Let's split this e-missive up into three parts, shall we?...re: GPS, RRA, PDH-- it's all below, folks...
MORE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL LIES/COVER-UPS RE: RRA FROM MONDAY'S FRONT PAGE...
First-- catch this one on the front page of yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal?...
The "Consultants to Give Presentation on Garbage, Recycling Plan for Dutchess" article on yesterday's front page noted how there will be a special update "public" meeting of our County Legislature this Weds. at 6 pm on the 6th floor of our County Office Building (MSWC report re: DCRRA)...
Funny thing is this-- this "public" meeting won't be allowing any of you all ("the public") to speak(!)...
[interesting-- last year when Co. Leg. GOP did this very thing the PoJo exposed them for this; no longer]
[what should u all do?...email letterstoeditor@poughkeepsiejournal.com; come with mouths duct-taped!]
But that's not all folks-- the article also goes on to state this-- "The consultants also have recommended the county establish its own Department of Solid Waste. The Legislature has funded the commissioner's post and two other jobs for the new department, but County Executive William Steinhaus has not hired anyone yet. The Legislature passed a resolution last week calling on Steinhaus to fill those jobs. Steinhaus said he intended to respond to the Legislature's request this week"...
Just one little problem here-- resolution passed by our County Legislature on this did NOT mention jobs (plural) for Solid Waste Dept.-- but just one job-- for Steinhaus to appoint Solid Waste Commissioner...
[recall-- this is no small point-- a number of Dems in my caucus (myself included) have steadfastly opposed forcing the taxpayers of Dutchess County to subsidize the currently wasteful garbage scheme; I personally have consistently supported the hiring of a Solid Waste Commissioner-- but not staff for this]
In other words-- once again the Poughkeepsie Journal just blatantly lied...
MORE POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL LIES/COVER-UPS RE: GOP/GPS FROM FRI.'S FRONT PAGE...
Second-- I say again because-- recall the front page of this past Friday's Pok. Journal...
Indeed, the very first sentence of the very article on the top of the front page of Friday's paper ("Dutchess Will Test GPS for Domestic-Violence Offenders") told us all how Dutchess might just well be the very first place in the U.S. to have GPS tracking devices on high-risk domestic violence offenders....(recall: it mentioned how Madrid supposedly only other place)...
[was so much fun driving to work Fri. listening to idiot dj's shilling for GOP on this-- repeating PoJo lies]
Now-- of course it's a good thing that Dutchess is moving towards GPS tracking for high-risk domestic violence offenders here in our county-- to a certain extent...
[...but too bad going about it wrong way!...see Maria DiBari info-- http://www.4Survivors.blogspot.com ...]
However-- why are Dutchess GOP officials lying to local media (and why is the PoJo repeating their lies)-- about how supposedly nowhere else in U.S. has this?...
The fact is (as I've been repeatedly stating during Co. Leg. meetings this year, and repeatedly emailing to local media), there are now at least eighteen states (including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, Indiana, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah) that have all passed legislation for GPS monitoring of high-risk domestic violence offenders(!)...[not just Madrid!!!]...
Recall these two articles I've been referring to in my blog, on my radio shows, and in my press releases for months now (why have PoJo and rest of local media ignored this?...pathetic):
"GPS Adds Security to Protective Orders" by Diane Rosenfeld [July 18, 2010 Hartford Courant] http://articles.courant.com/2010-07-18/news/hc-op-rosenfeld-battered-lives-0718-20100718_1_protective-gps-monitoring-tiana-notice
"More States Use GPS to Track Abusers" by Ariana Green (May 9, 2009 New York Times)-- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/us/09gps.html
But that's not all-- why are local media making this initiative look like a Republican idea-- when back in March we Dems submitted a resolution for movement on this-- and it wasn't even allowed to be on the April County Legislature Committee Day agenda? [see just below-- my March blog post on this:
http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/03/gop-not-allowing-resolution-to-protect.html ]
Also-- the fact is that just 10 GPS devices is but a drop in the bucket compared to the true level of need for Dutchess County; as I've repeatedly pointed out, progressive taxation on state and/or county level could easily, fully fund a real GPS program locally for high-risk domestic violence offenders (see my blog post below; http://www.petitiononline.com/cobudget ; http://www.ABetterChoiceforNY.org )..
PDH MORNING CREW COMPLETELY LOSE MIND YESTERDAY MORNING RE: INDIAN POINT...
Finally-- what in God's name was going thru the minds of the WPDH morning crew yesterday (Mon.) morning?...(insanity)...
First (before I get there) they tell me I can come on the air to talk about yesterday's rally to ban fracking at Saland/Miller offices-- then once I get there they don't even allow me to bring up that issue-- and instead want to harp on my May 4th debate there with Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi(!)...
[thx to 30 of you who came to rally to ban fracking-- next one is June 1st 12:30: Molinaro's in Red Hook!]
[recall-- even GOP Rockland County Exec C. Scott Vanderhoef has come out strongly vs. Indian Point:
http://nyack.patch.com/articles/rockcland-county-executive-its-time-to-shut-indian-point#c ]
Incredibly, the PDH morning crew were obsessed with how it somehow "dirtbag"-like of me to point out on the air May 4th that Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi willfully tried to mislead WPDH listeners that his "Indian Point Energy Center" was all about dry cask storage-- when fact is, as I got him to admit off the air-- only 15% of the dangerously leaking spent fuel rods are in dry cask storage...
[the last time I checked, when debating, you're not supposed to ignore it when your opponent misleads!]
What actually happened that morning (5/4) is that it was Nappi himself who first brought up the issue of dry cask storage-- trying to make all PDH listeners think that the vast majority (if not all) of the spent fuel rods were in dry cask storage...
I asked him how many rods were in dry cask storage-- Nappi answered 500 (then commercial started)...
I then asked him off the air how many total fuel rods there are at Indian Point (I suspected more to all this); he said there are 1000 rods in each pool; I asked him how many pools there were/are; he answered that there were/are two-- so, I computed, that must mean roughly 25% (or 500 out of a total of 2000) spent fuel rods are/were in dry cask storage-- at which point he said it was more like 15%...
Then-- as the debate wore on-- I did bring up on the air the information he had told me off the air in response to my further questioning him on this (which obviously no one else in studio wanted to do)...
And that, my friends, is ALL that happened; contrary to the insanity that took place yesterday morning on WPDH, the truth is that I did not make a big deal that morning of all this (I did and still do, however, consider this all somewhat noteworthy-- esp. as (see below-- letter from Riverkeeper Ex. Dir. Paul Gallay) getting those fuel rods in to dry cask storage at Indian Point truly is a top priority(!)...
[memo to Jerry Nappi for next debate...duh...don't bring up dry cask storage unless you plan to not lie!]
As the worm turns-- can't wait to see what lies PoJo et. al. in media will bring us in coming days...
[sorry-- but things won't get better 'less y'all wake up!...email letterstoeditor@poughkeepsiejournal.com!]
Pass it on...
Joel
444-0599/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
http://www.PoJoWatch.blogspot.com
p.s. Sadly-- the whole truth must be told-- Larry Hertz, incredibly (who used to be the best reporter at PoJo) is the guilty one re: two carelessly lying Pok. Journal articles above (unfortunately, this also just brings to mind how article from Larry on front page of PoJo last year told us all how Co. Leg. Public Works and Capital Projects Committee supposedly unanimously voted for jail expansion study-- only truth was that I'm on that committee and I voted against it (something Larry should have known because he was in the Legislative Chambers when I voted against jail expansion study and made statement about it)....and then, natch, Larry (and rest of PoJo staff) completely ignored it when I/Dem caucus got resolution passed unanimously this Mar. to AVOID jail expansion by looking at best practices)...
[sorry Larry-- but spring has sprung-- baseball season started long ago-- and you're out (three strikes!)]
p.p.s. Sadly, Hank Gross/MidHudsonNews.com not much better; still playing games and up to old tricks; fact is that for months now (since Jan. when I held Hank accountable for misreporting an issue), Hank has assiduously avoided giving yours truly any credit whatsoever for the events I've organized(!)...so-- yes-- of course it's good that there's some coverage at MidHudsonNews.com today on our rally yesterday in front of Saland/Miller offices to ban fracking-- but sorry folks-- I've been in this game long enough to know that it is truly B.S. that this is one more case (as many before over last five months) where there's coverage in MidHudsonNews.com of an event organized by yours truly-- with all reference to me completely removed; to wit-- see: "Activists Lobby for Permanent Anti-Fracking Law":
http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2011/May/17/antifrack_law-17May11.html (and this will be template for Daily Freeman coverage on this as well)...
[again-- Hank's coverage here-- re: "activists" rallying-- ignores how four-time elected county legislator (yours truly) and Conservative Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey have for months now been co-sponsoring legislation to ban fracking here in Dutchess on county land (bill wording modeled after what passed unanimously this spring in Ulster Co. Leg.)-- yet Dutchess Co. Leg. leadership here has refused to allow Tyner/Doxsey resolution on this to even appear on agenda for Committee Day!]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Paul Gallay
Subject: Indian point notes
Date: May 3, 2011
Good luck with your debate with Entergy tomorrow - here is some basic material from Riverkeeper.
First thing you might want to look is this article:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-27/local/29368278_1_indian-point-fuel-pool-nrc
The Campaign
Our key goals on Indian Point are:
1. Stopping the headlong rush to plant relicensing
2. Moving the spent fuel piling up at the plant into safer dry cask storage
3. Pressing NYS to create and implement an aggressive plan that will bring us a sustainable energy future
4. Closing the reactors.
Background materials:
Top Ten Reasons To Close Indian Point
10. Nowhere to put Indian Point's highly-radioactive spent fuel - IP's storage pools are already overfilled with spent fuel rods from the last 40 years of operations. The spent fuel pools are also leaking radioactive water into the ground and the Hudson River.
9. Two different earthquake fault lines cross just north of Indian Point, leading Columbia University to conclude that Indian Point is in pretty much the worst location for a nuke plant in the NY metro area.
8. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") revised its estimates of earthquake risk in 2010, concluding that Indian Point is the most likely nuke plant in the nation to experience core damage due to an earthquake. NRC higher ups say this is "not a serious concern" and won't do further studies until 2012.
7. Indian Point: don't worry - we can handle up to a 6.1 magnitude earthquake. Columbia University called a 7.0 quake "quite possible."
6. Indian Point has been granted so many exemptions from safety rules in the last ten years that an NRC spokesman says he couldn't possibly recount them all. To help jog NRC's memory - it has relaxed requirements for insulation on electrical cables controlling the reactors; reduced inspection requirements on rusting containment domes and leaking spent fuel pools, extended deadlines for equipment designed to prevent sabotage, etc.
5. A New York State report on the evacuation plan for Indian Point concluded that the plan is based on shaky assumptions and won't protect the public in the event of a real emergency. A subsequent federal study also found serious problem areas, especially in connection with the risk of attack on the spent fuel pools. Indian Point's response: "it's a very good plan."
4. Indian Point's evacuation plan only covers people living within ten miles from the plant. While NRC has told Americans living 50 miles from Fukushima to evacuate, it has not ordered Indian Point to prepare plans for a similar evacuation in case of an emergency in our area. Indian Point says any talk of a 50-mile evacuation plan here is "completely premature." Twenty million Americans in three states live within 50 miles of Indian Point.
3. We don't even really need the juice. Indian Point represents 12.5% of the electricity generating capacity in downstate New York. California conserved more than that in six months. If they can do it, we can too.
2. New York City's most important drinking water reservoir lies fifteen miles from Indian Point. Nine million people depend on the safety of that water supply every day.
1. If we don't do something, Indian Point could operate for another 40 years. Its original 40-year licenses are just about up and NRC says it sees no reason not to grant renewals. NRC, our only nuclear watchdog, refused to consider earthquake risk or evacuation problems during the Indian Point relicensing process. A leading nuclear physicist and former White House staffer calls NRC a "textbook case" of what happens when the industry gains control of a regulatory agency.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Update on all this here from the folks @ http://www.Riverkeeper.org ...
05.10.11 :: PRESS RELEASES :: POWER PLANT CASES
Riverkeeper Responds to NRC Chairman's Visit to Indian Point
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Riverkeeper, Tina Posterli, 516-526-9371, tposterli@riverkeeper.org
Riverkeeper Responds to NRC Chairman's Visit to Indian Point
Submits Critical Questions to Congressional Representatives
Ossining, NY - May 9, 2011 - Recognizing the unique opportunity that Congressman Engel and Congresswoman Lowey have in touring the Indian Point nuclear power plant facility with NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko tomorrow, Riverkeeper has encouraged the representatives to use the site visit as an opportunity to continue to hold NRC's feet to the fire and has submitted proposed, pointed questions for them to ask during the tour.
This tour comes on the heels of two major New York Times articles highlighting the role that the culture of complicity by regulators played in making the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant vulnerable to the natural disaster that struck Japan on March 11 and most recently, the fact that starting in the 90s, the NRC eliminated a key requirement for relicensing and cut enforcement by 70% due to industry pressure.
We have also learned that the NRC has given Entergy numerous exemptions to critical fire safety regulations at Indian Point, so many that a NRC spokesman claimed "we can't possibly keep count of how many we've granted."
Riverkeeper greatly appreciates and supports Congressman Engel and Congresswoman Lowey's efforts to address concerns surrounding the operation of Indian Point in the wake of the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear facility. Likewise, Riverkeeper has been working on various fronts to hold the NRC answerable to the many questions raised by this most recent nuclear disaster.
Highlights of the questions Riverkeeper submitted include:
* Why does NRC refuse to require Entergy to move as much spent fuel as possible from the densely packed, leaking pools to dry cask storage?
* Why won't NRC provide the same conservative assumptions that were afforded to American residents in Japan by requiring evacuation planning for a 50-mile radius surrounding U.S. nuclear plants?
* If necessary because of a serious accident (for example, one of similar magnitude to the incident at Fukushima) how would NRC ensure that the 20 million people within 50 miles of Indian Point would be safely evacuated?
* What is the NRC and Entergy's basis for summarily stating that Indian Point is properly equipped to handle earthquakes of other natural phenomenon?
* Why does the NRC refuse to consider new seismic information in the Indian Point license renewal proceeding?
"In a recent television debate I was a part of, Entergy spokesman Jim Steets scoffed at the idea that NRC is too soft on industry, said Paul Gallay, Executive Director & Hudson Riverkeeper. "The most recent article in The New York Times proves that the truth is just the opposite: industry complaints in the 90s when THEY didn't get their way led to a huge drop in enforcement and lower relicensing standards for US nuclear plants. It's time for a change at NRC and tomorrow presents us with an opportunity to speak through our congressional representatives to say 'we won't stand for that culture of complicity here!'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[re: GPS: here resolution below from yours truly/Dem caucus submitted in Mar.: not allowed on agenda]
WHEREAS, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported March 14th that in the past two years, more than 2,800 orders of protection have been issued by Family Court judges in Dutchess County, an increase of more than 30 percent over the previous two years; last year there were more than 1,000 orders of protection in force against City of Poughkeepsie residents alone, and police arrested more than 100 people for violating them, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Legislature's Citizens Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence last October in its System-wide Review and Recommendations made a statement that it "strongly urges the Legislature to direct implementation of a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Monitoring and Alert system for high-risk domestic violence offenders, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Legislature's Citizens Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence also made it clear in its report last October that "in contrast to electronic monitoring, GPS monitoring has strengths that can address actual safety concerns for victims in real time," and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Legislature's Citizen Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence also stated that "the Committee has reviewed a number of GPS Monitoring Systems that, if implemented in appropriate cases, could provide for timely and meaningful reactions to identifiable risks," and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County Legislature's Citizen Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence also stated that it "notes with significant interest that such a [GPS] system has been operational in Madrid, Spain since 2006; literature reports that there has not been a single attack on a user of the system since that system's inception there," and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County Legislature's Citizen Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence also stated that "when utilized in conjunction with lethality assessment, and as a judicial supplement to the posting of bail for an offender, GPS can provide meaningful assistance to victims...it is the Committee's belief that had such a system been in place and Anthony Riccardulli subject to its monitoring and alerting capabilities, Linda Riccardulli could have been warned of his impending arrival and officers dispatched to the location; this recommendation could have changed the outcome," and
WHEREAS, such GPS monitoring systems have been set up in various jurisdictions across the country at hardly any cost to taxpayers, as high-risk domestic violence offenders often have funded the cost of these systems themselves; GPS monitoring systems can also often end up protecting domestic violence offenders as well from being falsely accused of being places they aren't, and
WHEREAS, there are now at least eighteen states (including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, Indiana, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah) that have all passed legislation for GPS monitoring of high-risk domestic violence offenders, with at least 5,000 domestic abusers being tracked nationwide; in Massachusetts, at least 100 people accused of domestic abuse are monitored by GPSl; they are charged $8 a day for a cellphone-like device that clips to a belt, an ankle bracelet and a home charger; their movements are monitored by three control centers, and if they break an "exclusion zone" around the victim or her children, the police are notified, and
WHEREAS, according to The New York Times quoting Harvard Law School lecturer Diane Rosenfeld in May 2009, "using GPS monitoring to enforce an order of protection makes the order more than just a piece of paper; it's a way of making the criminal justice system treat domestic violence as potentially serious; by detecting any escalation in the behavior of a batterer, GPS can prevent these unnecessary tragedies; Ms. Rosenfeld's research found that about one quarter of women who were killed by their domestic abusers already had restraining orders," and
WHEREAS, Diane Rosenfeld wrote last year in the Hartford Courant that "approximately 75 percent of intimate partner homicides involve a male partner who will not accept a woman's decision to end their relationship and to be free from his violence; strict monitoring of protective orders is crucial as about a quarter of them are violated; approximately one quarter of women killed by their intimate partners had a protective order at the time of their murder," and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature strongly urges our county's District Attorney and criminal and family court judges to work together to implement a GPS monitoring system for high-risk domestic violence offenders as quickly as possible, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to our county's County Executive, District Attorney, criminal and family court judges, and Universal Response to Domestic Violence Coordinator.
No comments:
Post a Comment