I tried to recall this email (you should have received my revised, final email last night). But it was accidentally sent prematurely, removing this part. It was recalled within seconds, but may have gone out anyway. So you should have it, as reference i case it matters. I have o secrets, except when it comes to "acting in the streets" when I don't want to make it easy to counter civil disobedience. In regards to that, I remind folks that were not involved, many in this group were part of winning the "Most Patriotic Prize (w/ $250) in the 2014 Arroyo Seco Fourth of July Parade organized by Rivera Sun in which Jeanne Greene, Marilyn Hoff, Rick Brown, Sigrid Erika also played major roles. Pics here, here.
I don't want ANY more pits, at LANL or anywhere. And it has LITTLE to do with earthquakes or safety or toxicity, although they severely amplify COSTS of such a terrible idea. And as Kathy Sanchez and Marian Naranjo, have stated better, the CANCER of the soul and heart and mind outweigh the cancer of the toxins, even under earthquake conditions. It has turned us into an immoral nation, glorifying violence and the transfer of resources from the poor to the rich, from nature to ego. The IDEA of Nuclear weapons to me is a SICK, MENTALLY INSANE, concept and was started on lies under the auspices of US HEGEMONY and US World Empire. It continues even past the realization the US Empire is crumbling, the desire to build more pits now driven primarily by money. To me nuclear weapons are essentially Auschwitz on STEROIDS, and every bit as insane.
Hence MY insistence on a resolution I can support that doesn't condone pits IF the earthquake issue is solved- Others are of course free, to express " we don't want any more plutonium pits" PRIMARILY under a toxicity, health impairment issue coupled to earthquakes, but I don't see it that way. The earthquake issue has already been partially solved by moving a large part of pit production to South Carolina. If ALL pit production moves to SC, would THAT solve your concerns??? Because of the Cascadia Fault and my families presence in NW Portland, my having lived in So Calif for 12 years and knowing of the engineering responses available there and in Japan, I have no doubt the LANL earthquake issues could be "adequately" addressed (the , ie NOT be an impediment, if TPTB decide LANL is the place for pit production, and if "too costly at LA" pit production can simply be moved. And if not, since letters from DFSB to the Sect of DOE do not have to be revealed, and are often long delayed when they are, LANL can simply claim the DNSFB has stated "seismic safety concerns have bee resolved, but due to National Security issues, we cannot share that finding with you". Then what?
As Suzie confirmed by calling the DNFSB, they do NOT regulate,they are part of the Executive Branch. they report directly to the DOE Sect, ALL Five members are appointed by the President. While I fully support the sense that the earthquake safety issue is important, and that present and future health risks are reprehensible and unnecessary. I just listened to two hours (the first of Three sessions_ of the last public hearing of the DNFSB in Santa Fe, (Wednesday, June 7, 2017) on seismic issues at LANL. the agenda and video is here
I think (wishful?) that we are on the same page re Nukes, but this resolution is taking more time than I can justify, and I continue to be bothered by what I see as EGO, the unwillingness to find ways to include the City Council/Manager as a partner in this process. So I wish you all the best, and ***DO*** thank you for your efforts to ban nukes, if that is in fact the ultimate goal. At the VERY beginning I expressed concern that our efforts must "move fast enough to matter" , and this is what I meant. I see little to no fwd progress from the Taos Resolution of a decade ago, and all sorts of detail/micro-management (false precision) rather than a few simple statements from the HEART, expressing a concern, and asking for relief.
I hope pride can be swallowed, a consensus reached among VERY soon among the group. I hope you are willing to ask the Council for help and advise on how to pass a resolution, and compromise on changes (simply leave out what they are unwilling to support; NOTHING needs to be in there that YOU don't support- it may simply not be as strong a statement (you may not have as much Council support) as is optimal. Don't discard the "Good", by demanding the "Perfect". Starting from another's detailed expression, and trying to massage it to conform to one's own views is extremely problematic. I am a bad judge of whether to try to salvage the considerable work that has been invested here, or to start over. It does seem to me you are close to consensus, and I hope it does express what is in your hearts. I wish you the best in your endeavors.
Attached is an email exchange at the start of this, copied verbatim with the exception of removing the quotes around intern which I did not realize, at the time, was offensive - a mistake I took the liberty to correct.