Clearing the air

The headline of this piece should have been: "Telling the Truth." Thanks, Pete. Humboldt is lucky to have you and Baykeeper.

Funny, I just read the other day the site cannot be fully characterized without an interim remediation. i can't wait to see Randy Gans respond to this you idiot.

a lot of words, but nothing at all about HOW the proposed cleanup is purportedly flawed. Therefore, just a meaningless diatribe.

Thank you Pete. So many lies from Security National. So sad.

Shame on you for taking anything Randy Gans says seriously

Thank you, Pete, for shining the light on this issue.

Gosh, it seems like just yesterday city councilman Jager was calling Pete an "extortionist". Now we have "rollo" calling Pete's right-on statement a "meaningless diatribe". Do I sense a pattern here?

So tired of the lies and threats from Gans and Security National.

Shame on SN and the Eureka City Council!

My turn wrote:

Now we have "rollo" calling Pete's right-on statement a "meaningless diatribe". Do I sense a pattern here?

Maybe, but rollo is right. Nowhere in his column does Nichols specify just HOW the EIR is inadequate. All he says is it IS inadequate and it seems that's all I've heard from opponents of Marina Center.

i wish clean it and leave it .. open space

A full clean-up, please. No half-ass jobs. Think of the children.

Shame on you for taking anything Pete Nichols says seriously.

FYI wrote:

Funny, I just read the other day the site cannot be fully characterized without an interim remediation. i can't wait to see Randy Gans respond to this you idiot.

That is not true. Let me know if you want to know why.
-pete

If you Baykeepers want the balloon tract cleaned up, clean it up yourselves. So far,
after four years of your litigation bs, it seems to be the proper thing to do.

Pete,
While your clearing the air…
Define what a ‘full cleanup’ is. Would it be a full cleanup if SN leaves an old flip top lid? Would the lawsuit continue? Your column really says nothing.
Skeptical minds think this is more like a drive by fund raiser for you.

"I am more than happy to talk with anyone about our actions and Humboldt Baykeeper's work to cleanup the property."

Unless, of course, there's a chance you will disagree with me. Then I will avoid your calls.

Old Greg wrote:

Pete,
While your clearing the air…
Define what a ‘full cleanup’ is. Would it be a full cleanup if SN leaves an old flip top lid? Would the lawsuit continue? Your column really says nothing.
Skeptical minds think this is more like a drive by fund raiser for you.

Full clean-up, as I mentioned in the article, is a full characterization of the site for all contaminants including dioxin. The only testing for dioxin was done by Humboldt Baykeeper and we detected it in every one of our samples. If you want to see a proper clean-up that follows a full characterization go look at what is going on at the old Flea Mart site at the end of Del Norte Street. Simpson Timber stepped up and did the right thing and the bay and the community will be better for it. Oh, and by the way, the Regional Water Board signed off on that site too and then Super Fund levels of dioxin were found.

Again, I am available to discuss this at any time.

regards--
pete

I'd like to know why you haven't cleaned up your property and why you didn't get a permit for your dye tests. Something about glass houses seems to fit

Pete:

Why are you convinced that there is any significant level of dioxin on the Balloon Track property? Where do you believe it came from? What levels of dioxin are known to be present with the testing that you or any other agency has already performed? Please share with us ignorant folks just what are the actual numbers from those tests and the allowable limits the state has put in place to protect us.

You frequently mention pentachlorophenols and dioxins as some the most persistent, toxic and dangerous chemicals that put humans at risk. You and CATS have said yourself many times that those chemicals are leached into the soil in association with former mill sites that used to treat wood with anti-fungal chemicals until they were banned many decades ago. It's easy to say "dioxin" to create a panic, but it's unclear whether there is really any significant levels of chemicals other than those associated with leaking and improperly handled fuel from the railroad.

You and the environmental groups' mantra for a "full cleanup" and "full characterization" may be a stall tactic that prevents any interim cleanup if there aren't the chemicals you say are there, but offer no proof that they actually are.

Pete:
For example...let's say my neighbor doesn't like me for some reason, and he or she starts telling my other neighbors that I am a big time pot grower who is putting their children at risk. He doesn't have any proof, just a well-established avenue for sharing information to the right people.
Pretty soon, there are enough people on my and nearby blocks who believe that I am dangerous drug dealer that they confront me and insist that I stop growing pot. I tell them that I am not growing pot, but they aren't convinced. They demand proof. Some even trespass onto my property in the name of justice to find proof. I tell them all to go to hell because it's not any of their business what is going on in my home since I am not actually growing pot.
When I tell my neighbors to mind their own business it only reinforces in their minds that I am trying to hide something so they decide to go to the police. The police investigate a bit and determine that there isn't any probable cause to search the house and that there isn't anything they can do.
The neighbors become VERY frustrated because they feel the agency in charge of protecting them isn't doing its job and has "sided" with the drug dealer.
After many years of being treated like a criminal and being under a cloud of suspicion for doing something illegal and immoral that puts everyone at risk in my neighborhood--particularly the kids--I get tired of it and sell my property and move.
My neighbor wins.
Oh, and by the way, there never was any significant level of dioxin on my property.