If they don't sign the Settlement, they are generally just obliquely evicted from their
property, without compensation, by a) the Government seizing their flock, b) the
local health inspectors capping their wells, and c) the Bureau of Land Management
condemning their property, followed by summary eviction.  This has been the pattern
and a variety of excuses, ranging from "improper range management" to "unregistered
livestock".  There is nothing about this that is unknown to Senator McCain, nor any
of the below contamination issues.  However, such details do not bother him, apparently.

This letter from Bill Sebastion, provides some of the background on the problem with
living at Pio Puerco: its radioactively contaminated, from a United Nuclear Corporation
containment damn that collapsed.  While most of the area is contaminated, some of the
ground was spared, and it is this spotty uncontaminated ground, that is used as false
proof by the Bureau of Reclamation, that it is safe to live there.

ACSA's chairman, a high energy physicist, recently decided the Pio Puerco "New Lands"
should be redisgnated the "Nuke Lands"...

----

From: Bill Sebastian <bill@ictcompress.com (by way of Robert Dorman
<redorman@theofficenet.com)
 

<<Radiation on New Lands>>

Radioactive contamination in the Rio Puerco basin results from both
man-made and natural sources. The man-made sources result from mining activities
upstream, both from long-term low-level releases and from a major release resulting
from the collapse of a containment dam in 1979. The problems with respect to
man-made contamination are documented in many places:

State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (NMEID) draft
report (Millard, et.al, 1982): "Persons using this water for drinking, irrigation,
or livestock watering on a continual basis will incur an additional risk of
cancer".

The Arizona Dept of Health Services (from statement issued on July
27,1983) found levels of U-nat and Cs-137 far above allowable limits at samples
taken in the river bed near Chambers AZ (within the New Lands).

Tests performed subsequently have yielded mixed results, with some showing
highly elevated levels, while others showing normal levels. These inconsistent
readings are typical for this type of situation: when finite-sized particles are
scattered over a large area, measurements will always vary in small sampling sets.

The failure to find elevated levels in some small-scale sampling does not prove
that no problem exists, and certainly should not be construed as a refutation of
the other studies. I also think that it is safe to say that the amount of
testing that has been done is far less than would have occurred if a more
politically-connected group of people were subjected to the same risk.

In addition to exposure from the riverbed (primarily via watering of
livestock when the riverbed has water in it), a concern is the possible migration of
the contaminants into ground water sources, which was examined by UNLV
(Dixon,1990).

The study found no measurable migration had occurred from the river bed
into the ground water sources: that levels in wells near the river bed were no
higher than wells away from this area. However, the same study found that the water
quality (mostly as a result of natural sources) was poor. 29 of 42 wells tested
had at least one inorganic contaminant exceeding its EPA maximum contaminant level
(MCL), and the average gross alpha radiation level on all wells was 36
pci/L (the MCL is 30). To the extent that the federal government is forcibly
relocating people to this area, it is failing to provide safe drinking water
regardless of the source of the contaminants.

The federal government is undeniably subjecting people to a risk factor:
the questions are only the amount of exposure and the acceptable level of
contaminants. Because the relocated population often relies on subsistence
herding, wherein multiple pathways for exposure exist, the acceptable
levels should clearly be lower than for other populations. Since the levels are
clearly higher than the rest of the country deems acceptable, supporters of these
people are more than justified in raising this issue as a legitimate concern.
========================

Moderators Note:
The unfortunate thing about "studies" is, like statistics, you can
weasel-word the data into supporting almost any finding that you want to.
This is why, in the medical world, "double-blind" studies are conducted.
When the government has a vested interest in showing little or no dangerous
contamination, you can be sure that no little or no contamination will be
found when the study is conducted! Most of the U.S. Geological Survey
reports concerning the Puerco River basin minimize the risk factor. Here
is an example taken from "Preliminary Assessment of Water Quality in the
Alluvial Aquifer of the Puerco River Basin, Northeast Arizona" by the U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 87-4126.

"A total of 14 wells and 1 spring were sampled during the most recent round
of analyses (December 1986). The quality of water in three of the wells
exceeded the Primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for gross alpha
Particle activity of 15 picocuries (pCi)/liter (excluding uranium and
radon) while the quality of water in two wells were at the MCL."

OK, right off the bat, you can see that uranium and radon were EXCLUDED
from the test! If they were included, the contaminant level would obviously
be even higher. Even with them excluded, the radionuculide contamination
was high. Now further, we read:

"However, if historical data were averaged with the new data, and the split
sample results were also averaged, only one well would exceed the MCL for
gross alpha particle activity."

OF course! If you take "historical" (read that CLEAN-UNCONTAMINATED data)
and average it with the contaminated data, you will get cleaner data! If
you don't read between the lines of these reports, and just read the
conclusions, then you can get a very rosy picture of the situation.

What is needed is an up-to-date, INDEPENDANT, NON-GOVERNMENT
survey by a respected professional industrial radiation survey organization, and a
careful review of the most recent RAW data (not the politically-biased
conclusions) taken by the USGS.
====================