[Fair Use: For Education and Research Purpose Only]

Signs of radioactive river?

By Tim Kelly LINK

RIVERHEAD - The Suffolk County Legislature spoke in one voice last week in turning aside the veto of a bill ordering the installation of warning signs along the banks of the Peconic River. The signs are to point out that a study is under way on the potential presence in fish of radioactive contamination originating at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Twelve votes are needed to override, but the lawmakers were unanimous, 18-0, in rejecting County Executive Robert Gaffney's argument that the state, not the county, holds the authority to post such warnings.

Case closed? Hardly.

State and county officials were scheduled to gather yesterday (Wednesday) to argue the jurisdictional issues that seem to have overshadowed whether or not the traces of radioactive elements that have been found in the river's headwaters warrant the unusual step of posting warning signs.

The acting head of the county health department's division of environmental quality believes such signs aren't necessary. The early results of a water, soil and marine life sampling program confirms the previously discovered elevated levels of radionuclides in soil near BNL's sewage treatment plant, but the numbers "are nothing really startling," said Vito Minei.

The lab work on other samples collected over the past few months should be in the county's hands by the spring, perhaps before the signs could be put in place.

Searching for radioactive contaminants, the federal Environmental Protection Agency recently collected finfish and shellfish from Peconic Bay. The results from those tests are not yet available.

LaValle: It's DEC country

The dispute over the need for the warning signs also has reached the region's state legislative delegation. Agreeing with Mr. Gaffney's assessment that Suffolk has no say over a waterway covered by the state Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, State Senator Kenneth LaValle has introduce a bill requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation to post such signs.

The senator argues that the rivers act gives the DEC, not the county, regulatory authority over all property a half-mile landward of each shore.

But that measure could die as a one-house bill since neither of the East End's two Assembly members support it. Assemblywoman Pat Acampora and Assemblyman Fred Thiele both argue that the LaValle approach goes too far by also ordering signs out in Peconic Bay, where no trace of BNL-related radioactivity has ever been found.

Both say the signs could place the bay system in a negative light and so cause economic difficulties for East End fishing and other water related businesses.

As the study at the center of the dispute nears completion, the county health department is planning another new river research effort. Expected to begin in the fall, that $150,000 year-long project will assess the threats to both public and environmental health in the river system. It will not include new sampling, but instead correlate all the information gathered through the current health department program and others.

The specific question of radioactivity levels in edible fish arose last year when the NAACP's East End chapter called on the state Department of Environmental Conservation to post the riverbanks. The group argues that the diets of many people of color regularly include fish taken from the river and so any potential health risks should be made public.

After the DEC rejected that request, the group and several environmental organizations successfully took their case to the County Legislature.

The resulting county bill did not order a warning against eating Peconic River fish, but instead an advisory that a contamination study is in the works. That analysis involves working with a BNL testing program by taking "split samples" of water, soil, sediment and marine life in the river's freshwater section.

BNL sends its samples to one testing facility while the county's are forwarded to another. Both facilities are sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The results on the finfish collected from the Peconic will be compared with fish drawn from the Connetquot River in Islip. Those numbers are expected by late April.

A tarnished jewel?

The study also searched for traces of radioactivity in freshwater mussels taken from several ponds near the river's shore. Mussels from Laurel Lake in Southold will serve as the "control" population. Mr. Minei said the work should be completed by the end of this month.

He remains convinced that despite the presence of some radioactive materials in soil samples, the consumption of fish taken from the river does not pose a public health threat.

"From what we're hearing from the state health department, the DEC and the early results of our sampling, we do not see the concern," said Mr. Minei.

Mr. Minei, a key member of the Peconic Estuary Study effort, also argues that setting out warning signs would be inconsistent with the county's efforts to portray the bays as a natural treasure.

"We're talking about preserving and enhancing a resource people think is a jewel," he said. "That's in conflict with harsh and strident descriptions of the bay."

Ms. Acampora and Mr. Thiele both agree and say that's why they can't support the LaValle sign bill.

"I don't want to create a public scare when it's not warranted," the assemblywoman said. "We survive out here by tourism. Until we have clear, hard evidence that there are contaminated areas, we shouldn't jump the gun."

She and Mr. Thiele both support placing signs along the river's edge, "But in regard to the bay, I couldn't find anybody who believes there's a need there," the assemblyman said.

Opponents of that approach also question where bay signs would be located and, given the size of that waterway, how effective that form of communication would be.

The senator said he'll consider the Assembly members' concerns. "It's not hysteria," he said of his bill. "I believe in disclosure. Let people make decisions based on that."

Copyright 1999, Times/Review Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 16, 2000

Answers

Radiation hazard signs tend to be very effective in warning people, since we see so few of them! When they are posted, the resultant press will make almost everyone aware...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), February 16, 2000.

Hear on VERY good authority ( friend of BIL) that when you eat the fish, you DO NOT GLOW!! Therefore, there is no danger.

-- Taz (Tassi123@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Forget the safety of the people.....protect the $$$$!!!

Isn't that our new national motto? :[

-- grannyclampett (notress@pass.ing), February 16, 2000.

Keep it up,CEOs of Corporate America and you Wash. Stooges,I got a Feeling,soon Your Victims will once again be talking about ST.Adolphs "Recreation Centers" as the "only Solution".

-- Claude (911@911.911), February 16, 2000.