|
The Dangers of Plum
Island
LETTER
IN THE NEW YORK TIMES 2/22/04
A Plum Island Solution:
Why Not Move It?
Re: "Heaping More Dirt on
Plum Island" [Feb. 15]: "My agenda is not to
close Plum Island, it's to make it safe," said
Michael Christopher Carroll,
author of "Lab 257," diluting his strong
warnings.
Why not move it?
What benefit is there from
having deadly animal research two miles from
such a heavily populated area, when birds and
mosquitoes can easily travel that distance and
beyond?
Why has nothing been
learned from 9/11, anthrax, ricin, West Nile,
virus, SARS and bird flu? Why ignore the fact
that most new human viruses come from animals
and become more deadly when they jump species?
Why do we have to wait
until after terrorism, accidents or naturally
occurring dangers create widespread epidemics
from Plum Island? Why is there not an outrage
from the public, the media, and politicians?
And most of all, why are government officials
doing
nothing but
stubbornly
defending
their unconvincing assurances of safety?
Carol Goldberg
|
LETTER IN THE NEW YORK
TIMES 8/23/02
Plum
Island Safety
No one doubts the
importance of the
research being conducted
at Plum Island, but why
there, so close to Long
Island?
New York's dense
population, still
suffering from the Sept.
11 attacks, should not
be subjected to needless
risks and worries.
Whether from a strike,
accident, or terrorism,
Plum Island is a
disaster waiting to
happen.
Carol
Goldberg
LETTER IN NEWSDAY
1/23/02
Too
Close to Home
There is no doubt about
the value of Plum
Island's research, but
why there? I cannot
imagine one benefit of
that location. The
laboratory should be
relocated to a remote
island, not remain in a
densely populated area.
Since September 11, New
Yorkers have suffered
too much. They should
not be subjected
needlessly to stress
from the threat of
terrorism or even an
accident on Plum
Island. Removing
research from Plum
Island should be a top
priority for New Yorkers
and their political
representatives in 2002.
Carol
Goldberg |
|
|
|