six- foot thick heavily reinforced concrete walls at the SRP, used 3-1/2 foot thick brick walls which were inadequate for accident conditions.
Many American corporations, including five large oil companies, made major investments in nuclear fuel cycle technology, but most lost money because they relied on misinformation from the AEC. An important example is the investment of about one-half-billion dollars by Gulf and Shell Oil Companies, owners of General Atomics Corporation (GAC), for an ill-conceived venture to commercialize High Temperature, Gas-cooled Reactors. The GAC concept for HTGRs avoided the inherent disadvantage of graphite moderated reactors, i.e., the very inefficient use of uranium, by use of an enriched uranium - thorium - uranium-233 fuel cycle, which required reprocessing.
GAC relied on the Atomic Energy Commission’s Idaho Office and Idaho Chemical Processing Plant cost estimate for commercial reprocessing that was low by a factor of ten or more, and estimate for cost of a process demonstration that was low by a factor of several hundred. After funding by The Congress for the process demonstration, other formidable problems led to recognition of need for a major task force review which led to much higher and more realistic estimates of cost for demonstration and commercial reprocessing. GAC abandoned the project.
During this same time frame, GAC partnered with Allied Chemical Company as Allied-General Nuclear Services for construction and operation of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP), which was built based on ICPP technology. Annual production reports from Idaho indicated nuclear material recoveries adequate to support an economic venture at Barnwell. Review of accountability records showed that the Idaho reports overstated production by about a factor of five. After learning of this information, AGNS decided not to operate the plant as a commercial venture, and proposed its operation as a government demonstration project. Aware of the flawed technology of the BNFP, AEC officials did not support this proposal.
Inadequate capability of the ICPP resulted in filled used fuel storage basins at reactors throughout the Idaho site, and removal of ICPP ventilation system filters resulted in release of significant amounts of radiation throughout the site. Thus officials and staff at other operations at the Idaho Site recognized that there were formidable problems with reprocessing there and with commercial reprocessing based on the ICPP model. But they did not know about successful reprocessing at the SRP. (After transfer to AEC headquarters in early 1972, I learned that virtually no one there - including AEC attorneys that helped formulate policies - had any understanding of the differences between successful reprocessing technology and the flawed concepts that led to failures, proliferation and other problems.) Scientists and engineers of Argonne National Laboratory at the Idaho Site began development of pyrometallurgical processes that they believed would be better than aqueous processes that are used for reprocessing at the ICPP and worldwide.
Experiments conducted in laboratory-type, manipulator-maintenance hot cells showed that the pyrometallurgical processes (similar to those used for recovery of iron from ore) were much more difficult than aqueous processes, material losses were unacceptably high, and material measurement to assure good accountability for safeguards was virtually impossible.
The experimental programs of ANL were cancelled and used fuels and nuclear materials from the failed program were transferred to the ICPP and the SRP for reprocessing and recovery.
President Richard M. Nixon declared a national commitment to full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy as a major initiative for energy independence when the US lost the ability during the early 1970s to produce enough oil to meet US demands.
I told AEC officials in late 1972 that proposed commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing plants of General Electric Company (GE) and Allied-General Nuclear Services (AGNS) would not be successful and was asked to chair a task force to review reprocessing history for lessons learned and recommend appropriate action. The task force review focused on:
failure of commercial reprocessing at the plant in West Valley, NY;
likely failures of the GE plant at Morris, IL, and the AGNS plant at Barnwell, SC.;
problems with reprocessing in other nations, most of whom used the ORNL/ICPP concept;
the accident at the British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd., B-204 reprocessing plant at Windscale and deficiencies of the British "no-maintenance" concept;
detonation in May 1974 of a nuclear explosive by India which used plutonium produced and processed in facilities and technology supplied by the US and Canada.
successful reprocessing of DuPont; and
recommendation of the Edison Electric Institute Nuclear Fuel Cycle Committee, Chaired by Duke Power Company President Bill Lee, that used fuel from nuclear power plants be shipped to the SRP for reprocessing by DuPont. (This was the initial plan of the USAEC.)
Major recommendation of the task force was to focus on improvements to successful reprocessing technology, including an assignment to DuPont for lead role for development and design integration.
An AEC General Managers fuel cycle task force endorsed our recommendation and the AEC reassigned responsibilities for nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycle to the AEC Division of Production, an organization that had provided direction for successful reprocessing programs and understood the differences between successful and unsuccessful reprocessing. (Directors of the AEC Division of Production and Managers of the AEC Savannah River Office were former Corps of Engineers officers who understood reasons for success of the Manhattan Project and SRP programs. Responsibilities for commercial fuel reprocessing support had been assigned to the AEC Division of Reactor Development, whose officials and staff did not understand reprocessing.)
I was assigned lead responsibility for the AEC program to support commercial fuel reprocessing and prepared the letter to the Manager of AEC’s Savannah River Office requesting that he ask DuPont to manage this program. The AEC General Manager visited DuPont offices to confirm the assignment.
During this same time period, the AEC started programs to provide full and accurate information to Americans about the importance of nuclear energy, science and technology, and to correct misinformation.
The AEC also started studies of Regional Fuel Cycle Centers (multinational fuel reprocessing and recycle centers) that would provide increased assurances that nations used the nuclear technology and materials for nuclear power and not nuclear weapons. I participated in these studies and proposed that best technology - that of DuPont - be used,. These studies culminated in a proposal by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to the International Atomic Energy Agency that Regional Fuel Cycle Centers be considered for support of nuclear power.
I participated as a lead consultant in IAEA studies of Regional Fuel Cycle Centres, which concluded with strong support for the concept.
Unfortunately, programs of the AEC were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Administration in January 1975. One of the first actions of ERDA, carried out at the direction of the Office of General Counsel, was to cancel programs to provide full and accurate information to Americans about nuclear technology.
Leaders of nuclear programs in ERDA did not understand the complexities and demands of safe, successful fuel reprocessing and recycle, set aside those who did, and transferred program responsibilities back to the Office of Nuclear Energy, successor to the AEC Division of Reactor Development.
Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter carried out major policy reviews of reprocessing with no input from persons who understood the technology and what had happened that led to failure, proliferation and other problems. The indefinite deferral of efficient use of nuclear energy resources and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes resulting from these reviews were major factors in the moratorium on new nuclear power plants that started in 1974.
The Ford White House abandoned support for Multinational (Regional) Nuclear Fuel Recycle Centers at about the same time that the International Atomic Energy Agency endorsed the concept.
In 1978, DuPont completed Design Integration Studies and prepared conceptual designs and cost estimates for a Spent LWR Fuel Recycle Complex that would have resolved concerns and permitted reprocessing at less that one-third present costs. There would have been no access to or accumulation of separated plutonium. This complex would have been excellent for a regional fuel cycle center, or for nations with large nuclear power programs.
Leaders of the DOE set aside information from DuPont about reprocessing plant designs that would have avoided problems and supported use and development of laboratory concepts that had no potential for success. No information about the success-based concepts were provided to Presidents Carter or Reagan.
The DOE carried out research and development at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for use of Argonne National Laboratory research-type maintenance systems for conventional solvent extraction processes and supported use of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant for demonstration reprocessing - despite the facts that its technology was flawed and there was potential for an accident with release of radioactivity much worse than that at Chernobyl. Fortunately, President Reagan rejected the proposal.
Design studies by Bechtel indicated that the ORNL concept for laboratory type maintenance for conventional reprocessing technology would be much more expensive than that for successful reprocessing, and government funding was discontinued. However, the program was continued as collaborative development with Japan, and some provisions of the concept were apparently incorporated in the very expensive, French-designed reprocessing plant at Rokkasho Mura.
The DOE cancelled collaborative development with Japan and shut down the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford in order to support a demonstration by Argonne National Laboratory of another pyrometallurgical concept - electrorefining - for reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. The electrorefining process had been developed by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for recovery of very pure plutonium from scrap generated during fabrication of plutonium weapons parts.
In 1991 I was assigned by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy to evaluate this process for a planned demonstration, and identified major concerns about operability, maintainability, safeguardability, and containment of radioactivity - major problems with commercial reprocessing. Of greatest concern were great difficulties for material balance measurements and high plutonium losses. These findings led to a conclusion that the safeguards challenge would be difficult and the process as planned would be neither proliferation-resistant nor viable for commercial nuclear fuel recycle. Concerns about the planned demonstration were reviewed with DOE and DOE laboratory management and technical staff, ANL/DOE Peer Review Groups and many others, and there was no significant disagreement with my findings.
The DOE Strategic Plan for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) states "For the past 30 years the United States has conducted research to develop advanced methods of reprocessing spent commercial nuclear fuel that might make reprocessing easier to safeguard and more proliferation-resistant." This statement is misleading and could lead to further misdirection and wasteful expenditures.
Several U.S. nuclear power plant operators are supporting reprocessing with French technology that incorporates experience but lacks important features of DuPont technology.
A BETTER APPROACH TO RESOLVE AMERICA’S ENERGY CHALLENGES
A better approach to resolve America’s long neglected energy challenges should include:
1. The U.S. Energy and Nuclear Technology Board that would have ex_officio members and those appointed by you and future Presidents with the advice and consent of The Senate that would meet periodically to recommend long_term energy and nuclear technology plans, policies, and strategies for America
2. Competent corporate instead of government management of energy and nuclear technology
3. Full and efficient use of nuclear materials instead of their disposal
4. Full and accurate information to Americans about nuclear technology and limitations, challenges and/or non_viability of alternative energy sources
5. Revitalization of President Eisenhower's vision of Atoms for Peace, with cooperation among nations for full use of well_safeguarded, well_managed, and well_conceived nuclear technology for peaceful purposes
6. Partnership_type actions between workers and managers to resolve concerns about nuclear safety and nuclear materials safeguards, and between regulators and those regulated to ensure the best safety, productivity, and cost_effectiveness of nuclear power plants and other licensed nuclear facilities.
7. A "Partnership for America" to develop and implement these ideas to resolve long_neglected energy and nuclear technology challenges and avoid adverse consequences inherent in government management of complex technology.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ENERGY IMPERATIVES
1. Nuclear programs managed by DuPont for the Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy Commission were among the greatest technological achievements of all time. If DuPont concepts had been used for reprocessing and recycle of nuclear materials in used nuclear power plant fuels and disposal of nuclear wastes, many formidable problems and wasteful expenditures would have been avoided.
You, with support from The Congress, and the nuclear power industry should ask DuPont to manage programs for reprocessing and recycle of nuclear materials in used nuclear fuel and disposal of nuclear wastes. Funds for this should be provided by the nuclear waste fund, as appropriate. Leaders of State Governments should be asked to appoint technical/political committees to review DuPont concepts and studies for waste disposal, as Governor John West of South Carolina did for DuPont studies for disposal in bedrock.
2. At a time of need for a major transition, i.e., the need to end our dangerous addiction to imported oil, good government leadership and direction is essential. This leadership and direction should be based on lessons learned from experiences and good understanding of energy fundamentals.
3. Nations that have reduced dependence on imported oil have done so through higher taxes.
4. The need for electric-powered, high speed rail for both inter and intra-regional travel was recognized at the beginning of America’s energy crisis. This need is greater today.
5. Use of fossil and other life-based materials for energy produces atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gases. These materials are needed for transportation in autos and aircraft, household heating and many other important uses. Their use to generate electricity should be phased out.
6. Careful attention should be given to energy fundamentals to avoid subsidies for energy alternatives that will become obsolete when subsidies are removed, and to eliminate funding for non-viable energy systems . The section of "Energy Fundamentals" in this letter should be further refined by The U.S. Energy and Nuclear Technology Board and information provided to all Americans.
Mr. President, the transition from a failure-based to a success-based approach for resolution of America’s long-neglected energy issues will be very difficult. I would be pleased to meet and work with you and other leaders of America to help further refine and implement this better approach that is needed. A copy of my biographical sketch is enclosed.
Best wishes!
Sincerely
Clinton Bastin
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH FOR CLINTON BASTIN FROM 2007 EDITION OF WHO’S WHO IN AMERICA, AS MODIFIED FOR 2008 EDITION
BASTIN, CLINTON, retired chemical engineer, retired federal executive for national nuclear programs and initiatives, life mission to resolve US energy challenges; b. Lancaster, Ky., June 4, 1927; s. Clinton Bowen and Adelaide Klingman Bastin; m. Barbara Spencer Bastin; children: Clinton Bowen III, Nancy Bastin Perry, Anna Bastin McKee, Herbert Spencer. B of Chem. Engring., Ga. Inst. of Tech., 1950; reprocessing and nuclear waste summer seminar for chem. engring. faculty, Amer. Inst. Engring. Edu., Hanford, WA, 1958. Fire protection engr. Southeastern Underwriters Assn., Atlanta, 1950––55; USAEC mgr. heavy water prodn. and distb (first US Atoms for Peace), quality assurance for tritium wpns. components, plutonium_238 prodn and proc.(nuclear power for space), used nuc power fuel disp., Sav Riv Plant, Aiken, SC, 1955––62; mgr. nuc. fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste, related programs and tritium prodn, proc and use in weapons, mem. AEC steering com. gas centrifuge devel., SRP, 1962––72, leader to resolve fuel reprocessing problems Washington, 1972––74; chief light water fuel reprocessing br. US ERDA, Washington, 1975––76, lead tech. cons. Internat. Atomic Energy Agency study of regional fuel reprocessing, 1976; tech. leader, US nonproliferation initiative with India, US NSC Task Force, US Dept. State, Washington, 1977––79; mgr. fuel reprocessing devel., USDOE, 1980__81; coord. with Japan for nuc. fuel cycle devel., 1982––93; pres. DOE hdqs. employees union Nat. Treasury Employees Union, Washington, 1983––96; cons. on nuc. proliferation threats US Nat. Security Agys., Aiken, SC and Washington, 1966__96; ret., 1997; V.P. World Coun. of Nuc. Workers, Paris, 2000––; spkr. in field; cons. in field. Author: (worldwide nuc. programs) US Nuclear Technology: Need for a New Approach, 1996, US Nuclear Technology: Need For New Vision, 1999. Pres. Kiwanis Club of Northlake Golden K, Decatur, Ga., 2004––. Chemistry Instructor (PFC) 1945__46, Marine Corps Institute, Washington, DC. Recipient "Thanks for Wonderful Partnership," Energy Sec. Hazel O'Leary, 1997, Distinguished Career Svc. award, Recognition as US authority on Nuc. Fuel Reprocessing, 1997, letter from Ga Tech Pres. G. Wayne Clough that work on energy is important to future of America, 2004. Mem.: Am. Nuc. Soc. (chair, Ga. sect. 2005––07). Achievements include: (1) selected centrifugal contactors for demonstration which resulted in major reprocessing improvement, 1966, (2) AEC accepted recom. for reproc. based on success instead of failure, 1974, which would have resolved concerns, 1978); (3) Chmn of India AEC accepted recom. that prov. basis for continued nuclear cooperation with US, 1978; (4) Ministry for Atomic Energy of Russia and Russian Nuclear Workers Union adopted ideas for partnerships for improved safety of nuclear facilities and safeguards of nuclear materials (1997); (5), provided info. on (3) to Pres. Bill Clinton and India’s Ambassador to US that he sent to his govt that provided a basis for nuclear cooperation between India and US (1998); Avocations: walking, gardening, writing, teaching nuclear energy at Emory Univ. Lifelong Learning Center. Home: 987 Viscount Ct Avondale Estates GA 30002 Office Phone: 404_297_2005. Personal E_mail: clintonbastin@bellsouth.net.

Switch: Republican to Democrat to Republican to Democrat to Republican to...

I know + + + + + and + + + + + Oliver well enough to throw huge fits of outrage when Dennis persists in signing letters "Respectively" instead of "Respectfully" and Claude with his or his spell check's persistent misuse of "it's," and another friend who thinks IRREGARDLESS IS A WORD FOR GOD SAKES, but I'm not sure about you. People are very protective of their gross grammatical errors, but I'll take a chance and tell you that "respectively" means in the order of something or (to quote the dictionary) "for each separately in turn, or and in the order mentioned"), and letters should be signed "Respectfully," meaning filled with respect -- for which I thank you because I think that is what you meant. I wasn't called "The Dragon Lady" for nothing at Kennewick High School.

I find your comments most interesting and agree with you that the Democrats better smarten up and QUIT RUNNING THOSE EASTERN LIBERALS for President. I have never considered myself to be a liberal, and feel strongly that the Democrats better move toward the center in their next Presidential nomination. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan but well remember the attitude toward Jimmy Carter as expressed by a Hungarian businessman when I was in Budapest. He said bluntly that Carter would soon be GONE, that he was a joke. That showed me a European who probably knew more about American politics than many Americans did, but I also felt, "Mister, you do not have the right to vote so your opinion does not count." I will not forgive Carter for deregulating the airlines (many people erroneously attribute this to Reagan) and for shutting down nuclear activity. However, I did enjoy the 12 percent my investments earned. Now I will share your comments with those who are interested, and if you do not want me to do this, just holler. Of course, I will delete + + + + + names after sending this to you, + + + + +. Thanks for the conversation.

Laurel Piippo

Hello again,

You come from quite a distinguished family. When I was younger, I was a fairly liberal third-generation Democrat. When I was 18, I worked all summer on Sen. McGovern’s presidential campaign. That Summer I also ran for Democratic Precinct Committeeman and won with one of the largest majorities in the City of Yakima, I was also the youngest committeeman in Yakima. I went on to be VP and later President of Yakima Young Democrats.

But I became increasingly uncomfortable with the extreme-ultra-left wingers who were taking over the party. Then came Carter. I supported him when he was sitting at 3% in the polls. When he won, I though we finally had a reasonable Democrat that could manage this country. But disaster followed disaster. We became the laughing stock of the world; our economy was in the toilet; we had the Russians who were determined "bury" us; I remember those days – how depressing they were.

Enter Ronald Reagan. I was very skeptical of the man, but he sincerely promised to get the country back on track and make us respected again in the eyes of the world. I went through great sole searching – could I vote for a conservative Republican like Reagan? How would I explain it to my friends and family? Was he just another pile of vocal B.S?

I finally made up my mind to vote for him (BUT not to switch parties) 3 weeks before the election. Ever so slowly, my mind and views began to change as I watched him bring the USA back from the doorsteps of collapse. Then with amazement I watched the Berlin Wall fall and communism came tumbling down – I never thought I’d live to see the day but I did. The economy took off. American seemed proud to be American again. My liberal friends abandoned me, and I finally became convinced that Reagan was right – I finally switched parties.

The once small Republican Party gained ex-Democrats in the droves. These ex-Democrats were fed up with liberalism and failed policies. Good times were back. But as the old saying goes “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” And this is what I fear has happen to the Republicans. They have become proud, arrogant, and forgotten the lessons that Regan had taught. The republican leadership had better toss these corrupt scoundrels out and get back to their conservative foundation or they might just find themselves back as a minority party again.

As for Bush, what can I say? He’s no Ronald Regan, he’s a dunce. If it wasn’t for daddy, I suspect Bush couldn’t get elected mayor. I never wanted him, I never liked him. But what choice did I have. The Democrats just keep running ultra extreme liberals bozos for President. How can the Democrats ever be expected to run the most advanced country in the world when they have names like Nancy P., Gore, or Kerry? I haven’t seen a reasonable Democratic Presidential candidate run in decades (outside of Clinton who I have mixed emotions about) – that why the American people keep rejecting them election after election.

Well last November, my wife and I sat home rather than go vote for a bunch of corrupt lying politicians. Here’s my advice to the Republicans. They better give up their arrogance and get back to the roots or they’ll end up like the Democrats – morally bankrupt.

Respectively,

****************************************From:

LaurelPiippo@cs.com

To:

LaurelPiippo@cs.com

Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 3:33 PM

Subject: Response to a Republican

Response to a person who changed parties:

I read with interest your account of changing from Democrat to Republican. Something must have happened in the Democratic party to horrify quite a few people out of the Party, I'm not sure when, but my guess it was in the early 1950s when the Cold War fears were at their peak. I was just converting from Republican to Democrat, but there were some local Democratic party leaders that made me think they had an agenda different from the one I had in mind -- some of them said things like "each according to his needs" and not having two senators from each state; that is, representation unrelated to geographical location and area. Two other scientists told me a story similar to your disillusionment.

I was born and brought up in South Dakota where Democrats were unheard of. My grandfather was Speaker of the House of the Dakota Territory and as a brilliant attorney wrote most of the Constitution adopted by Montana, Washington, N and S Dakota, and _________ (I forgot) in 1889. He had a photographic mind and could quote the law verbatim. He insisted on including the Initiative and Referendum, which has caused a lot of trouble in this state recently, because the gold interests in western South Dakota. Territory owned the legislature. My grandfather wanted The People to have recourse. He is a legend, and the subject of each family reunion when we old cousins regale the group with our memories of Grandpa Rice. He voted Republican all his life until Herbert Hoover, when he voted for Roosevelt instead, as did many hard-core Republicans of that terrible time. The Depression changed more than one Republican into a Democrat, at least temporarily. Numerous Republicans tell me George W. Bush has disillusioned them out of their Party, at least temporarily.

It never occurred to me to be anything but a Republican until after I graduated from college and became a teacher in Washington state and married a Democrat and gradually came to see the error of my ways.

p.s. LAUREL PIIPPO, Democratic Precinct Committeeman, Precinct 195

I don't know any pinko Democrats active in the Party today. We're mostly old and gray!!! Like the aging population surrounding us, very anti-Bush and very patriotic.

*****Dateline: February 6, 2007*****UPDATE

Recently I received an email from someone who explained why he switched from the Democratic to the Republican party. A friend sent an interesting respose, which I am sharing with you. Laurel Piippo

I also thought I’d comment on some of the opinions of the author.Jimmy Carter’s tone rather than his policies were the problem in the mid 70’s. He was trying to show Americans what Reagan and his ilk put off for awhile. We need to wean ourselves from foreign oil. It’s not that foreign trade is bad, but rather we’re “over a barrel” - an oil barrel – and our own selfishness is keeping us there. I know Americans hate to hear that we’re selfish, but we won’t spend money on good light rail systems and workable bus systems, but insist on maintaining reliance on automobiles. So it’s each soul to him/her self and tough for you if you’re poor and it affects you more. We need to turn down the heat and turn up the dial when we air condition. If we’d done this back when Carter recommended it, would global warming be as bad as it is now? We should never trade arms for hostages even when the hostages are our young men and women. Although Reagan claimed he couldn’t remember giving the ok to do so, facts make it clear that the U.S. did trade arms for U.S. citizens in Irangate. And we mined the coast of Nicaragua so that the World Court had to find us guilty and force us to remove those mines that broke several world laws and treaties. There were well-documented claims that our services were bringing drugs into the country to pay for secret actions and arms and the School of the Americas made trained killers of simple South Americans and encouraged Shining Path terrorists – really scary guys just like Hamas and al Qaida. The Berlin Wall came down because every president since Truman resisted communism and because with home computers, Eastern Bloc nations could see the truth that their governments were keeping from them. Western countries weren’t the devils they’d been painted to be and young people yearned to join the world. – I’d predicted the fall of communism since 1972 . . . because it’s far too idealistic. Humans want to believe in one for all and all for one, but really we’re in it for ourselves. And when 80s’ Eastern Europeans saw the relative plenty in the Western world and the graft in their supposedly pure system, the scales fell from their eyes. Reagan was a tough-talking puppet. He never served beyond making pro-government films, but somehow he believed he’d hoisted a real gun and he made believe he was a hero on the order of “the Gipper”. His charm eluded me. He and Bush senior hid the actual state of our teetering economy and racked up debt and interest on that debt to levels never before seen. Somehow they, like W now, waved off the importance of the debt as well as the source of the borrowed money as not important. This is the source of decay in our current economy.Citizens are going to get a horrifying cold bath once W is out of office when all the war costs that are “off the books” and all the massive borrowing is revealed. Republicans are saying it doesn’t matter whether you borrow money to pay for something or pay cash (taxes). These are businessmen? What about the interest costs? What about having our debt held by those with whom we must have a strong face?

Businessmen – your grandmother’s left hind foot! -- No one wants to pay taxes. Liberals, conservatives, moderates, young, old, black, white…we’d all rather hang onto more of our money, but there’s reality to face. Don’t like reality?

Wait’ll you see how well you like surprise debt load. Does the author have any idea of the number of American big businessmen/women who’ve given up their citizenship in order to avoid taxes? It’s all in the Wall Street Journal when you read it. Having worked for Merrill Lynch for 14 years, I’m no fool about what it takes to accumulate wealth and manage debt load. It isn’t easy. It isn’t sexy. It isn’t fun. It’s patient, persistent, systematic saving. Show me one place where Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 recommended that course of action. No. They and their friends are skimming the profits right off America and taking public money to line their own pockets. I hope we have a competent Democratic president elected in 2008 who’ll instigate investigations into war profiteering by the likes of Halliburton, Brown &Root, all the major oil companies, etc. I would have far preferred John Kerry to the miserable wreck of a president we currently have. Kerry might be a liberal, but he runs with a good crowd economically. Finally, I think we’re lucky to have Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. After that bunch of do nothing know nothings we’ve had in Congress for the past 12 years, at long last the business of the people is being addressed again. I hope the Democrats continue to crack the whip and begin to seriously address the many issues that’ve been back-burnered for so long while corporate America wrote the laws meant to protect us from many forms of pollution and graft. I hope we elect a solid Democrat to the White House. And I hope the Congress and the White House then drop all the political gamesmanship and work together. I like the tension between the left and the right. If neither side is happy, then the system is working.We’re not meant to balance obscene corporate profit on the backs of the nation’s 5 year-olds by short-changing education. (If throwing money at education doesn’t work why do the wealthy pay whatever it takes to send their kids to private schools?) And we’re not meant to drag business under by placing such a burden on them that even well-run enterprises can’t thrive. So give me Hilary or Barak or John Edwards and let McCain retain his position as Senator where he represents all those conservative Arizonans. I guess the joke would be that women and minorities have always cleaned up after white men, but when it’s our economy, our Constitution and our future, it isn’t funny is it?

(Signed by my spitfire friend.)