BAMBOO

                        

                                  ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE TREASURE 
     
                                                                   OR                  
    
                                              DESTRUCTIVE INVADER?

Depending on what side of the fence you or your Bamboo falls on...you either love or hate Bamboo.  There is not much middle ground on feelings about the plant and the issue has become a true hot button topic at town hall meetings across Long Island and across the nation.

That is why Farmingdale State College (SUNY) held an all day conference in October in an effort to get some of the facts on the table and to educate landscapers on how to maintain and contain Bamboo and to inform anyone else interested in learning more about Bamboo in general.

The all day conference titled "Bamboo-Every Plant Has Its Rightful Place" was attended by about 100 landscapers and others, the majority of whom were professionals in the field.  Michael Veracka, Chairman and Assistant Professor; Department of Ornamental Horticulture at SUNY Farmingdale,  organized the conference, which was a comprehensive overview of Bamboo and had an impressive group of nationally and regionally recognized horticulturalists, designers, growers and Bamboo proponents to speak on the topic and separate fact from fiction.  Mr. Veracka sent out invitations to nearly two dozen politicians on Long Island, but to her credit, Huntington Town Councilwoman, Susan Berland, was the only politician who showed up.

Ms. Berland said she stayed the entire day because many people have been speaking out at Huntington Town Board meetings about the problems associated with a specific type of Bamboo known as "Phyllostachys" or "running Bamboo" and she wanted to learn as much as possible about the facts surrounding this controversial plant.  This type of Bamboo has a root system with rhizomes which run underground and can quickly spread from one piece of property to another unless carefully contained.

     "BAMBOO IS NOT THE PROBLEM...
                                                           
                                                PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM?"

Susanne Lucas, Executive Director of the World Bamboo Organization, spoke at the meeting on the basics of Bamboo, the properties of Bamboo, the difference between running and clumping Bamboo and their cultural requirements.  According to Ms. Lucas:

Bamboo is the fastest growing plant on earth, it can reach its full height within a year and it is stronger than steel.  Bamboo has virtually no carbon footprint, it is light, strong, adaptable and has a multitude of uses including: furniture, flooring, fencing, scaffolding, surfboards, skateboards, bicycle frames, instruments, paper, clothing, fuel, fishing poles and more.  New shoots are edible and are considered a delicacy in many cultures.  

 Ms. Lucas extolled the virtues of the plant;

Beyond product development in that Bamboo has the unique property of absorbing greenhouse gases and renewing 35% more oxygen than other trees.  One acre of Bamboo sequesters 25 tons of carbon dioxide.  By comparison an acre of young forest only sequesters 6 tons of carbon dioxide.  

Bamboo is tough, durable, drought resistant, pollutant tolerant, suitable for erosion control, habitat friendly for birds and other wildlife and because it is an evergreen, it is green year round.  The Bamboo people are having problems with is the running Bamboo, "Genus Phyllostachys" varieties, not the "clumping" kind, known as "Genus Fargesia" varieties which are usually shorter.  A member of the grass family, Fargesia Bamboos do not have the same type of root system which is causing many problems for some residents.  

Ms. Lucas believes the Phyllostachys Bamboo can be controlled and contained and that Bamboo is getting a bad reputation that is ill deserved.  "Bamboo is not the problem..the people who plant it and do not maintain it properly are the problem."  Ms. Lucas insisted.

Bamboo is native to every continent except Antarctica and was introduced to Europe during the Victorian Period.  There are over 1,400 types of Bamboo.

All Bamboo in New York was planted, according to Ms. Lucas as the plant is not indigenous to the state.  Originally, Bamboo was brought into the United States by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Bamboo does not go into water, it rarely- if ever, flowers and it is not spread by seeds, birds or other wildlife.  It spreads by vegetative division (splitting) or micro propagation (tissue cultures) produced in labs with merristems from the plant. 

With the Phyllostachys varieties control of the root or rhizome is essential because otherwise the roots run and spread underground.  From January to March the plant is dormant.  April through June new shoots appear.  In July, the new shoots, also known as "culms", harden and old stems make new leaves. August through September new roots expand and the rhizomes spread and stretch out.

In order to contain the roots, trenching and barriers are necessary.  The trenches must be at least 36" deep at least 10" wide and should have a minimum of 60 ml polyethylene plastic sheeting placed in the trench and secured with metal aluminum strips, staggering the holes.  It should be filled with sand and the rhizomes need to be watched and checked to make sure they do not breach the barriers.

Eventually, the running Bamboo will consume all of the soil and at all times, the plant needs proper drainage and maintenance, according to Ms. Lucas.


                    BAMBOO:  THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY


Stephen Morrell, Director of the John P. Humes Japanese Stroll  Garden in Mill Neck was the next speaker.  The Garden is a preservation project of the Gardening Conservancy and is operated through an agreement with the Humes Japanese Garden Foundation.  The strolling garden represents a natural approach to garden design by responding directly to existing topography and vegetation.  Careful attention is given to the blending of garden elements with the existing native woodland in order to create a "Path To Inner Peace".

Mr. Morrell's experience with the many varieties he planted taught him some important lessons about  Bamboo.  He talked about the history of the plant in Japan.  Phyllostachys was not native to Japan, it was imported from China over a thousand years ago and displaced entire forests of over 10,000 acres in Japan.  It is now strictly regulated in Japan.

                                         
                  MAINTENANCE OF BAMBOO IS CRITICAL

Bamboo is the world's highest maintenance plant, according to Mr. Morrell.  Thinning is necessary or the grove will become too dense.  Thinning the bamboo groves is labor intensive and you will need a truck. One grove will generate at least 3-5 truckloads of thinned material which will need to be cut up.  Mr. Morell warned those interested in planting bamboo to make sure they never plant it near roads, garages or driveways as the plant will bend over under the weight of heavy rain or snow and block egress or traffic.

Shoots need to be cut quickly, they can grow over 30 ft. in just a few weeks.  According to Mr. Morrell, Bamboo will escape any barrier eventually.  Plastic barriers can become brittle and break at the top and also trap moisture, allowing it to grow more quickly.  Even concrete will eventually be cracked and when you contain it, it will eventually fill the space and the root system will need more soil.

Deer will eat Bamboo only if there are no other evergreens available, but it is not their first choice.  Flowering is very complicated and it can be 75 to 100 years before a plant flowers and often the plant then dies.  Bamboo will grow through asphalt three inches thick.  Herbicides can control it's growth but severing rhizomes will definitely make it spread.  Another issue is mites, which are spread by birds.  They target the Fargesia (clumping) and Phyllostachys Bamboos and are found at the bottom of the foliage, but they are less likely to bother the Plioblastus or shorter growing varieties.  Bamboo will grow under Norway maples and the maple's root system will slow the growth of the Bamboo somewhat, according to Mr. Morrell.

Bamboo will not compost or breakdown, it doesn't chip well for mulch as it tends to ruin the chipper blades and you shouldn't burn it as it will explode, due to moisture and gases in the nodules.  Digging out the rhizomes completely is one of the only ways to eradicate it.  The rhizome hairs will not regenerate without the buds.  Digging them out is labor intensive and expensive to rent equipment for the job.

In many countries Bamboo is a staple product with a myriad of uses, according to Mr. Morrell.  In India it is floated downriver to leach out the starches.  In Ecuador and Colombia it can grow 8 inches in diameter and over 100 feet tall.  It is harvested with chainsaws and used for scaffolding (it's virtual pressure is as strong as steel).

               MY NEIGHBOR'S BAMBOO IS ATTACKING ME

Mike Johnson from Summerhill Nursery in Madison Connecticut was the next speaker and he also described various methods to control Bamboo.  Mr. Johnson agreed with Ms. Lucas that the problem is not the Bamboo, it is the people who do not properly contain it.  He recommended:

1.)  Dig a trench, fill with sand, find rhizomes and pull them up if you want to contain it.
2.)  Keep cutting for several years to control it.
3.)  In the trench (3 ft deep minimum) use 60-80 ml. polyethylene at least 2" above the ground, with aluminum strips, then mulch to contain it.
4.)  Continuous rhizome maintenance will always be necessary.
In July:  Use double or professional strength Round-Up on the perimeter to contain it.  Culms (spikes) are sent up at nodes and the leaves feed the rhizomes (roots).  Generally the height of the Bamboo stalk above the ground reflects a root system the same length underground, which is why it spreads to neighboring property so quickly if not contained properly.
5. Concrete reinforced with mesh and plywood 2.5 feet deep and 4 to 6" wide can also be used as a barrier instead of the polyethylene (Heavy gage plastic).

                              BAMBOO IN DESIGNED LANDSCAPES

Beautiful Bamboo Gardens in very public settings was the next topic for discussion at the SUNY Conference.  Matthew Urbanski from Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc. showed pictures of several famous and some not as well known locations where Bamboo was used as a focal point or an integral part of the background landscaping.

The Bamboo Garden (1985-87) by Alexander Chemetoff in La Villette Park in Paris, the Brazil Botanic Garden, The Courtyard at The New School in New York,  Kendall Square in Cambridge,
The School of Computer Science at the Carnegie Mellon University and the Brooklyn Bridge Park (2003-to present) are all examples of landscape architecture Mr. Urbanski highlighted with Bamboo as done with care and consideration of the environment and containment.

Mr. Urbanski stressed that it is important not to sell a client something they do not know how to care for or cannot take care of.  He advises speaking with the gardener in advance to let them know of the issues involved with proper maintenance before adding Bamboo to any landscape.

Ms. Lucas also insisted it is up to the professionals to take responsibility and noted that if a garden center sells the plants they should label them properly and educate the public about proper maintenance, in advance of the sale.

Bamboo, although it can be called invasive, it is technically not yet considered an "invasive species" as identified by New York State.  There are many clumping species of Bamboo (Fargesia) that stay right where you want them, Ms. Lucas said.

For the purpose of the New York Invasive Plant Ranking System, an invasive plant species is a species that is: “1) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” (Federal Executive Order 13112, signed in 1999 and adopted by the New York State Invasive Species Task Force in 2005). Further, for purposes of this Invasive Plant Ranking System, invasive plants are non-native species that have spread into native or minimally managed plant systems in New York. These plants cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming dominant and/or disruptive to those systems. 

A better word for Bamboo, according to Ms. Lucas is "aggressive".  It is not spread by birds, wind or bees and is always planted by a human being. Interestingly, "Lucky Bamboo" that many people buy and have in their homes is not really Bamboo at all,  is not native to Asia and is a member of the "Dracaena Family". 

At the end of the Conference, there was an open panel discussion and a question and answer period. 

Councilwoman Berland spoke of the realities and problems caused by Bamboo in Huntington.  Pitting neighbor against neighbor and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars to her constituents, the Bamboo needs to be banned she told those present at the conference to loud protests.  The crowd was after all mostly made up of landscapers and Bamboo lovers and enthusiasts.   Ms. Berland stood her ground, insisting the average person doesn't have the proper knowledge of the need for the costly and difficult, but very necessary maintenance of Bamboo in order to prevent it from spreading onto their neighbor's property where it can cause tremendous financial damage.

Some residents have called her with complaints that Bamboo has come up through their built in pool, deck or Jacuzzi.  Others fear the Bamboo can dislodge gas pipes or other things buried in their yard like water pipes and cess pools.  The issues for residents are real problems and must be addressed Ms. Berland insisted and she said she intended to move forward with her law to ban future planting of Bamboo in Huntington, despite protests from the crowd.  Councilwoman Berland was resolute and followed through true to her word at the Conference as she proffered a bill to ban any future planting of Phyllostachys (Running) Bamboo in Huntington due to the potential for severe financial damage caused by the plant when it is not managed properly.

                           LAWSUITS AND LAWS BANNING BAMBOO

There are eight municipalities on Long Island that have already banned or restricted Bamboo including: Smithtown, Islip, Fire Island (Saltaire and Ocean Beach), Long Beach, Hempstead, Greenport, Lake Grove and Brookhaven.  Huntington held a public hearing on the matter on November 7th.  Many people spoke of the problems and some spoke of their love of the plant.

Bamboo growing through Aluminum siding and roof
(Photo by Caryn Rickel)

Destruction by Bamboo (Photo by Caryn Rickel)

The bill was scheduled to be voted on yesterday at the December 18th Huntington Town Hall meeting.  The bill was voted down by a vote of 2 to 3.  Mark Mayoka, Mark Cuthbertson and Gene Cook voted nay.


 THE PROPOSED LAW TO BAN BAMBOO IN HUNTINGTON...DID NOT PASS...
                                           AT FIRST

(Chapter 156 A (Bamboo) of Law No. 19)
The purpose of the law proposed by Councilwoman Berland and seconded by Supervisor, Frank Petrone,  was intended "to preserve and protect private property from the damaging spread of certain running Bamboo grasses, protect indigenous plant materials from the invasive spread of running Bamboo and maintain the general welfare of the residents of the Town of Huntington."

The law would have applied to the Phyllostachys (Running) Bamboo, the kind that spreads, invades or encroaches on any other property other than where it was planted originally.  The first vote taken ...it did not pass.

The law would have prohibited any new plantings of "Running Bamboo" in Huntington and provided penalties for offenders.  "Bamboo shall not be planted, maintained or otherwise permitted to exist within 10 feet of the edge of a pavement or travelled portion of any public road and property owners where Bamboo is already growing are responsible to prevent the Bamboo from invading or growing onto adjacent or adjoining properties."

**** (This may not have been far enough as it grows to an average of thirty or forty feet and when it bends in heavy rain, snow or ice, it can totally block a driveway, backyard or roadway, according to some residents who otherwise support Councilwoman Berland's new law to ban Bamboo.)

If found to be encroaching on Town property the Bamboo owner would have been responsible for the removal of the Bamboo within 30 days, unless the owner could show reasonable remedial measures had started and  delays were not under the control of the person to whom a notice was issued.  The Bamboo owner would have been liable for any and all costs associated with removing the Bamboo from the Town of Huntington property and would have been assessed against the property of the owner.

Penalties for failure to comply ranged from $250.00 to $500.00 dollars and each month's continued violation would have constituted a separate violation for the first offense, not less than $500.00 to $1,000 dollars for the second offense and not less than $1,000 to $2,500 dollars for a third or subsequent offense and each month's continued offense would have constituted a separate and additional violation.

A "Bamboo Owner" ...would be any property owner or resident who plants/has planted or grows Bamboo or who maintains Bamboo on their property or permits Bamboo to grow or remain on the property even if it has spread from an adjoining property, except any property owner or resident who:
1.  Did not plant or grow or cause Bamboo to be planted or grown on his property and
2.  Has provided satisfactory proof to the Town of Huntington that within a reasonable period of time after discovering the encroachment of Bamboo onto the property from an adjoining or neighboring property, advised the owner of such property of an objection to the encroachment of the Bamboo and
3.  Has initiated steps for the removal of the Bamboo from the property, including remedies at law.

In April, 2013 the Huntington Town Board finally passed a law to regulate invasive bamboo.  The new law doesn't ban bamboo outright, it does prohibit residents from new plantings of the  phyllostachys or running bamboo and requires maintenance of any existing plants.   Residents must either remove or take responsibility for any bamboo already planted with fines ranging from $250-$5000 for failing to maintain or remove running bamboo and up to $1,000 dollars for planting or replanting bamboo.
Enforcement by Public Safety Officers will begin after a six month moratorium to give residents time to clear or maintain the bamboo already there.  Mark Cuthberston and Gene Cook voted against the law, while Mark Mayoka changed his vote to support the law after numerous residents were forced to file expensive civil lawsuits.


PEOPLE AFRAID TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD:
                                              FEAR OF PROPERTY VALUE DECLINE

Freelance Investigations spoke with several Huntington homeowners all complaining of the damage done to their property by Bamboo planted by a neighbor.  Most refused to go on the record for fear they will not be able to sell their property if it is known they have Bamboo invading their property line.  Lawsuits are now becoming quite common and some residents claim people leaving a property after a sale, often plant Bamboo on purpose, knowing it will become a problem for their neighbors and potentially hurt their property values or ability to sell.  Some claim cutting the Bamboo leaves little hollow stalks, a perfect breeding ground for West Nile mosquitos after the first rain.  Others say it makes their backyards unusable in the winter as their neighbors' Bamboo which towers over thirty feet high becomes bent over onto their property in heavy rain, ice and snow.

Only one resident was anxious to speak on the record.  Stuart Mass, of Eaton's Neck, Huntington has spoken out at Town Board meetings about the thousands of dollars of damage to his property done by the Bamboo planted by his next door neighbor for "privacy".  Mr. Mass has a horse stable and the Bamboo is spiking up past his fence inside the paddock.  "It is eating up my property!" according to Mr. Mass.

Bamboo Shoots known as "Culms" encroaching on Stuart Mass's Paddock

Stuart Mass of Eaton's Neck Huntington

This sprinkler system was originally underground, but was destroyed by Bamboo

 Bamboo from his neighbor has killed all his azalea shrubs and and trees and bends over into his driveway when wet, blocking egress.  The photos above show the way it was and the way it is now after the destruction of the Bamboo

The Bamboo runs 150 ft along the perimeter of his property.

Mr. Mass said he has tried to speak reasonably with his neighbor about the damage, but to no avail according to him and now when the neighbor sees him, he runs the other way.  So Mr. Mass said he plans to file a lawsuit this week for $80,000 dollars in property damage caused by his next door neighbor's Bamboo.  It has ruined his asphalt driveway, killed all the azaleas, small trees and shrubs that formerly surrounded his property, destroyed his underground sprinkler system, his Belgian block and spikes are intruding into the paddock for his horses, according to Mr. Mass.

Culms spike up on Mr. Mass's property... hard as steel they could impale a child or  animal 

Bamboo has destroyed his entire asphalt driveway which now needs to be repaved, according to Mr. Mass


BAMBOO INVADES CONNECTICUT

Bamboo is a problem in Connecticut as well.  Caryn Rickel is an invasive Bamboo research specialist who wants to see Bamboo not only on the "Do Not Plant List" but also on the "Do Not Sell List".  Profits behind the Phyllostachys or running Bamboo are the reason many do not want the bans.  The clumping Bamboo does not propagate as quickly and is not as profitable, according to her.  Ms. Rickel notes Phyllostachys is already not allowed to be planted in Japan, not allowed to be shipped to Hawaii and "Even the Hiroshima Bomb did not kill Phyllostachys Bamboo.  In fact, it was the only living thing left and it flourished a few days later." according to her.   Organic removal with or without toxic chemicals is very costly and difficult work. Some people are using fuel oil or gasoline to kill it...causing further environmental harm.

Ms. Rickel operates  a database in Connecticut and had documented over 150 cases of invasive Bamboo as of April 2012.  In February, she testified before the Connecticut Legislative Committee, opposing the proposed labeling by the Connecticut Green Industries Council.  She told the panel even the plant tags meant to warn the public contain incorrect information.

FROM THE TESTIMONY of Caryn Rickel


In viewing the images provided of the* two tags , by Bob Heffernan
of the Connecticut Green Industries Council it is highly disturbing to see he has
**grossly incorrect information** that will be relied upon by the unsuspecting public.
1.) He states : Some form of containment may likely be necessary.
Correct Statement should read :
Phyllostachys is running bamboo (rhizomatous) and MUST BE CONTAINED.
2.) He states: Mowing the new shoots is effective in controlling spread.
Correct Statement should read:
Mowing does not stop a rhizome from invading adjoining property.
It allows it to invade underground undetected and further the following year
to unwanted area’s, possibly structures or a neighbor’s adjoining land.
Us.fed.data report shows Phyllostachys spp.will travel 9.3 miles and
scientifically is one organism. ( report available )
3.) He states herbicides like round-up may also be effective.
Correct Statement should read:
Herbicides do not translocate well to the rhizomes and Phyllostachys
resists chemicals. Even professional’s have a very difficult time
trying to eradicate Phyllostachys. The rhizomes are chambered off and
even injections are difficult. ( New Peer reviewed report available-
on power point ) Backhoe to remove and several years follow-up on
missed rhizome fragments. He makes no mention that rhizomes are
hazardous waste. Rhizomes must be taken to a burn center.
Any small fragment of rhizome will colonize an infestation.
4.) He states on the tag that you can use metal, cement, or fiberglass to
construct a barrier to avoid spread.
Correct Statement should read:
Must be 40 ml, 60 ml , or 80 ml polyethylene bamboo barrier.(HDPE)
Metal will *corrode and rust and is not a suitable bamboo barrier..
Cement will *crack and is also not a suitable bamboo barrier.
*************************************************************
 He also fails to mention these CRITICAL POINTS in what constitutes an
effective barrier:
a) A barrier must be installed to* fully encircle around the planting* to be effective with *no seams. A barrier installed just on a property line will not contain or constitute an effective barrier.
b) It is a common misconception that a barrier stops a running bamboo from invading, when just the opposite is true. A barrier deflects the rhizomes up
so that they can be rhizome pruned each late summer. One missed rhizome
is all it takes to invade an adjoining property.
Note: When a property is sold these instructions must be part
of that property sale, or the new owner will invade the neighborhood.
When a barrier is not maintained it fails faster. Mature groves will break
through barriers, and they will need to be redone.
The truth is that Phyllostachys is a highly unsuitable plant for urban plantings and a highly unsuitable plant for a property line planting
as it will spread and damage adjoining property.
Lastly it is impractical for him to suggest each person being invaded
file a civil suit and sue their neighbor.
The problem is that the :
Statute of Limitations would impose an unfair burden to the plaintiff in that
Phyllostachys - creeps slowly in the first 3-5 years and then it begins to
invade more aggressively each successive year...When one realizes it is a
problem it is almost too late. A better solution is to have the H.B.5122
as law to establish such an affirmative duty that will deter potential
defendants from engaging in this type of activity

Feb 21, 2012




Whether you love the inexpensive privacy planting Bamboo affords you, or you decry the invasive damage to everything it touches, Bamboo strikes a chord of passion in just about everyone.  
Some call it the "roach of plants" as it is difficult if not impossible to kill it, according to them.  Others extol it's virtues and enjoy it's versatility and beauty.  If it is not maintained properly, it can cause a myriad of problems and therefore more regulations and more bans are expected in the future.  Some have suggested that only licensed landscapers should be allowed to buy and plant it and then they would be responsible for maintaining it for as long as it is alive. Others says nothing less than a complete ban of the sale and planting in the entire United States will protect our native land and plants.   One thing is clear, the topic of Bamboo needs both education and regulation as the plant itself is hardy and strong and will not go away on its own anytime soon.

THREE COURAGEOUS AFFIDAVITS...

The following is an affidavit made by Walter Elyon, who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for nearly ten years.  

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF New York

PERSONALLY came and appeared before me, the undersigned Notary, the within named Walter Elyon, who is a resident of New York County, State of New York, and makes this his statement and General Affidavit upon oath and affirmation of belief and personal knowledge that the following matters, facts and things set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge:  

I reside at 131 Bank Street, New York. From 1984 - 1993 I was employed by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).  Under the pretext of performing scientific inquiries, I was hired for  what later turned out to be - a scam project, the so-called passive Solar Brookhaven House.  From the beginning, this project was intended to pacify the people of the nearby hamlet of Shirley with regard to the now famous tritium plume seeping southward from the Laboratory. Rather than serving to increase the knowledge of sustainability the Brookhaven House functioned as a ploy to green-wash the dismal conditions that later led to BNL's state of a "Superfund Site".  That I was not a researcher in the service of science but a political pawn was made clear to me by a caller from another National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado. Unfortunately, shocked as I was by this revelation, the undisclosed tritium leak should not remain the only matter of contention between me and BNL.  My first office was located in building 120, a site directly adjacent to the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). An intern from Denmark alerted me to the fact that he had detected increased levels of radiation next to the HFBR with a Geiger counter. At a meeting with my department head my concerns about radiation at this location were ridiculed. Incidentally, it was the tritium leaking from this very HFB reactor that threatened the population of Shirley.

All this happened in 1984 and 1985, long before BNL became a Superfund Site. Later our Department of Applied Science office was relocated to the now decommissioned Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR). My concerns about the safety of this location were again derided. However, twenty years later,the Remedial Action Plan for the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor clearly stated the risks to human health posed by the BGRR's considerable radiological inventory. BNL admitted that monitoring wells down-gradient of the BGRR indicted this facility as a source of Sr-90 (Strontium-90) groundwater contamination. Between the years 1997 to 1999 a staggering 58,000 gallons of contaminated water from below ground ducts were pumped out as part of the environmental restoration programs. During the last years of my employment proposals were again put forth to relocate our offices to a building "526" at the outskirts of the property. In this building certain parts were clearly marked as polluted due to storage of radioactive material. It was then that I threatened to involve GREENPEACE and not much later my employment was terminated. In addition to unsafe working conditions due to the exposure to radiation there were other flagrant health and safety violations. In the late 80's I had to perform tests on so-called stator bars from the Northport Power Station (NPS). These tests consisted of charging the hollow bars with perfluorocarbon tracer gas and then collecting the rate of leakage with receivers placed close by. It was only later that I learned that these bars had been enclosed in asbestos. The insulation had been stripped from the bars for the purpose of easier testing. The bars still had visible fibers attached to them but I did not even know that it was Asbestos that I was touching. At the time I worked with Russell Dietz's Tracer Technology Center. Two years after the stator bar experiments I had another assignment with the Northport Power Station. This time I was to demonstrate that condenser air in-leakage- apparently a huge problem for power plants - could be quantified with Perfluorocarbon Tracer gases. Again, I had to produce a report which was published by BNL. Quite obviously, there existed continuous cooperation between the two institutions, BNL and NPS, reinforcing the claim that Brookhaven National Laboratory has a contract with the Northport Power Station allowing BNL to burn their contaminated toxic wastes and bury their radioactive materials at NPS's landfill site. For me personally, the ever present possibility of contamination and exposure to radiation at BNL caused a severe psychological trauma. In that I was not alone however.  Most of my co-workers had been-and continued to be-  in some form of psychological treatment. The extremely generous insurance policies of the lab enabled every employee to have his or her own psychotherapist and many of my colleagues urged me to take advantage of BNL's unrestrictive offer also. Leaving the laboratory - which I often considered later - was not a viable strategy in the beginning of my employment, since at the time I was an H-l visa holder. If a foreign worker in H-l status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer, or leave the United States. I counted myself lucky that Brookhaven National Laboratory lawyers worked on my permanent residence status which I finally did receive in 1988 ("Green Card"). Several years later I applied for and was granted citizenship. Earlier this year (2011) I was diagnosed with Grover's disease, consisting of mild to severe skin rashes. The etiology of this disease is unknown. However, suspected triggers of disease activity include ionizing irradiation. Individuals who are affected with this disease experience variable degrees of itching, sometimes severe in nature. The skin rashes can be set off by environmental stressors such as impurities in the air and in some cases have been associated with the on set cancer. In addition, I am now suffering from a feeling of weakness, sensory loss andimpairment of reflexes in my left leg and am undergoing testing for toxic neuropathy. According to Merritt's Textbook of Neurology, neuropathies from industrial agents either from occupational or environmental sources, presenting after either limited or long-term exposure, are insidious.
DATED: June 21, 2011


Mr. Elyon reiterated his earlier claims and asked that this additional comment be added on October 16, 2012 when contacted by Freelance Investigations in regard to publishing his original affidavit.

Not long after I had started working at BNL I discovered that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services had been conducting environmental tests at the lab.  They had found tritium in the groundwater and drinking-water wells.   In addition, radioactive elements, such as cesium 137 and strontium 90, had been detected in the fish of the Peconic River.  Apparently, some of the radioactive leaks had gone undetected for years, dating back to the mid-1960s, when the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR) was decommissioned.

Every morning when I entered our office at the old BGRR I pondered on the consequences of the plume of tritium, aromatic hydrocarbons, chloroform, strontium 90 and 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane, a metal degreaser, that slowly made its way toward Shirley.  I shuddered at the thought that all of these toxins had also been sinking into the drinking-water aquifer.

In utter disbelief I read reports by the Environmental Protection Agency stating that about 30% of BNL’s waste – waste that included contaminated clothing, equipment and radioactive animal carcasses - was deposited in an on-site landfill.  The horrendous feeling of being on a sinking ship was reinforced by stories in local newspapers which openly talked about different pollutants connected to the laboratory. Now these reports were not confined to bulletins of the Department of Health Services, but there were open allegations about the drinking water being contaminated with cesium 137, europium 154, plutonium 239; and radium 226.

Finally, in 1989 Brookhaven National Laboratory was officially accepted to the National Priorities List.

There was an eerie atmosphere at the lab.  Almost everybody that I got to know was in some kind of mental counseling for which the laboratory paid in a lavish fashion.  Fear and suppressed discomfort was in the air.  When I complained to people and suggested to take some action (such as to bring in Greenpeace), everybody seemed to agree on this one principle: You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.  I often considered changing jobs but the laboratory lawyers were in the process of changing my work visa to the status of “Alien Resident” (the so-called Green Card).  My only way out would have been a return to Austria, a step I often contemplated.  At some point an old girlfriend from Vienna, Austria visited me and after seeing the situation urged me to come back.

For reasons connected to the unfortunate past of Austria in the first half of the 20th Century I did not want to go back to a country that had hailed the instigator of a vast genocide.  I still believed in the United States, a belief that was slowly eroded the longer I stayed at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Walter Elyon.

The following is the affidavit of Erik Knudsen who worked at the Northport Power Station.
Mr. Knudsen is suffering from the effects of radiation poisoning he received when he worked at the Northport Power Plant.

Affidavit
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

ERIK  KNUDSEN, being duly sworn deposes and says: I reside in Kings Park, New York. From approximately August of 2004 to date (most of the time), I had been employed originally by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). My initial employment was assignment to Northport Power Station located in Northport, New York., within the Town of Huntington, County of Suffolk. When initially hired my title was maintenance mechanic. I then trained for a new, higher job position as an Assistant Control Operator (ACO).  My duties involved being assigned to the Northport Power Station as well as transfer of oil from the offshore loading platform in the Long Island Sound to the Northport Power Station as well as unloading tankers (trucks) of waste and hazardous contaminants/waste by-products. My duties included, but were not limited to being involved in the maintenance, running, cleanup and overall operation of the four power units (four stacks) as well as the unloading and transfer of chemicals and fuel oils from the off shore platform to the Northport Power Station's "tank farm" (oil storage facility).  During the course of my employment I was exposed to numerous oil and chemical spills which I later learned contained contaminated heavy metal and toxic chemicals. As a result of this continued exposure without the proper safety equipment, I became sick and was diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity and toxicity. This contamination caused a variety of occupational permanent health ailments including but not limited to an enlarged heart, kidney malfunction, liver malfunction, lung damage, neurological problems, gum disease, loss of teeth and I have been diagnosed with and treated for blood and bone leukemia (CML and APL). As a result of my illnesses, which were the direct result of my exposure to these various chemicals, I am permanently terminally ill and as a result can no longer work.  I have been determined to be totally and permanently disabled by the New York State Social Services Department and the New York State Worker's Compensation Board. Through the course of my severe occupational illness I learned I had also been exposed to radioactive waste and beryllium as a result of working at the Northport Power Station contained in the waste oil that is transported to the Power Station and burned for fuel for the generation of electricity was from the Brookhaven National Laboratory and other similar facilities. During the course of my hearings with the Worker's Compensation Board and SSD it was unrefuted that the waste oil and chemicals which contained toxic fluids and heavy metals were both stored and burned at the Northport Power Station during the course of my employment. The source of these toxic chemicals were confirmed to be in part from the Brookhaven National Laboratory. This confirmation came from Arthur Stange an employee of the United States Department of Energy. Mr. Stange's findings and conclusions are unrefuted. Throughout the course of the numerous hearings with SSD and Worker's Compensation it was discovered and proven that Brookhaven National Laboratory has a contract with Northport Power Station to burn their contaminated toxic oils and waste fluids. It was also determined that the Northport Power Station has been a sub--contractor for Brookhaven National Laboratories from 1991 through the present. During the course of my medical treatment and employment I discovered that the waste oil has been contaminated with radioactive isotopes. As a result of being exposed to those hazardous chemicals at the Northport Power Station I became severely ill.  Subsequently I have been diagnosed with life threatening medical conditions as a direct result and caused by being exposed to these chemicals.  I filed a toxic tort against Keyspan (Northport Power Station) under Worker's Compensation Board Case Number 40305285. The carrier under this claim was the Keyspan Corporation. Carrier Case Number is KYS-03-0005051. My date of birth is June 29, 1972. As a result of my hearing before the Worker's Compensation Board I was awarded lifetime medical and weekly payments for lost wages and benefits. My case was appealed by Keyspan and the decision of the Worker's Compensation Board was affirmed and I now receive lifetime medical and weekly payments. During my employment from 1991 through 2002 I worked on a regular basis with employees of the Town of Huntington. Specifically, I worked on a regular basis throughout this time with Mr. William Townsend Perks, who was assigned by the Town of Huntington to assist me with any cleanup for oil spills which occurred on a regular basis in and around the Northport Power Station in Northport Town of Huntington, County of Suffolk, State of New York. In addition to working with Mr. Perks cleaning oil and toxic chemical spills, I also worked with Mr. Perks when oil tankers would come into the Long Island Sound to make deliveries to unload oil for burning at the Northport Power Station. Mr. Perks, who was then the Harbor Master/Oil Spill
Response Manager/Hazardous Materials Coordinator for the Town of Huntington was also a member of the Town of Huntington's oil spill response team and held the title of manager. He was also the first responder for the Town of Huntington and directly assisted with the cleanup of oi1and toxic chemical spills. These spills occurred on a regular basis during the entire time of my employment. As a result of this contamination by toxic oils and fuels I am suffering adverse medical conditions that are life threatening.
                                                                       __________________________________
Sworn to before me this day of May 2011                     Erik Knudsen

______________________
Notary Public


The Knudsen affidavit was never signed by Mr. Knudsen.

The following affidavit was made by William Perks on June 10, 2011.
Mr. Perks states he was present during the time mentioned in the Knudsen affidavit.  He submitted the unsigned Knudsen affidavit in his case against the Town of Huntington.


William Townsend Perks vs. Town of Huntington

2nd Cir. 2007,
Eastern District, NY
Docket No. 06-2836
Judge Joanna Seybert


William T. Perks, residing in Centerport NY, 11721. being duty sworn, deposes and
says:

1. I was present in when Erik Knudsen dictated the above Affidavit to my attorney in the within action.

2. Before being transferred to the Huntington landfill where the Covanta (f/k/a Ogden Martin) incinerator was located, during many emergencies when I, Mr. Knudsen, his co-workers, other members of my Team and local firemen/first-responders were exposed to unknown HAZMATS. I was present in my official capacities as Harbor Master/Oil  Response Manager/Hazardous Materials Coordinator for the Town of Huntington and as a manager of the Town's oil-spill response team.

3. At no time were any of those present during emergencies at the Northport Power Station or Covanta:

(a)  warned about radiation hazards or toxic substances trucked from the BNL Superfund site,
(b) provided a notice pursuant to the provisions of Section 324(b) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1988 (PI. '99-499) hereinafter "EPCRA"...
(c) a copy of the Suffolk County Hazardous Materials Response Plan
(d) material safety data sheets [MSDS] or
(e) the emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms required to be filed under said law and any subsequent follow-up notices.

4. In fact, not until I received a copy of the Public Notice in Exhibit A from the June 2, 2011 issue of the Suffolk County News; did I ever hear of EPCRA during HAZMAT training courses.

5. In fact, not until Mr. Knudsen was deposed, did I ever see radiation-warning signs like the one in Exhibit B that Mr. Knudsen took from the Northport Power Station.
Dated: Huntington New York
June 10,  2011

Israel’s Lenders Gave Thousands To Campaign

The original mortgage lenders to Congressman Steve Israel made over $50,000 dollars in campaign contributions to Steve Israel for Congress and more to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee he chairs.

Of two original loans to the Congressman and his ex-wife for the Dix Hills home they recently sold in a short sale, one was from Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. The company went bankrupt in 2008 and is currently the subject of numerous lawsuits. Two of the loans they got to refinance the home a year later were both from Homebridge.

Records show Homebridge Chairman and President, Nicholas A. Bratsafolis and his wife Michelle, gave $21,000 dollars to the Steve Israel for Congress Committee and his New York Jobs PAC between 2003 and 2007.

Another listed President of Homebridge Mortgage, David Pankin, from Plainview, contributed $3,500 to the Steve Israel for Congress Committee between 2003 and 2005.

Together, Bratsafolis and Pankin also contributed more than $35,000 dollars to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, chaired by Israel.

According to Stephen Labate, Congressman Israel’s GOP challenger in the November election for the newly drawn 3rd Congressional District, “The donations tied to the loans raise serious questions of insider sweetheart deals.”

In July of 2004, Congressman Israel and his wife, Suffolk County Family Court Judge, Marlene Budd, purchased the Dix Hills home with two mortgages: one from Homebridge for $464,000 dollars and another from National City Bank for $57,950 dollars.  Congressman Israel paid a down payment of $58,050 dollars or roughly 10% on the original purchase.

In August of 2005, Congressman Israel and his wife, refinanced with Homebridge, getting two loans from them, one for $508,000 and one for $63,500 dollars totaling $571,500 for the house they bought for $580,000 dollars in 2004.  They satisfied the original loans when they refinanced.

“It is more than curious that just a year after purchasing the home, the congressman refinanced the home at 98.5% of the original purchase price from a mortgage lender whose principle owners just happen to be major donors to the congressman and his party.” according to Chris Thompson, Mr. Labate’s campaign manager.  The Israel camp did not respond when asked how much, if any, down payment was part of the refinance deal in 2005.

In October of 2006, Congressman Israel and his wife got another mortgage on the same property for $105,000 dollars from JP Morgan Chase.  That brought the total in 2006 to $675,500 dollars for the three mortgages on the Long Island home.  In 2006, they also purchased an apartment in Washington, D.C. for approximately $416,000 dollars.

The house in Dix Hills sold recently for $460,000 dollars.  In early October, The New York Post ran a story revealing JP Morgan Chase forgave $93,000 dollars on Israel’s   “underwater mortgage”.   The Israel campaign does not deny the amount and the fact of the JP Morgan Chase loan forgiveness.

Congressman Israel voted in 2008 to bailout JP Morgan Chase with $25 billion, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  JP Morgan paid back the loan with interest.  GOP strategists argue they may have paid back Congressman Israel by forgiving the $93,000 debt he still owed on his “underwater loan” to them.  The Israel camp denies any special treatment and insists that all transactions were above board and by the book.

Ed Cox, the New York State GOP Chairman, released a statement after The New York Post  article responding to the loan forgiveness.
“On the surface it would appear that he would not qualify for such a reduction, so we asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate the circumstances that surround what looks to be a highly questionable transaction and a potential abuse of power.”

Stephanie Slater, Communications Director for Congressman Israel, has insisted that Israel ran the short sale by the House Ethics Committee and followed its’ advice.

Mr. Labate believes this will hurt Steve Israel when the voters go to the polls.  “Some have lost their homes and others have been forced into bankruptcy and they may be convinced that the Congressman used his influence and position to secure this sweetheart deal from his bank.” Labate said.

Congressman Israel and his wife, filed for divorce in 2011, after 8 years of marriage.  This combined with the depressed housing market entitled them to be forgiven $93,000 of their home loan on a short sale of their $553,000 Dix Hills house, Ms. Slater told The New York Post .

“That being the criteria, half the households on Long Island should be able to get loan forgiveness…but they can’t.” Thompson said.

The 17% loss to the bank is not unusual Ms. Slater said “The Congressman and the Judge did what everyone else would do: found a potential buyer and had a lawyer negotiate the sale with all the parties for a price consistent with comparable homes in the neighborhood.” according to the article.

“Short sale listings on Long Island per MLS (for the period 1/1/12 – 10/10/12) were 3,348 out of 30,526 total listings. That calculates to 10.9% not the 14.5% offered by the Israel campaign.” according to Mr. Thompson. “ Looking only at homes over $450,000 the number falls to less than 1% and Mr. Israel’s home was 1 of only 246 homes in that price range” he added.

Congressman Israel will not have to pay taxes on the cancellation of debt, because the Mortgage Debt Relief Act, (HR 3648,110th Congress), was extended through 2012 by the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Steve Israel voted for.

Before the Mortgage Debt Relief Act, anytime a lender, would write down (or forgive) the borrower’s debt to accommodate a settlement, they were required to report the amount of the write-down to the IRS and it could be considered income to the borrower. Treated as income the written-down amount becomes taxable and would need to be reported on the 1040 tax return.  Normally, if a person gets debt forgiveness on an unsecured debt like a credit card, he must pay taxes on it.  A temporary measure, The Mortgage Debt Relief Act was   to expire, but thanks to the extension of the act through 2012, something Congressman Israel voted for, he will not have to pay taxes on the $93,000 JP Morgan Chase forgave.

        SPECIAL RULES AND DEALS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?


Family Court Judge Marlene Budd and Congressman Israel have a combined income of over $300,000. Records show they purchased a 2nd home in Washington D.C. in February 2006.  Two mortgages were taken out on the D.C. apartment from Wachovia Bank: one for $56,667 and another for $302,228 for a total of $358,895. This apartment is not currently listed for sale as reported in NEWSDAY recently.

The total mortgage debt on their two homes in October of 2006 was about one million dollars.  Without including any credit card debt they might have had, their debt equity would be greater than the norms allowed for a conventional mortgage at their pay grade, according to the Labate campaign.

Democratic New York State Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, has a televised campaign ad touting the new “Stock Act” she recently passed – banning insider trading in the stock market by members of Congress based on information they get as members of influential committees. “Members of Congress should play by the exact same rules as families like yours.”

Some Republican’s are questioning whether Mr. Israel who has represented the 2nd Congressional District since 2001 and is now running for the 3rd CD, is playing by the same rules as his own constituents when it comes to his mortgage.

According to Stephen Labate,  “Since the story of the Congressman’s short sale broke, voters all across our district have been expressing their outrage, both to me and to our campaign volunteers.  Many have relayed their personal stories of financial duress and being turned away by their mortgage lenders when they sought relief. Voters are tired of the insider deals our elected officials cut for themselves and I believe they will voice their discontent at the polls on Election Day.”

Regarding the issue of the Homebridge campaign contributions to Congressman Israel, Ms. Slater declined to comment.

October 26, 2012      Originally posted by: The Huntingtonian
http://thehuntingtonian.com/2012/10/26/israels-lenders-gave-thousands-to-campaign/

Letter to Governor Cuomo Documenting Decades of Division of Mineral Resources Enforcement Problems

9/26/12 Letter to Governor Cuomo Documenting Decades of Division of Mineral Resources Enforcement Problems
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York
The State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Cuomo:

As you know, Marcellus Shale gas fracturing is not permitted in New York pending adoption of a Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). That proceeding is based on your Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) fundamental assertion that existing gas and oil extraction safeguards are fully adequate to protect public health and our environment.

Your Division of Mineral Resources emphatically stated: "As a result of New York's rigorous regulatory process, the types of problems reported to have occurred in states without such strong environmental laws and rigorous regulations haven't happened here."

That statement is demonstrably false. I recently spoke with someone with extensive DEC service. I was told that your Division of Mineral Resource's enforcement problems were well known within DEC and extensively documented in its own Annual Reports.

When I reviewed the Division of Mineral Resources' last 25 years of Annual Reports, I found that they reveal a shocking array of long-standing problems that threaten New York's environment and public health.

I write to summarize New York's self-documented inadequate regulation of natural gas and oil extraction activities involving more than 15,000 gas and oil production wells.

Drinking Water Pollution

Over the years, there has been documented drinking water contamination caused by massive uncontrolled gas and oil pollution hazards that were never fully investigated by DEC or local health authorities and still do not meet clean up standards. Among dozens of recently reported incidents, two drinking water problems are especially troubling. See Attachment A.

The Perkins Family

I recently visited the Perkins Family in Bolivar, NY, an area inundated with hundreds of natural gas and oil production wells. Between 9/11 and 10/11, their water well was reportedly polluted by 12,971,000 parts per billion of petroleum that had shot out of a showerhead while a son was bathing. DEC traced the petroleum contamination to a local production well and confirmed the source with analytical testing.

The Perkins were never told that a wide array of toxic contaminants were identified in their drinking water and have continued to bath in it. Those contaminants reportedly include: 4-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE (1,300 PPB), 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE (3,300 PPB), N-BUTYLBENZENE (1,600 PPB).

To this day, the Perkins family has not been provided with an alternate source of clean water or a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filter that is capable of removing toxic petroleum constituents on a comprehensive basis.

This family complained to DEC as recently as January that their water was black and smells bad. The incident involving their contaminated water reportedly still does not meet clean up standards.

The Harms Family

Mr. Randy Harms and his family in Scio, NY similiarly reportedly massive amounts of crude oil in their water well on 12/13/10. I recently visited their home and video recorded petroleum remains on the ground around their well head. They report that their drinking water remains discolored and exhibits a strong "kerosene" odor. They never received an alternate water supply or a GAC filter. The incident associated with their contaminated water reportedly still not meet clean up standards.

Untreated Brine Discharges to Lagoons

According to DEC Division of Mineral Resources data, hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic and radioactive natural gas and oil drilling "produced water" or "brine" have been generated annually for decades. Improper disposal of brines has caused extensive contamination in New York.

For example, 8.6 million barrels of brine was reportedly generated in 1987. Of that more than 360,000,000 gallons of brine, approximately 80% was discharged into waterways under SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits or dumped into "holding ponds," "about 4% was spread on public roads" and 16% was "recycled" for waterflooding (this involves pumping water into oil-bearing formations).

Large brine releases have been documented to have polluted local streams, wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas and threatened wildlife. I visited multiple examples of this problem in Allentown, NY and Whitesfield, NY. In one case, the contamination problem has reportedly persisted since at least 2008.

Leaking Brine Tanks

Thousands of corroded brine storage tanks have reportedly polluted New York's environment. A 1996 Division of Mineral Resources survey "found approximately 40% of the total number of brine tanks to be leaking or have holes in the sides."

Abandoned and Unplugged Gas and Oil Production Wells

Division of Mineral Resources has documented more than 4,700 abandoned gas, oil and other wells that have not been plugged due to inadequate funding. Unplugged wells are extensively documented to cause serious contamination hazards.

According to the head of the Division in 1995: "One of the biggest challenges facing the oil and gas regulatory program is the growing liability of idle and abandoned wells. In most cases financial security, even for operators in compliance with current regulations, does not provide sufficient funding to plug the covered wells."

According to the 2008 Annual Report: "Abandoned wells can leak oil, gas and/or brine; underground leaks may go undiscovered for years. These fluids can contaminate ground and surface water, kill vegetation, and cause public safety and health problems. Historically, abandoned wells have been discovered in the woods, along roadsides, and in residential yards, playgrounds, and parking lots. They've even been discovered inside building, and underwater in wetlands, streams and ponds."

According to the New York State Groundwater Assessment, "Drilling for oil & gas in NYS has occurred since the early periods of exploration in the U.S. During much of that time, proper well abandonment was not performed once wells were no longer in use. This has resulted in the improper abandonment of potentially tens of thousands of oil & gas wells..."

DEC and NYS Energy Research and Development Authority report that plugging a single well can cost between $3,000.00 and $50,000.00. As a result, the bill for dealing New York's unplugged wells could cost between $14,000,000.00 and $235,000,000.00.

That vastly exceeds the roughly $200,000.00 recently reported in the State well plugging fund.

http://www.toxicstargeting.com/MarcellusShale/cuomo/coalition_letter/2011

See Attachment B

Video Documentation

I am providing for your review a video that documents the concerns described herein. See Attachment C.

Conclusion

Governor Cuomo, your DEC deliberately and egregiously misled the public about New York's gas and oil regulatory problems. That inescapable conclusion renders your Marcellus Shale Revised Draft SGEIS invalid.

I believe you have a clear obligation to first do no harm with regard to gas and oil extraction. It would be irresponsible of you to continue to ignore DEC's self-documented inability to regulate gas and oil extraction hazards. Until all the problems reported by the Division of Mineral Resources are fully resolved, permitting shale gas fracturing, even in a limited area, must be completely out of the question.

The thousands of abandoned gas, oil and other wells that require plugging are an environmental and public health crisis of potentially immense proportions. DEC's admitted failure to resolve this threat is comparable to New York's discovery of thousands of previously unreported leaking hazardous waste dumps. Those wells must be plugged without delay.

In conclusion, the extensive information I am providing today supplements the government data I earlier documented in the coalition letter which requests that you withdraw the Marcellus Shale Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS). Please heed the requests of more than 22,000 signatories without further delay in order to fulfill Executive Order No. 41.



Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions that I might be able to answer or if I can be of assistance in any way.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Walter Hang

cc: 22,590 Signatories to the Withdraw the Revised Draft SGEIS coalition letter

     3,047 Signatories to the Oppose a Possible Southern Tier Fracking Demonstration Project coalition letter
     Honorable Matthew T. Ryan, Mayor of Binghamton
     Honorable Barbara S. Lifton, Representative, 125th Assembly District
     Honorable Donna A. Lupardo, Representative, 126th Assembly District
     Honorable Thomas W. Libous 52nd State Senate District
     Honorable Maurice D. Hinchey, U.S. Representative, New York 22nd District
     Honorable Robert K. Sweeney, Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee Chair
     Honorable Mark J. Grisanti, State Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chair
     Members of the Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel

TERM-LIMITS DON'T APPLY TO: SPOTA, DeMarco and Pascale

OP-ED:  "Landmark Case...Landmark Implications"

Last week State Supreme Court Justice Ralph Gazzillo ruled Suffolk County can't impose term-limits on the DA, the Sheriff and the county Clerk as they are state offices, created by the state constitution.

On July 26, 2012,  Dave Ambro wrote an article in the Huntington News titled: "Term-limits case has landmark implications".  In it he described the landmark case as that of Plaintiffs; Thomas J. Spota as District Attorney of Suffolk County, Vincent DeMarco as Suffolk County Sheriff and Judith A. Pascale as Suffolk County Clerk against the County of Suffolk.

Mr. Ambro had a one on one with Stuart Besen, the attorney hired by Suffolk County Executive, Steve Bellone, to handle the case for the county.  Mr. Besen, a former Huntington Town Councilman was entrusted with this very important case,  Mr. Ambro described as "a lawyer's trophy" and a case that "will establish new law in New York State."

Sorry Mr. Ambro, but Mr. Spota's attorney, Kevin Snover gets the trophy and according to Newsday,  he was "very gratified".  Your good friend Mr. Besen, was apparently way out of his league on this one.

Freelance Investigations had already asked Mr. Bellone on July 17, 2012 why he would hire Mr. Besen to handle this case for the county- since it was clearly a state constitutional issue and Mr. Besen's background as an attorney was limited to personal injury and real estate law, for the most part.  Vanessa Baird-Streeter, the press liaison for Mr. Bellone replied then, "The county does not comment on pending legal matters."

Interestingly enough, when Newsday ran the story last week, on Friday, September 28, 2012,  Andrew Smith never mentioned Mr. Besen as the losing attorney.  In fact, Mr. Besen's name is never mentioned at all in the article as being connected in any way to this "landmark" case.  Instead, Mr. Smith gives Justice Gazillo's stance this way;  "Gazillo rejected an argument by the county that said that even if Spota, DeMarco and Pascale are considered state officials, they should be bound by the law because they are elected only by county voters."

That argument (by the still unmentioned Mr. Besen) went too far in it's logical conclusion, according to Justice Gazillo.  So even though Suffolk County voters wanted term limits for the DA, the Sheriff and the Clerk, they will not be getting them.  The 1993 voter  approved three term-limit referendum does not apply to these three offices as they are state offices, according to Justice Gazillo.

After visiting in a closed door session with the Suffolk County Legislative Ways and Means Committee this week, Mr. Besen was told he should file an appeal of the case as soon as  Mr. Snover, files his clients' response.

Knowing this case was a strict state constitutional issue and according to Mr. Ambro a "landmark decision", then why wouldn't Mr. Bellone hire an attorney who is an expert in state constitutional law?
Let's see if Mr. Bellone decides to use Mr. Besen for the appeal, or maybe he will hire more attorneys to help Mr. Besen.  Time will tell...

I wonder, would Mr. Bellone  go to an eye doctor if he had a heart attack?
Either way, since Mr. Besen's case took a not so unexpected nosedive, let's see how long before he gets offered a judgeship for hitting the canvas.

Editorial Opinion..........9/11 Cancers Covered

Finally, Dr. John Howard, Director of NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) issued a formal ruling adding about 50 types of Cancer to be covered under the Zadroga Act, a Federal Law covering First Responders and others who breathed in toxic air on 9/11 and for months after, while working on the pile.

This decision, made formal yesterday, is long overdue, but has the caveat that no more additional money has yet been added to the fund to help treat these additional illnesses over the long term.

$2.8 billion was set aside in January 2011, when the Zadroga Bill finally passed.  It is disgraceful that these fine people had to wait that long and even longer for this milestone.  But it is the right decision to help these brave souls and their families who stepped up and gave their lives when America was under attack. Now Congress must stop the partisan garbage and step up and put more money in the fund, so that these families don't have to worry or wonder any longer whether the money to handle their medical and personal financial issues will be there.  They have made the ultimate sacrifice, with their lives and their health...luckily for most of those in Congress, this should be a no-brainer.  

Over 40,000 First Responders are being monitored by the World Trade Center Health Program, which has received over $1.5 billion to continue tracking illnesses of those at Ground Zero.
How many have already passed from these cancers, without compensation?  How will they and their families be recompensed?

Today is a solemn day, but one of remembrance of the precious loved ones lost.  It is also a time to remember that the EPA told the First Responders and residents of downtown Manhattan that the air
was safe to breath.  Christie Whitman, then head of the EPA, held a press conference and stood in front of a microphone, and told people it was alright to work and toil and breathe the air, when the EPA had to know that all of the pulverized metals and toxins were not safe to inhale.  The firefighters at the Pentagon all had SCUBA gear, because they knew how toxic the metals burning were.

By some accounts of people interviewed by this reporter at the time, firemen and police on the pile were told to take off their protective masks, so that when pictures were taken, people didn't think protective masks or SCUBA gear was needed.   It was.  Because of that "Grand Lie" thousands of people are now sick and dead that didn't have to be.

Soon the EPA will say that Fracking is safe for the drinking water of an entire region.  That the underground explosions, won't cause earthquakes near Three Mile Island.  The EPA won't have a plan to dispose of Billions of gallons of clean water poisoned by volatile organic chemicals and gels then removed and placed in open pools until removed to ...Where?

The sewage treatment plants were never designed to accept this kind of toxic soup, including radioactive water and chemicals that will never biodegrade.  The EPA lied before and they will lie again...Don't believe them when they say fracking is safe...

The following story was published last year...it is still a must read for First Responders and their relatives...please pass it along...Thank You and God Bless the First Responders and their Families.