Tag Archives: poison

How the Madison Water Utility “disappeared” the PFAS in our drinking water

https://mejo.us/how-the-madison-water-utility-disappeared-the-pfas-in-our-drinking-water/

“In 2019 and early 2020, the PFAS levels detected in many of Madison’s municipal drinking water wells were big news–they raised public concerns, and legitimately so (see Wisconsin State Journal articles here and here).

In March 2019, the well with the highest combined PFOS and PFOA levels, Well 15 on Madison’s north side, was shut down–though the Water Utility continued to insist that the water was safe. [1][2]

In her January 2020 Isthmus cover story about Madison’s PFAS problem, Kori Feener cited highly-credentialed national scientists who argued that all PFAS should be considered together in assessing health effects, not just PFOS and PFOA, and that existing standards were not low enough to protect public health. At the time, the Wisconsin DHS had proposed a 20 part-per-trillion (ppt) groundwater standard for PFOA and PFOS combined. (This is still the proposed standard).

Feener quoted Dr. Laura Orlando, an environmental health professor at Boston University. “What we’re going to find out, it’s going to be like lead. The desired level is zero,” Orlando said. Dr. Elise Sunderland, professor of environmental science and engineering at Harvard University, pointed Feener to the work of her colleague, Dr. Philippe Grandjean, who found that a safe level of PFAS in drinking water would be 1 ppt to protect infants from effects of PFAS on their immune systems.

MEJO cited some of this science in its February 2019 comments to the Water Utility Board, asking that it direct the Utility to test more PFAS compounds than they had been testing to date–and at all wells, rather than just a handful.

Last week, the U.S. EPA issued “interim lifetime health advisory levels” of 0.004 ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS.

The EPA fact sheet said “The interim updated health advisories for PFOA and PFOS are based on human studies in populations exposed to these chemicals. Human studies have found associations between PFOA and/or PFOS exposure and effects on the immune system, the cardiovascular system, human development (e.g., decreased birth weight), and cancer.” 

But not to worry…

During the pandemic, Madison’s drinking water PFAS problems were apparently magically cured!!

A table in the October 2019 Water Utility report showed these levels of PFAS in Madison’s wells. Feener’s story a few months later included the below graphic showing total PFAS levels in all of the wells:

 

 

 

In August 2020, the State Journal reported that PFAS was detected in every well.

But by late 2021, according to the Water Utility, the problem had somehow gone away. In part, this is because it was focusing on only PFOS and PFOA and comparing them to state standards. Also, though it didn’t admit this, it was also using different methods and different labs than it used in previous years.

In his December 10, 2021 Wisconsin State Journal story about the proposed DNR drinking water standard of 20 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, Chris Hubbuch wrote that Marcus Pearson, the MWU’s new public relations official, said “the proposed state standard — which is 10 times higher than PFOA and PFOS levels in any active city well — should reassure the more than 260,000 Madison-area residents ‘that our water is undeniably safe to drink.’”

And now again in summer 2022, the very confusing statements on the Madison Water Utility’s website (as of June 22) seem purposely designed to send the unsuspecting public the take away message that the many PFAS compounds detected in the past in most and/or all Madison wells have somehow disappeared. As for PFOS and PFOA, the website says they were “not detected” at any of the tested wells except Well 16, where some PFOS was detected.  So all we have to worry about now is Well 16 (on the west side).

Whew, what a huge relief!

Hmmm. Wait a minute. Is this true? How would these “forever chemicals”–so dubbed because of their extreme persistence and resistance to breaking down–disappear in most of our wells? No remediation has been done on any of the PFAS hotspots–the Dane County airport and military base, the many landfills sprinkled around the city, and more.

Well, they didn’t disappear. The 2022 water samples, from from a subset of Madison wells (not all of them), were analyzed (as part of a DNR voluntary testing program) using a method called Method 537.1 that the Water Utility knows very well underestimates and under-reports the levels that are actually there.

MWU water quality manager: Method 537.1 “may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample” and is “inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells“

In October 2019, the Water Utility’s water quality manager Joe Grande, presented a report to the Water Utility Board showing the PFAS levels found in previous years using “Method 537.1” as compared to a method called “modified” Method 537.1. (This is more of a lab approach than a standard method; different labs have developed varying kinds of “modifications.” The MWU tested these methods from two different private labs.)

Based on these comparisons, Mr. Grande wrote (all highlighting is mine):

“Testing to date shows that EPA Method 537.1, when compared to the modified methods, consistently results in lower total PFAS concentrations due primarily to the fact that the method tests for a smaller number of PFAS – see Figure 2. Furthermore, our limited analysis also suggests that EPA Method 537.1 may produce results lower than what is obtained by the modified methods when only the same 18 PFAS are considered. In other words, EPA Method 537.1 may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample.” 

 

 

Grande concluded: “Although EPA Method 537.1 is the only standard method for the analysis of PFAS in drinking water, it may not be the best analytical method for quantifying PFAS in water.”

He continued: “The Water Utility has gained important experience with PFAS analytical methods and, in particular, challenges associated with accurately measuring low levels of ultra-trace contaminants such as PFAS in drinking water. While EPA Method 537.1 is the standard method for measuring PFAS in drinking water, the method proved inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells.”

His recommendations to the Board were that the Water Utility: “Consistently use the same modified EPA Method 537 for all PFAS analysis to facilitate detection of a wider range of PFAS than EPA Method 537.1” and “Use EPA Method 537.1 if directed by US EPA or Wisconsin DNR unless the modified method has been designated an “equivalent or better” method for PFAS analysis in drinking water.”

What happened?

In 2020, the Utility used three different methods, and results again showed that Method 537.1, with higher detection limits (meaning that it can’t detect lower amounts), revealed fewer detections than the modified Method 537.1. In 2021, only the “ISO” method was used. [2]

Why did the Water Utility not follow Grande’s 2019 recommendations? Was the Water Utility directed to use Method 537.1 or the ISO method by EPA and/or DNR–or Water Utility leadership–beginning in 2021? Have the modified 537.1 methods not been designated as “equivalent or better”? Can the Water Utility still use the most sensitive “modified” method it used in the past to test PFAS in our wells, or is that no longer legitimate?

Maybe these debates about methods wouldn’t matter if these very low levels didn’t have health impacts. But given the EPA’s recently announced “interim lifetime health advisory levels” of 0.004 ppt for PFOA and 0.02 ppt for PFOS, we should be using available and approved methods that can detect the lowest possible levels in order to understand what people are drinking as accurately as we can.

I contacted the Water Utility to find out if the “modified” 537.1 methods are still legitimate and allowable per DNR regulations. The answer–YES. The modified 537.1 approach, Grande said, “is included as an approved alternative in NR 809 revisions.”

So the Water Utility could analyze all water samples using this more sensitive method, if it had the political will to do so.

Instead, the Water Utility is misleading the public

Last week, the Water Utility shared the DNR-project’s 2022 PFAS results, based on Method 537.1, on its PFAS webpage. Here’s what that looks like (as of today, June 22, 2022):

Summary of Test Results

  • None of the 18 PFAS tested were found at ten of the eighteen wells tested
  • PFOS (RL: <1 ppt) was detected at a single well (#16) and PFOA (RL: <2 ppt) was not detected at any of the 18 wells tested

Sorting through this confusing wording, the desired take home message seems to be that only one well (Well 16) has a low level of PFOS and all the other wells have no PFAS.  Yes, it mentions reporting levels for PFOS and PFOA, but most people reading this–having no clue what detection and reporting levels mean (or even that they exist)–will likely take this at face value

If anyone paid attention to PFAS news in the past, and remember it, a few might be perplexed about how this happened, but most people, with other more visible and pressing problems in their lives to worry about, will likely be pleasantly surprised and relieved that somehow the PFAS in the water they are drinking every day went away.

What about the other Madison wells, and the many other PFAS compounds found in previous years? They weren’t included in the 2022 testing. Method 537.1 only analyzes 18 PFAS compounds.

The Water Utility knows very well–as its water quality manager wrote explicitly in a report to the Water Utility Board in 2019–that “EPA Method 537.1 may underreport the “true” amount of PFAS present in a water sample” and “Although EPA Method 537.1 is the only standard method for the analysis of PFAS in drinking water, it may not be the best analytical method for quantifying PFAS in water” and “While EPA Method 537.1 is the standard method for measuring PFAS in drinking water, the method proved inadequate for quantifying the full range of PFAS present in Madison wells.”

The Utility’s webpage with the 2022 results says that they are based on Method 537.1. But it says nothing about its inadequacies, and how they explain the disappearance of PFAS detections compared to previous years.

Few (or no one) will know that the water quality manager recommended to the Water Utility Board in 2019 that the Utility “[c]onsistently use the same modified EPA Method 537 for all PFAS analysis to facilitate detection of a wider range of PFAS than EPA Method 537.1.”

And, of course, nobody paid any attention to MEJO’s 2019 comments to the Board, agreeing with the water quality manager’s recommendation to use the more sensitive modified EPA method 537.1, rather than the “inadequate” standard EPA Method 537.1, in the future. 

Then the pandemic happened, everyone was locked down, few participated in the Zoom Water Utility and TAC meetings (which hardly anyone knows about) and/or tracked what the Water Utility was up to.

Madison can do better: Will it? Unlikely

Given the EPA’s interim lifetime health advisory levels and the fact that the Water Utility can (per state regulations) use other methods besides standard Method 537.1 (including modified 537.1 methods) we think, as we recommended in 2019, the Water Utility should use the analytical methods with the lowest possible detection limits, whether that be modified Method 537.1 or another method.

But based on our experiences here, and how the Water Utility has disingenuously “disappeared” the PFAS in recent years, we expect it won’t. Madison officials certainly won’t demand it. In fact, the City of Madison would rather pretend that the PFAS in our drinking water went away. This approach is much better for the city’s “best of X Y Z” image and for attracting more residents to the rampantly growing city. Who wants to move to a city with poison in its water?

The rampant growth, as I’ve said repeatedly in recent posts, will mean our municipal wells will pump even harder and draw even more PFAS into them. But as long as we can pretend the PFAS isn’t there, who cares?

What’s the old saying? “Denial ain’t just a River in Egypt.”  (Mark Twain)

********

[1] Currently the Water Utility is planning to put a filter on the well before it is put back into service. How low can the available filters reduce PFAS levels to? Which one will the MWU use? What methods will be used to test the PFAS levels?  Attend the public meeting on June 30th and find out.

[2] At the April 2022 Water Utility Technical Advisory Committee meeting, Grande stated clearly that the standard Method 537.1 being used by DNR would result in results below the detection limits for all but one Madison well, Well 16. None of the TAC members expressed any concerns about that. That is indeed what results showed when testing was done in June under the DNR’s program.

The US Military Pollutes More Than Entire Countries

The U.S. Military Emits More Carbon Dioxide Into the Atmosphere Than Entire Countries Like Denmark or Portugal

Original Article Link

But no one knows exactly how much, because the Pentagon’s reporting is spotty. A Humvee gets between four and eight miles per gallon; an F-35 requires 2.37 gallons per mile.

By Sonner Kehrt, 18 Jan 2022
“This story originally appeared on the War Horse. 

In the fall of 2018, Neta C. Crawford, a political science professor at Boston University, prepared to teach a class on climate change designed to help students think about the issue in a big-picture way. Crawford’s research expertise is in war, so she wanted to include a statistic on the military’s contribution to greenhouse gases.

“I thought, ‘Well, maybe I should just tell them what the emissions are for the U.S. military,’” Crawford says. “It was meant to be a line on a slide in a lecture.”

But when she went to look up the figure, she couldn’t find anything reliable. Instead, she found scattered and incomplete data on how much fuel the military consumed and how much carbon it emitted. The information that did exist largely didn’t include overseas operations, even though the United States had been at war for nearly two decades. Major categories of fuel consumption, like much of the fuel used for aviation, seemed to be missing.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol—the world’s first legally binding, international climate treaty—created a reporting loophole for militaries, exempting many of the greenhouse gases emitted during military operations from counting against a country’s emissions totals. While the 2015 Paris Accords did away with this exemption, they didn’t replace it with an obligation. Rather, the decision of whether to report military emissions—and how to calculate them—was left up to individual countries.

The result is a gap in our understanding of the United States’ climate footprint. Research from academics like Crawford, who now studies the issue, shows that the Department of Defense is a major producer of greenhouse gases, with more emissions than many industrialized nations. The United States—and other countries—have said they are committed to reducing military emissions, and earlier this summer, NATO released its Action Plan on Climate Change and Security, acknowledging that better emissions data would help guide member states’ military planning. But there is no consistent methodology and reporting requirement for these emissions. As the United States and other countries work toward net-zero emissions by 2050, Crawford and others say, the lack of clear data from the U.S. Defense Department—the world’s largest employer—and other militaries is a major stumbling block.

“We’ve got these kind of just little fragmentary bits of information and data about how big this problem is,” says Doug Weir, the research and policy director for the U.K.-based Conflict and Environment Observatory, which studies and works to reduce the environmental consequences of military activity. “Until states actually start reporting it, then you can’t really do anything about it.”

On the final evening of negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of an all-night session in December 1997, U.S. negotiators pushed through one last demand. The final draft of the climate agreement included two sentences that exempted emissions from multilateral operations—activities that involve more than two countries—and from ships and aircraft involved in international transport. That meant that much of the carbon emitted during U.S. military operations overseas would not need to be tracked and reported to the United Nations—which was effectively the negotiators’ goal. In testimony to Congress on the Kyoto negotiations, the U.S. lead negotiator, Stuart Eizenstat, stated, “We achieved everything [the Department of Defense] outlined as necessary to protect military operations and our national security.” (In the same hearing, Sen. John Kerry, now the U.S special presidential envoy for climate, praised Eizenstat, saying, “I thought it was a terrific job, and I thank you for it.”)

Ultimately, the United States never even ratified the Kyoto Protocol—largely because of concerns that countries such as India and China weren’t required to reduce emissions—but the damage was done. The U.S. military was not required to develop a methodology for tracking its carbon emissions, and the militaries of other countries that did ratify the treaty remained largely exempt from reporting.

Nearly 20 years later, the 2015 climate agreement signed in Paris did away with the automatic exemption for military emissions. Now, the choice of whether or not to report those emissions—and what, exactly, to report if a country chooses to do so—is left up to individual governments. As a result, the full picture of military emissions, from the United States and other countries, is still unclear.

“The level of reporting between countries varies a lot,” says Linsey Cottrell, the environmental policy officer at the Conflict and Environment Observatory. “Sometimes reporting is not occurring, [or] it’s reported elsewhere. So it’s hard to determine what contribution the military makes to the overall totals.”

The United States does report military emissions to the United Nations—sort of. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that military emissions, if reported, should be included in a category marked “nonspecified.” That same category also includes things like civilian waste incineration, so it’s essentially impossible to parse out which specific emissions come from military sources. And certain major military sources of emissions—like fuel during multilateral operations—are listed in the United States’ reporting as “included elsewhere,” though it’s unclear where. Other categories of military fuel consumption aren’t reported at all.

“It’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle,” Crawford says. “And some of the puzzle pieces are in different units and forms.”

Crawford’s hunt for a clear statistic on military emissions to show her class led her to a new research focus: trying to puzzle out just how much fuel the U.S. military consumes and thus how much carbon it emits. Using Department of Energy data, Crawford found that the U.S. military is a major polluter. Since the beginning of the Global War on Terror in 2001, the military has produced more than 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. Crawford acknowledges her data is likely incomplete—but even with the available data, she found that the U.S. military emits more than entire countries like Portugal and Denmark, and that the Department of Defense accounts for nearly 80% of the federal government’s fuel consumption.

Some of this is because the U.S military owns a lot of property—and has a lot of buildings to heat and power. In 2018, the Defense Department had some 585,000 facilities, spread over 27 million acres in 160 different countries. Each of these buildings emit greenhouse gases; in 2013, Crawford’s report found, the Pentagon building itself emitted more than 24,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Crawford found that installations account for about a third of Defense Department energy consumption. But the overall number has slowly decreased over the last decade, in large part due to energy initiatives across the service branches.

 

The vast majority of military emissions come from operations—moving people and things around. The workhorse equipment needed to accomplish this task, particularly when it’s built to withstand combat, can be notoriously inefficient, Crawford’s report notes. Even nonarmored vehicles guzzle gas: A Humvee gets between four and eight miles per gallon. But by far, the most fuel-thirsty equipment in the military is aircraft. In fact, of the 100 million gallons of fuel the Defense Logistics Agency bought in 2018, about 70 million gallons were jet fuel.

But the United States’ reporting of military fuel consumption omits much of the fuel used to power aircraft and ships, particularly those operating overseas. The government’s own description of how it calculates international military transportation fuel for greenhouse gas emissions specifies that all Army and most Marine Corps fuel, and any fuel delivered outside of the United States, not be counted. This leads to huge gaps in reporting, Crawford says.

“You have to count it,” Crawford says. “Jet fuel is the biggest greenhouse gas from the military.”

Take the F-35, DOD’s controversial replacement for the F-16. The new plane burns more fuel than its predecessor: about 5,600 liters of fuel per hour, versus 3,500 liters per hour for the F-16, according to the newspaper Dagsavisen in Norway, where environmentalists have protested the purchase of the planes. Crawford calculated that the Air Force’s version of the plane, the F-35A, gets about 2.37 gallons per nautical mile. Note that’s not miles per gallon—that’s 2.37 gallons of fuel burned for every mile traveled. On a single tank of gas, one plane can produce almost 28 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The United States plans to buy close to 2,500 of the planes, with the expectation that they’ll fly until at least 2070.

Military equipment is purchased with the understanding that it will be around for a long time, which critics argue contributes to the difficulty of reducing military emissions.

“They can’t just switch off [the F-35 program],” says Oliver Belcher, a professor at Durham University who has studied military emissions by tracking Defense Logistics Agency fuel purchases. “Despite these sort of pronouncements to green the military and all the rest of it, every major weapon system developed, from fighter jets to aircraft carriers to you name it, is extremely carbon-intensive. … Weapons systems lock in certain carbon-intensive technologies.”

Part of the difficulty in tracking military emissions is there are so many moving parts. A military is a sprawling, bureaucratic apparatus, with people and things constantly going in different directions.

“When you’re in a theater of operations, there isn’t somebody there who’s accounting for every single bit of, this Humvee goes here, and that Humvee goes there,” Belcher says. “[It’s] extremely difficult to keep track of.”

Belcher’s research works to develop better methodologies for tracking and estimating military emissions. He’s not the only one. Last summer, in its climate change action plan, NATO announced that for the first time, it would develop a way to help member states calculate their military emissions. It also floated the possibility of helping member nations develop targets for military emissions reductions—though it noted that any reduction targets would be voluntary.

Weir was skeptical that the plan will include comprehensive emissions accounting. But, he says, any mention of reducing military emissions is welcome progress. “The fact is it’s on the agenda. It’s being talked about.”

Militaries themselves are taking notice. Last month, the head of the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, Sir Mike Wigston, announced plans for the service to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, a decade earlier than the United Kingdom has legally committed to reach net zero across the country. He highlighted sourcing jet fuel from more sustainable sources, like ethanol or recycled waste oil, and a zero-emissions aircraft flying by the end of the decade.

“I’ve been working on these issues for quite a long time,” Weir says. “The change in dynamic around this topic over the last 18 months has been pretty astonishing.”

In early November, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said President Joe Biden’s goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would affect the Defense Department. “The department is committed to meeting the challenge, by making significant changes in our use of energy and increasing our investments in clean energy technology,” she said. Hicks highlighted a more sustainable supply chain, as well as a zero-emissions nontactical vehicle fleet and hybrid-electric tactical vehicles, as among the department’s goals. “As a nation and a department, we must do our part to mitigate climate change itself.”

At the beginning of November, as world leaders met in Glasgow for the COP26 climate summit, Crawford, Belcher, Weir, and Cottrell, along with other academics and activists, gathered in an Arctic basecamp tent in the city for a panel discussion on the state of military emissions and to launch a new website dedicated to corralling disparate emissions reporting. The site pulls government reporting on countries’ military emissions, as well as data like gross domestic product and military expenditure, into one database to make comparisons between countries easier and to show more clearly the state of reporting.

Although military emissions were not on the formal agenda at the United Nations meeting, more than 200 civil society organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, signed on to the Conflict and Environment Observatory’s call for governments to commit to meaningful emissions reductions ahead of the summit. During protests at COP26, climate activists called out the U.S. military specifically for its role in climate change.

“Not only have Western-induced wars led to the spikes in the carbon emissions, they have led to use of depleted uranium and they have caused poisoning of air and water,” Ayisha Siddiqa, a Pakistani climate activist, told a crowd during a youth protest.

“What we’re trying to do at COP26 is really get this on the agenda for COP27,” Belcher says.

Belcher and Crawford say the military is taking the threat of climate change seriously, and they acknowledge some of its green initiatives. But they argue that in the absence of reporting requirements, there’s a lack of real accountability. That makes it easy to avoid confronting some of the tougher questions about military operations and climate change—things like continued investment in carbon-intensive technologies, or “national security” as an automatic trump card.

But in the face of a global crisis, not thinking through those trade-offs head-on is a mistake, Crawford says. “You have to start questioning everything,” she says. “We don’t have time to have unquestioned assumptions.”

This War Horse feature was reported by Sonner Kehrt, edited by Kelly Kennedy, fact-checked by Ben Kalin, and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar. Kehrt is based in California. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Wired Magazine, The Verge, and other publications. She studied government at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and served for five years as a Coast Guard officer before earning a master’s in democracy studies from Georgetown University and a master’s of journalism degree from UC Berkeley. 

Contact DNR Today to Protect US from PFAS related Forever Chemicals

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has begun to draft rules to establish state PFAS standards for drinking water. Data, scientific evidence and community testimony around PFAS raises the alarm for strong and immediate action on proposed rules for drinking water and surface water standards. Our groundwater, Starkweather Creek, the Yahara chain of lakes and our fish in and around Madison are already contaminated with PFAS thousands of times the anticipated water standard.

WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU WRITE DNR STAFF AND SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF NEW PFAS DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.

By this Wednesday, December 8th, please register your support for Board Order DG-24-19 to revise chapter NR 809 and adopt new drinking water maximum contaminant levels for PFAS substances. (More details about the rule and process … detailed Board Order DB-24-19

Write to:

Adam Deweese, Water Supply Specialist

Bureau of Drinking and Ground Water

C/O DG/5

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

Email – [email protected]

Background In order to establish standards for PFAS, the DNR will need to revise the NR 809 regulations, the Safe Drinking Water Standard. The DNR already held a public meeting on December 1st. Many state citizens commented during this virtual meeting. They said:

  • Six of twelve wells in Eau Claire were closed due to high levels of PFAS, chemicals used in many products including food wrappers, stain-resistant sprays and aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). PFAS contamination in Madison is largely due to decades of fire-fighting training at Truax Field using foam containing PFAS.

  • An OB/GYN physician presented evidence that PFAS and PFOA, lipophilic substances, are not only found but concentrated in breast milk. She called it “alarming.” Other documented adverse health effects of PFAS in drinking water include decreased response of antibodies to vaccines, low birth weight, testicular cancer and thyroid cancer.

  • A resident of Marinette called for amending NR 809, “to prevent the slow poisoning of the people of Wisconsin from municipal water systems.”

The next step in the rulemaking timeline is the DNR Board meeting on January 25-26, 2022, where they will consider adoption of the rule.

For more information, visit: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/calendar/hearing/50806

Thank you, thank you!
For safe water and skies,
Lance, Anne, Tom, Vicki and all the folks at Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin

Over 500 Join in Parade Opposing War Profiteers & F-35 Weapons Threatening Madison

Wisconsin State Journal  |  Saturday, February 29, 2020  |  Howard Hardee  
*Headline – Brad Geyer of VFP-Madison

Picture by Paul McMahon

Veterans for Peace-Madison Statement in Support of Opposition of F-35’s

“A chant of “take your planes and go away” grew in intensity as several hundred protesters temporarily blocked Anderson Street near Madison Area Technical College early Saturday afternoon.

A passing driver honked along to the beat, adding to the festive atmosphere. Keeping pace with swinging big-band music from the Forward Marching Band, protesters of all ages, including whole families, held signs reading “Noisy polluting jets,” “Tell the truth,” “No nukes,” and simply, “No!” 

The march was organized by the Safe Skies Clean Water Coalition, a grassroots organization that opposes basing a squadron of $90 million F-35 fighter jets at Truax Field in Madison. The protesters peacefully marched from the intersection of Anderson and Wright streets to outside the base of the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 115th Fighter Wing.

Steve Lyrene, of Madison, said he joined the protest because he believes the planes would be “noisy and polluting” and a symbol of “America’s aggression and warlike presence.”

“That’s not what Madison is,” he said. “We’re not a warlike people, and we don’t want to push people out of established housing.”

 

 

 

It isn’t just the noise that concerns opponents of the F-35s. The Safe Skies coalition has decried the potential environmental impacts of construction in areas contaminated with hazardous PFAS chemicals; the cost of the F-35s relative to domestic needs such as education and employment; the capability of the planes to deliver nuclear payloads; and the potential displacement of low-income families and people of color who live close to Truax Field.

Picture by Paul McMahon

Madison remains the top choice among five Air Guard bases under consideration, despite impacts to local housing and the environment outlined in a final environmental impact statement released Feb. 19.

Those in favor of basing the F-35s in Madison, including the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce, say the squadron would boost the local economy, create dozens of jobs, and keep the 115th Fighter Wing and its estimated $99 million annual economic impact at Truax Field.

Ald. Grant Foster, whose 15th District would be one of the most affected by increased noise at Truax Field, was watching the protest march from the opposite sidewalk. For the second time, he and Ald. Rebecca Kemble, 18th District, will introduce a resolution opposing the F-35s during Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Foster said. The resolution will likely be up for discussion during the council’s March 17 meeting.

“I don’t see how anybody can stand by and say this is a good idea, based on the final (environmental impact statement),” Foster said.

Foster said he was somewhat disappointed by Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway’s recent statement about the F-35s — specifically, that where they will be based is a federal decision, not a local one.

That’s why some protesters expressed feeling like wheels are turning somewhere out of reach.

 

“I get that impression,” Lyrene said. “There’s this sense of powerlessness, like we don’t have a voice. It’s sad that people aren’t being listened to. But that’s why we’re doing this — to make our voices heard.”

Vicki Berenson, a member of Clean Skies, doesn’t believe the F-35s are a done deal.

“It’s totally not a foregone conclusion,” she said. “We just don’t know what the answer will be.”

The final environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on Friday. After a 30-day review period ending in late March, a final decision will be issued by Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett.

Find the background data and facts on our concerns at Safe Skies Website

Photographs marked are from Paul McMahon

Heartland Images Photography,  4317 Tokay Blvd

Madison WI  53711 608-215-5031 (cell)

Photos:  www.flickr.com/photos/heartlandimages

Bio:  www.linkedin.com/in/heartlandimages

Hundreds march on Truax Field to protest basing F-35s in Madison

Veterans for Peace-Madison stands with Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin and the concerned citizens engaged in the struggle. We oppose F-35’s coming to Madison, we oppose F-35’s anywhere and we oppose the war machine and its crimes. 

We oppose the racism and systemic racism that forces brown, black, natives and the poor to sacrifice their health and quality of life so that corrupt politicians can enrich the billionaire owners of Lockheed Martin and the corporate rulers connected to the Chamber of Commerce: US Chamber and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.  We oppose the effect that these jets and the military will have on children. 

We must not allow the pollution of our water and soil to continue while the US government avoids accountability for around 80 years of PFAS forever chemical pollution and burn pits. This has poisoned much of Monona and Madison’s groundwater.

The F-35A, is a combination stealth fighter and bomber and can carry several B61 nuclear bombs with a range of less than one kiloton of explosive mayhem to 50 kilotons. That seems to be a lot of environmental impact, when compared to the 12-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Is the hundreds of billions dollar cost of this latest child of the military-industrial complex worth it? As a low-flying stealth bomber capable of carrying nukes, it is an extremely risky and potentially destabilizing war machine in an already unstable world, whether you consider the Middle East, the near east, or the far east. One error in deciphering a tense situation could set off a nuclear tit-for-tat that would produce the worst environmental impact statement of all.

One only has to read nuclear war planner Dan Ellsberg’s recent “The Doomsday Machine” to learn of the horrors American cities could experience, and that we have been living on the brink.

The Pentagon has hyped the F-35 as a “computer that happens to fly,” and Lockheed Martin says there are 8 million lines of software code which control weapons deployment, communications, radar and flight controls. Given the extent of computer hacking continuously going on, what could anyone have to fear with a flying computer carrying nuclear weapons?

Veterans for Peace works to end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, and to abolish war as an instrument of national policy. We do not want to see nuclear-enabled stealth fighter bombers stationed here in Madison — or anywhere, for that matter. 

The cost of F-35 fighter jets, Lockheed Martin calls it the “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” is phenomenal and will be paid by taxpayers. A recent book – Preventing War and Promoting Peace: A Guide for Health Professionals – tells that Lockheed Martin claims that parts of the F-35 are “built in forty-five states.” That makes it possible for politicians across the U.S. to claim that the F-35 and, therefore, the defense industry, will produce jobs everywhere. Compared to needed civilian jobs that could be funded for much less taxpayer money, the sum for F-35s is enormous and the jobs to be produced are few.

Lockheed Martin is the lead contractor for F-35s, and “…the world’s largest defense contractor,” according to the book, edited by William Wiist and Shelley White.

“With a (current) price tag of $1.4 trillion per plane…[F-35] has become the most expensive weapon system in history…punctuated by reports of one malfunction after another, from flaws in the fuel tanks that made the planes vulnerable to lightning-caused fires, to criticism of its maneuverability….”

The F-35 program is projected to use most of the U.S. budget for aircraft through 2030, the authors write.

The size of the US military machine is massive and currently causes more violence than it prevents. The US has far more bases, jets, aircraft carriers than anyone. Our military spending is more than the next seven nations combined. We do not need F-35’s for defense. This is war profiteering and imperialism.

None of the effects on human beings were improved in the final Environmental Impact Statement, in fact, the US government made no effort to alleviate the impacts. The money is there to protect people, the choice is made to serve the war profiteers and harm the people.

For Peace & Justice,

Bradley J. Geyer