US navy accused of cover-up over dangerous plutonium in San Francisco

"The US navy knew of potentially dangerous levels of airborne plutonium in San Francisco for almost a year before it alerted city officials after it carried out testing that detected radioactive material in November last year, public health advocates allege. The plutonium levels exceeded the federal action threshold at the navy's highly contaminated, 866-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. It was detected in an area adjacent to a residential neighborhood filled with condos, and which includes a public park."

"The navy is trying to avoid spending several billion dollars to do a proper clean up, said Jeff Ruch, senior counsel with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility nonprofit, which is involved in litigation at the site. It's been one thing after another after another after another, Ruch said. What else is in the closet? We don't know and we're not going to search the closet to find out."

"Since the bulletin became public, attorneys, public health advocates and nearby community members have been attempting to get more information, and last week met navy officials for the first time. In the bulletin, city health officials said: Full transparency with our communities and the department of public health is critical, and we share your deep concerns regarding the 11-month delay in communication from the navy."

Public health advocates allege the US Navy knew of potentially dangerous airborne plutonium levels in San Francisco for almost a year before alerting city officials. The plutonium exceeded the federal action threshold at the highly contaminated, 866-acre Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Plutonium was detected adjacent to a residential neighborhood with condos and a public park. The city plans major redevelopment with up to 10,000 housing units and new waterfront commercial districts. The property was used as a staging ground for nuclear weapons testing. The navy reportedly delayed communication for 11 months and suggested the reading may be in error, prompting skepticism and legal scrutiny.

Read at www.theguardian.com