Island Park Landfill Opponents Ignore Facts
Photos
In March 2011, a group of protestors wearing respirators and Tyvek suits surrounded my 11-year-old son on Park Avenue. "If you think the landfill is safe," they said, "maybe we should throw you in there." Although I was just feet away, I couldn't hear this. I was also surrounded by people shouting and waving signs to keep Mario Hilario from interviewing me about scientifically established safe levels of arsenic. This, after a Patch contributor caught a protester on video yelling in my face, prompting a call to the Portsmouth police.
Such is the character of the people opposing the landfill capping work in Island Park: they threaten children and shout down those who try to communicate facts. I have a thick skin, but my son was traumatized.
Over the past year, they lobbed dozens of accusations at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) -- documented on a Web site http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/portsmouthlf.htm -- but none of their paranoid speculations have survived contact with reality.
When you read the DEM responses, you find phrases like, "The characterization that the Department chose between the Commission and Dr. Vanderslice is not accurate," and, "These assumptions are completely inconsistent with the Regulations, the Commission's recommendations or actual site conditions," and, pointedly, "As is frequently the case on meetings about controversial topics, recollections and interpretations about what was said, as well as speculation on the motives of the participants, are frequently at odds. At this point, the Department feels it has reached the point where it should simply be recognized that the commenters' recollection and interpretations of what was said are at odds with the Department's participants."
That last one is about as close as a public official ever gets to telling someone they are flat-out lying.
But the opponents have little choice, because the facts are inconvenient. Batches of soil brought in over the past month were tested -- http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/pl0212rs.pdf -- and tested again in response to yet another baseless complaint. Levels of arsenic and lead were well below residential limits. http://www.torvex.com/jmcdaid/files/plf fr sampling final report[1].pdf.
I do not blindly trust developers or government agencies, but when a year of evidence accumulates, the burden of proof has shifted to the opponents. The facts show this project reduces the risk to our neighborhood from an uncapped landfill full of documented contaminants. http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/ottiano2.pdf
It is time for elected officials to stop pandering to the uninformed and misinformed: This group had a meeting with the governor arranged, had their questions answered personally by the DEM director, and had state legislators representing their point of view at Town Council meetings. Enough.
It's time for our legislators to stick up for the facts and the good of our community. And it's time for them to stick up for my son.
Joe Sousa.
10:24 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
"fiction writer and citizen journalist" I agree.
Priscilla Smyth Thayer
5:26 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Joe do you have a deck attached to your home or is your property in a rural area? If the answer is yes then you are exposed to arsenic. Pressure treated wood is treated with arsenic to preserve the wood from rotting and farmers used arsenic to control rodent populations. Also arsenic is naturally occurring in all soil so when one walks in their yard they are exposed to the same levels of arsenic in the soil being used as fill. The fill that is being brought in from off island is cleaner than fill brought in from the island as naturally occurring arsenic levels are lower on mainland RI. I live close to the former landfill and would rather be exposed to clean fill than what is buried underneath. Take the time to read John's "science fiction" links.
Joe Sousa.
5:50 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
If it is so safe, why do they have to remove it from those sites to begin with. Why was that huge pile of dirt at the navy base covered all those months ? Then they moved it across the island to this fill site . You can quote all the facts you want. The way this land fill is being covered is wrong . If you folks chose to defend the DEM and their policies in this matter so be it. I don't trust them, and will work to defeat any politician that supported this . We need change up state and this is a clear example why. Again, the method used to close other landfills around the state did not use poison soil for a cap. This is a residential neighbor hood. Not an industrial brown field.
John McDaid
6:09 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Joe, please support your assertion that this soil contains "poison" with facts. The process described in the BUD meets standards for residential areas. I didn't just take this on faith -- as a reporter, I had it reviewed by a soil scientist in a different state, and they validated the approach. You may not care for the facts, but you need to refute them if you want to convince me. Your lack of trust is not evidence.
John McDaid
10:40 pm on Monday, April 9, 2012
Hi, Joe. I have to thank you. It was your persistent denialism that convinced me there was a need to write that letter. I'll say this again: refute me with facts.
Joe Sousa.
6:27 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Again, if they are safe why are they being removed from other sites ? The logic escapes me.
John McDaid
6:33 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Joe, the testing shows that it is safe. Look at the numbers: http://www.torvex.com/jmcdaid/files/plf%20fr%20sampling%20final%20report%5B1%5D.pdf Logic only works if you begin from a true premise, right?
Concerned Observer
7:52 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
It is clear that McDaid has far too much time on his hands. Maybe you should pick up the hobby of carpentry and do some work to your house. It is a great way to vent.
John McDaid
8:13 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Concerned Observer: Are you going to attempt to rebut any of the facts, or are you going to stick with ad hominem attacks?
Average Joe
8:31 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
I worked on hazardous waste site clean-up projects for approximately 20 years. I have reviewed the testing data and see no problem with the fill being used to cap this site. Hey, I am no fan of Mr. McDaid or his politics, but he really is right about this issue.
Rev. Shaw Moore
11:22 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Lets blame the PCC. Apparently everything else in Portsmouth is their fault.
John McDaid
11:40 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Hi, Rev. Moore. According to Patch, the spokesperson for the anti-landfill group is Larry Fitzmorris, the PCC president. http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/landfill-dumping-concerns-prompt-town-council-to-set-special-meeting and Mr. Fitzmorris is also listed on the DEM site as one of those making allegations and identified as an attendee at the meeting with Gov. Chafee and Director Coit: http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/portsmouthlf.htm -- those are the facts.
Joe Sousa.
11:57 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Still wondering why the material has to be removed from these cleanup sites but it's OK for use in a residential area.
John McDaid
12:00 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Once more, Joe, please read the test results.
Unbelievable
1:13 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Joe they are building a new school which requires them to dig up dirt to build. What do you expect them to do with the dirt they dig up leave it in a pile on the school grounds and call it a sand box? They are building a new school not a site clean up.
Rev. Shaw Moore
6:23 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
All snark aside, bullying kids to further your cause is NOT justifiable.
Tony Macomber
7:54 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
No one threatened McDaid's kid. This was a very volatile situation where any intelligient human being would have left their children at home. McDaid showed up with the intent to cause trouble as he is continuing to do so here with his foolish letter. Please don't fuel this fire any more than it already is. EVERYONE has a right to an opinion. Some feel the landfill is not being capped properly and is dangering the residents of the neighborhood. Others feel that everything is hunky dory. Time will certainly tell on which is correct.
Patch should be ashamed of themselves for evening contributing to this nonsense. This garbage letter is for Hard Deadlines and should not be allowed on Patch.com.
John McDaid
8:10 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Tony, I stand by my description of the events.
My family and I were at least 100 feet from the protesters, handing out fliers. We did not approach or say anything to them. They came and surrounded us. We had every right to be standing on Park Ave, and we had no intention of causing trouble. We were only there to share some information.
Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion, but not the right to their own facts.
Joe Sousa.
8:29 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
"fiction writer and citizen journalist" Just the facts mam
Portsmouth Citizen
4:32 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The other protesters there that day brought their kids too. Click on this Patch article and you can see a video of one of the kids there.
http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/protesters-chant-down-with-dem-police-called-after-confrontation
No double standards.
Tony Macomber
8:41 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Correct Joe. Fiction writer. As is the above article. You and your family should have stayed home. Enough said from me. Go and write another fictitous article. Because that is all this is. Garbage.
Dr Zen
8:50 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
MCDaid this is and was a circus. You are probably right about the landfill issue but you have no sense in bringing your child into this. Dumb idea
nun
4:25 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
Ha ha ha, "Citizen Journalist". Did you get a secret decoder ring and a badge in the mail with that title? If the DEM wants a better response for such things, next time, I suggest that when they want to up the carcinogen level of the soil they plan to use, don’t bury the public meeting notice in the back pages of an out of town newspaper. And what would the harm have been in easing people’s fears by changing their decision and sticking with soil with a lower arsenic level? Instead they decided to prove all the “know nothings” wrong, “You’ll get this arsenic level and you’ll like it!”
It’s sad that there are people who choose to defend this type of behavior in order to bolster their “citizen journalist” reputation
John McDaid
5:26 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
Hi, nun. Citizen journalism is defined by news critic Jay Rosen like this: "When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another, that’s citizen journalism."
I'm not defending DEM's behavior, only the facts. I felt obligated to defend the facts because they were being misrepresented, and this misrepresentation was guiding the behavior of elected officials. When something like that is happening, isn't it the responsibility of citizens to speak up?
Also, just FYI, if you read my coverage of this issue, you will find that I was one of the early voices objecting to DEM's notice in the ProJo: http://www.torvex.com/jmcdaid/node/1560
You can read Rosen's discussion of citizen journalism here -- http://archive.pressthink.org/2008/07/14/a_most_useful_d.html
Robert E
9:38 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
John that makes every commentor on the Patch a “citizen journalist”.
John McDaid
10:11 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
Robert, I take your point. The key word for me is "inform," and I think it's worth clicking through to Rosen's page and read the full post. It's a bit more nuanced than the sound bite.
I'm not sure the intent of every comment on Patch is to inform. Let's take this thread for evidence. Some comments present or reference facts or speak from first-hand knowledge, and I see nothing wrong with classifying those as citizen journalism. Other comments, however, are clearly personal perspectives which aim to persuade -- in traditional journalism, we'd call those editorial or opinion pieces and clearly segregate them from the news content. But I'll concede that the boundary is blurry.
Some comments, however, are just personal attacks with no informational value, and I don't see how you'd make the argument that those are journalism.