This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, Grizzly Bears, their surviving in the Yellowstone ecosystem should some be
introduced in Idaho. Are they doing well enough to take them off the endangered species list?
It's been the hottest summer on record. Negotiations are now underway at a conference in
Bonn, Germany on implementation of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
Listsners express indignation about marketing genetically engineered crops, President
Clinton's advocacy of biofuels and the Game of Golf. And on the Earth calendar, wood
ducks are squawking and Tennessee as they migrate south for the winter. These stories and
more coming up on the Environment Show.
You're listening to the Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley. At one point, Grizzly Bears
in the lower 48 states were almost extinct. But thanks to federal protection, their numbers
are increasing. And now, a debate is beginning about whether or not the Grizzly should be
removed from the endangered species list. The Environment Show's Mark Brody reports.
Grizzly Bears went on the federal endangered species list in 1975 when their numbers were
dropping quickly. At that time, there were an estimated 200 to 300 Grizzlies in the Yellowstone
ecosystem. In the years immediately preceding the bears being put on the list, between 60
and 70 Grizzlies were killed each year by humans. That was a far cry from the Grizzlies
of the past who roamed over much of the western part of the United States.
Now 24 years after being listed as an endangered species, Grizzlies are coming back, or at least
they're not going away, depending on who you talk to. The exact number of Grizzlies
in the U.S. is a debatable figure, partly because of the difficulty in tracking and counting
them. But the Sierra Club's Grizzly Bear ecosystem project coordinator, Luisa Wilcox, says
just having Grizzly bears around in 1999 is a success story.
The good news is the Endangered Species Act has worked. The bear was put on the Endangered
Species list in 1975 when numbers were plummeting. And there was deep concern about the potential
extinction at that time. The good news is that decline has been stabilized. There are
still about the same number of Grizzlies though as there were when they were put on the Endangered
List. There's about a thousand, but they're separated into five small, relatively small
isolated island ecosystems. The bad news is that they haven't been increasing significantly
enough, nor is the habitat secure enough to make the coast clear for delisting or removal
of endangered species protection. Wilcox in the Sierra Club think it's premature to consider
delisting Grizzlies. She says there are serious concerns about the bear's habitat. Wilcox says
before the bears come off the Endangered Species list, officials have to be sure that they won't
slip back onto the break of extinction. Despite all the talk about the possible delisting,
the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chris Servene,
says the department has not proposed taking Grizzlies off the list,
nor have they begun to consider the move. Servene says the service is simply working on the
conservation strategy, which includes a management plan for Grizzlies in the Yellowstone area
in the event they're taken off the list. An activity Servene says is just one task to be completed
before any delisting action takes place. The objective of listing any species is to
delist it. What we're doing with the Grizzly Bear is working on implementing the recovery plan,
and what we're committed to in the long term is a very responsive management system that will
be adaptive and be able to respond to any changes in the environment, to changes in human activity,
to changes in food level, to assure the existence of the Grizzly Bear's in the long term.
Servene says one way to help facilitate delisting that's currently being considered is a
reintroduction plan for the bears, something that the organization defenders of wildlife strongly
reintroducing the bears would in effect bridge the gap between the biggest populations
located in the Yellowstone area in Wyoming and parts of Montana. This would allow the Grizzly
population to grow as well as provide an essential geographic link between the groups of bears.
Dr. Mark Schaefer, the vice president for programs at Defenders of Wildlife, says the
cell way bitteroot ecosystem in East Central Idaho has suitable wilderness for the Grizzlies to live in.
He says he'd like to see Grizzlies reintroduced everywhere possible, but he realizes there are
some limits. We recognize that the days are gone when you're going to have Grizzlies from the
Mississippi to the Pacific and from the Arctic Circle down to Mexico, but there are still many
places that could support Grizzlies, particularly if they're well managed with a light hand, and we'd like
to see them return to as many places as possible. As might be expected, some residents in possible
reintroduction areas are concerned about Grizzlies roaming around. To try and ease some of the
worries, Defenders of Wildlife came up with the Citizen Management Plan, which aims to give
local communities a say over how a reintroduced Grizzly Bear population would be managed.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has the ultimate say in whether or not Grizzlies are
delisted, is in favor of the reintroduction proposal in the cell way bitteroot area. The
services Chris Servene says reintroducing the bears into that ecosystem would help increase the
number of Grizzlies. If you look at the big picture, Grizzly bears have been eliminated from about
98 percent of their habitat south of Canada. We have very few areas left where it's possible to
maintain Grizzly bears because of the wild nature of the land and the large blocks of wild land
that are necessary to maintain a Grizzly Bear population. The bitteroot ecosystem that we're
speaking of for reintroduction is probably the best possible place to reintroduce bears and to gain
another Grizzly Bear population south of Canada. Back at Defenders of Wildlife, Mark Schaefer says if
there are more bears now than there were 24 years ago, it's very difficult to tell. Even still,
he says he wouldn't be surprised to see Grizzlies at least in the Yellowstone region delisted
within the next two years. But Dave Moody of the Wyoming Fish and Game Commission says he doesn't
think any action will be taken for several years. He says even though his agency believes it's
time to consider delisting there's currently too much debate over essential facts. The actual
number of Grizzlies available habitat and concerns over food supply to warrant such action.
It's true that many of these issues are in doubt Moody says in part because different
organizations use different techniques to look at the same data which causes them to arrive at
different conclusions. But Moody says there's another reason for the disparity.
I think environmental groups as well as agencies as well as other organizations basically have a
bottom line when it comes to where where their stance is on the Grizzly Bear issue and I think that
at least at this point in time I think people are going to be extremely reluctant to move off of
that regardless of what piece of data is brought forward. Moody says his personal feeling is that
there's an overreaction to how quickly Grizzlies could be delisted. He says he's also concerned
that once a decision is made nobody will be completely happy with it and that it'll end up in court.
That could further delay any delisting action and could possibly cause good science to be ignored.
But the Sierra clubs Luisa Wilcox believes Grizzly bears are important enough for agencies and
organizations to take their time with before making any decision. She says Grizzlies are the most
sensitive barometer of how ecosystems in Rocky Mountain regions are doing.
As goes to Grizzly so grow many other species of wildlife. It's a bearish healthy so our big game
species so tend to be songbirds so tend to be fisheries and the like. So if you're doing well with
Grizzly Bear recovery you're doing well with the whole ecosystem and it's complex interactions
within it you're also doing well by the human communities that depend on this wild land area as
well for their economic health and well-being. Wilcox says she'll fight any possible Grizzly
Bear delisting even though there aren't any proposals pending but there is the feeling that
where there's talk action can't be far behind. Reporting for the Environment Show, I'm Mark Broody.
A hot summer at the close of a hot decade is now over. The U.S. National Climate Data Center says
1998 was the warmest year since records began in the late 19th century. The weight of scientific
opinion today is global climate change is being influenced by what we burn specifically fossil
fuels like coal and petroleum products. In 1992 the United Nations adopted a framework
convention on climate change which set ground rules under which industrialized countries are to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 155 nations have signed the convention and it entered into
forests on March 21, 1994. Since that time four negotiating sessions have been held to work out
procedures for implementation. Despite this emissions from the United States have continued to
increase. This week a conference of the parties begins in Bonn, Germany recently I discussed the
negotiations with Jennifer Morgan, Climate Campaign Director with a World Wildlife Fund,
an environmental organization that favors implementation of the treaty. And with Glenn Kelly,
exactly the director of the global climate coalition. That's a group that represents energy
producers in industry and it is opposed governmental controls designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
My understanding is that we've got a new climate change meeting coming up by Jennifer,
what are some of the things on the agenda? Negotiators are now in the process of filling in the rules
for the Kyoto Protocol that was agreed almost three years ago now on things like emissions trading
and the use of forests in the agreement. So those are the things on the table we're looking for
environment ministers to come and talk about how they're actually starting to reduce their
emissions so they can start meeting their Kyoto targets. And Glenn, what are the objectives that
your group has for that meeting? Well, we're very interested in seeing how the discussions
proceed on the flexible mechanisms. Now these are tools that were built into the treaty to try and
minimize some of the very real economic costs we see associated with it. And there are those,
there are some groups that are out there trying to limit the ability for countries to and businesses
to use those flexible mechanisms. And we're hoping that our administrators, our administration
negotiators are going to get some further progress. We know that we've been right on board with them
all along on 100 percent flexibility and flexible mechanism in this context. It's what Jennifer
pointed to them out. One is the emissions trading system that allows trade of carbon emissions
permits. Another is clean development mechanism. And the third is joint implementation. And these are
just market-based mechanisms and also sinks that can be used to offset some of the costs we see
coming out of this treaty. Do you see any effort to change the targets themselves or an evaluation
about how far we've come to reach any of those targets? I've not heard much discussion at all,
Peter, about changing those targets. You know, one of the things that we understand our administration
negotiators are interested in doing is trying to build support for a national participation
from developing countries within the context of the treaty. We are hopeful that those discussions
will continue and that further progress can be made. The ministers are scheduled to talk about
progress that they've made so far in reducing emissions. I don't see any change in the targets
themselves. But the concern of the world wildlife fund is that the rules for the Kyoto Protocol
need to make sure that there's a reduction of global warming pollution in the atmosphere.
And that's not clear as of yet. And one of the things that we hear frequently is the
concept of sinks. Jennifer, take us through that quickly. What is a sink? I think it's basically
either a often seen as a forest that absorbs carbon dioxide. And so we'll hold carbon dioxide
in a stable point, which is a good thing. It provides a balance to our carbon cycle in the atmosphere.
The debate that is going on is asking how much should a country be able to
meet its target by absorbing carbon dioxide in trees and in agricultural systems,
instead of reducing carbon dioxide. In other words, keeping the fossil fuel in the ground
to meet their targets. Glenn, I know one of the things that's been proposed by some is that if you
build a plant that creates emissions in one place, in fact, I think there are utilities that are
doing this, you go out and plant trees somewhere else. Is this a useful idea or is it simply
quaint? Well, I think it's a very useful idea. In terms of helping offset carbon emissions,
sinks are a very valuable tool. We've seen some interesting research. There's still a lot more
research to be done, but some interesting stuff is on the table already that suggests that
United States and North America on a whole is a net carbon sink, meaning that plants and
soils absorb more carbon dioxide than is put into the atmosphere. There's still a lot of work to
be done on that research, but it's very encouraging to show it again that this treaty has got some
serious questions that's still left in it. I find that that type of research actually,
in the use of the Clinton administration, perhaps, of that type of a provision as extremely
problematic, because the difference of a sink, a tree versus keeping fossil fuel in the ground,
the certainty levels are quite extreme. What happens if that tree goes on fire if
or there's a pest? We just want to make sure that you reduce emissions and that you don't find
excuses for not reducing emissions. Talking about a emissions reduction, what is the
lowest hanging fruit on the tree? Where could we get the most reductions, the most rapidly and
the most economic? I think that one area for that is the fact that our cars and our light trucks
are not very efficient, and the biggest single step that you could move is to having those
sport utility vehicles meet the same efficiency standards as cars. The other thing is that
Americans waste two-thirds of our energy when we generate electricity. If we were to close that
efficiency gap, we could reduce emissions quite a bit as well. If I could,
Yes, Glenn. What are the two big areas that you think we could take the most?
To take point to two and it's been particular because low hanging fruit is being picked every day,
as I pointed out in a previous show. We've got partnership for a new generation vehicle. We've
got clean coal technologies. We've got climate change initiatives that are ongoing through
the utility industry. All these are making progress in terms of taking steps to address emissions
of greenhouse gases. They're ongoing. The subject of a intense investment by American businesses,
so I think it's occurring right now. I want to thank my guests, Jennifer Morgan from the World
Wildlife Fund and Glenn Kelly from the Global Climate Coalition who have joined us from Washington,
DC.
We welcome two more stations that are among the more than 200 that now broadcast the
Environment Show. They're WVCS FM in California, Pennsylvania and KQAL FM in Winona, Minnesota.
Nature Sounds are provided by Lang Elliott at naturesoundstudio www.naturesound.com.
The Environment Show is a national production which is made possible by the W.
Walton Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the J.M. Kaplan Fund and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the collector,
Carhabi www.heming.js.com
Music
Listen to the Environment Show anytime through our website. The address is www.enn.coam.slayer.com
www.enn.com.slayer.coam.slayer.com
Music
Many of our listeners are sharing their thoughts with us and Mary Darsie tells us what some of you
are saying. A listener by the name of Phil called our comment line after hearing a discussion on
the environmental effects of genetically modified crops he had this to say. The
belonging that the corporations put out about the safety of genetically engineered crops,
there are many, many, many studies that show that this is not validated that these
tests are not thorough, they're not longitudinal. It's obviously a ploy to make more money by the
biotech corporations and the worst thing of it is that they don't allow so far the labeling of
those foods. Now why can't we have a choice whether right or wrong? I think the American people
have a right to decide for themselves what they shall eat and not have that stuff passed
onto them where they have no choice because they don't know what they're getting. Thank you.
Another listener heard a report we aired on President Clinton's initiative to promote the
use of biomass fuels and products. Richard contacted us by email to say that he was puzzled by the
statement that biofuels contribute no CO2 from their combustion. He went on to say, quote,
the report completely neglected two issues regarding the use of our farm soils. First,
the world is losing farmland to industry, housing, commercial development, salinization and erosion.
But the demand for food increases as population increases and as less efficient eating habits become
more widespread with economic improvements. Can we justify losing more of our food production
capability to growing crops that satisfy our wasteful appetite for fuels in the US? Second,
agricultural waste and other organic materials are better used to protect and build the soil rather
than be burned. The loss of soil together with ongoing pollution associated with heavy
reliance on inorganic fertilizers is one of the greatest underpublicized environmental and
agricultural problems facing the US and other nations. End quote. A listener named Michael heard a
discussion on the environmental impacts of golf courses. He says he's concerned about the effects
of golf courses having on a lake near his home. It happens to be the lake from which the town draws
its drinking water. He adds, the pesticides that are being used in golf courses here and across the
country are not being used to prevent disease or anything. They're being used to promote a game.
So why are we even risking it? The toxic cosmetic maintenance of a game. That's what this is about.
It's silly. We should go back to playing golf like we did in the skyland with rocks and weeds and
the terrible intrusions of songbirds and frogs and turtles and things like that.
We appreciate all comments, questions and suggestions. You can reach our comment line by
dialing 1-888-49 Green. That's 1-888-49 Green. For the environment show, I'm Mary Darcy.
And now it's time for the earth calendar.
That's the call of the wood duck. And right now, they're migrating south through Tennessee.
Like many other waterfowl, wood duck migrate in the fall to their wintering grounds.
Male wood ducks called Drigs are considered by many to be North America's most beautiful duck.
At war, wildlife biologists with Tennessee's Wildlife Resources Agency describes what they look like.
During the 18th century, the wood duck was hunted to near extinction. But thanks to a huge
conservation effort, the bird has made it come back. Edwars says wood ducks are not the only water
file migrating through Tennessee at this time of year. I mean, a canvas pack is a duck that
everybody likes to see. It's a beautiful duck. It's a large diving duck. Also, ready ducks, they're not
real visible if you don't really know what you're looking at. And there's some beautiful ducks,
such as the buffalo head and the golden eye, which are another diving duck. Sometimes we'll get
sea ducks like iders in what we call old-school. Some people call those long tail ducks. And they'll come
down through their rare sight. Ed says another duck migrating through is the blue-winged teal.
It's a fast flyer that will winter in South America. Their summers are spent in Canada and the
prairies of the northern United States. The teal wood duck and other birds are using the Mississippi
flyway. A flyway is a route that birds follow to make their migrations. Think of a flyway as a
ladder with lakes, ponds, and other waterways representing rungs on the ladder. Rung by rung,
the birds migrate south, stopping to refuel and rest. Without these rest areas, the birds would be
unable to complete their migration and could not survive. This makes protecting wetland areas
important, not only to animals that rely on an ecosystem year round, but to migrating species as well.
Edward describes where many of the rungs are located in Tennessee.
And there are some federal refuges, which are concentration points for these birds,
like real-fledged like, or also at Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge on Kentucky Lake. And these
complexes wintered the majority of our birds or, you know, our service staging areas for these birds.
But also the state also manages waterfowl areas, scandered bount and birds use those too, but
West Tennessee is our primary wintering or staging area for waterfowl.
Over the years, Tennessee has lost wetlands, which means migrating birds are concentrated. This could
put a strain not only on the animals, but on the ecosystem as well.
Edward says the state is taking steps to preserve and create wetland areas. But who knows?
If we substitute shopping center parking lots for wetlands, we may be putting rungs in the
ladder for motorists migrating south for the winter. You're listening to the Environment Show,
and I'm Peter Burling.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burling.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burling.
I'm Peter Burling.
And I'm Peter Burling.
Still ahead. Low-level radioactive waste.
It's produced not only in nuclear power plants, but in hospitals all over the country.
You only have to store it for 500 years, but we still don't have a place to put it.
We talk with two experts that are wrestling with a problem.
And to the second part of our two-part series on the captive breeding of endangered species,
we hear about how it's done and whether it could really save animals from extinction. Stay with us.
We are talking green, and I'm Peter Burling. Today we're going to be talking about low-level radioactive
nuclear waste and what to do about it. And since low-level waste is being produced in a lot of
places, even your local hospital, and few communities want to store it in their backyards, the question
is what to do with this continuing problem. What are the implications for the environment, for our
health, and for the organizations that generate it? My guests are Holmes Brown, and he is director of
state and federal relations with often associates. That's an environmental consulting firm,
and he is also facilitator for the low-level waste forum based in Washington, D.C.
And the forum works with state officials and regulators who work with low-level nuclear waste
problems. Also with us is Nikki Hobson, and she is communications director for the California
Radioactive Materials Management Forum, and that's an association of public and private institutions
that actually generate low-level radioactive waste. And she's in that administrative area that
includes Arizona, California, North, and South Dakota. So to begin, Holmes Brown, what is low-level
radioactive waste, and how does it differ from any other kind of radioactive waste? It's a pleasure
to be on the show, and thanks for inviting Nikki and I to participate. Low-level radioactive waste
are materials that are contaminated with radioactivity at relatively low-level. That's a comparative
term used to distinguish low-level waste from materials like spent nuclear fuel that comes out
of nuclear power plants. That is highly radioactive for tons of thousands of years.
And so when you say low-level contamination, what does that mean? Low-level waste actually covers
quite a variety of materials, but the general standard is that the Federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in 1961 established criteria by which to determine whether materials were low-level
waste or higher than low-level waste. And in general, what they said was if materials decay
to a level after 500 years where they don't pose a significant hazard to humans, that would
constitute low-level waste. Okay, so without being facetious, the notion is that you've only got
to keep it 500 years as opposed to 238,000. Is that really the choice? That's correct. And I think
the NRC felt was that the humans have built institutions and facilities, which where there's
a reasonable assurance that they can last for 500 years for some considerable amount of time.
And so that was the criteria that they used to say this is low-level waste. And under Federal
law of 1980, states were given responsibility for providing for the disposal of the commercially
generated low-level waste in this country. The Federal government has responsibility for
defenc related low-level waste. Okay. So what Nicky and I are dealing with is the commercial side
of things. Well, Nicky, you're going to help us here. What where does this stuff come from? We're
now talking, as I understand it, about ways that will become harmless in 500 years. Who's making
this stuff? Well, I might just backtrack for one second before I answer your question and to
mention that of all the commercial low-level waste that's generated, 98% of it by far the vast
majority of it will no longer be hazardous after only 100 years. It's only that remaining 2 or 3%
that will have to be isolated from human contact for up to 500 years. I can speak from personal
experience in California. It comes from medical procedures. It comes from research. It comes from
universities. Nuclear utilities and other industries. Low-level waste is generated by hundreds,
even thousands of common daily activities. Now, when we think of what it is too, I think a lot of
people think about fuel rods and tanks, but you're talking about all kinds of things like clothing
and everything else. Yeah, we're talking about just a kind of a wide assortment of garbage anywhere
from beakers and test tubes that are used in a research laboratory to booties or coveralls that
are worn by someone who is handling radioactive materials. These things do become slightly contaminated
with radiation in the process of their use. They are put into a barrel that's labeled low-level
radioactive waste and handled in a very specific way to make sure that both the workers and the public
are kept safe. And before we talk about what we do with it, I assume we're talking about large
numbers of barrels nationwide, are we not? Actually, in California, there is less than 100,000 cubic
feet of waste generated each year, quite a bit less than 100,000 cubic feet. So we are not talking
about huge volumes of waste. Homes may be able to come up with some national statistics.
Homes, if we're thinking nationwide, are we talking about freight car loads? Are we talking about
two? Yes, you're talking about freight car loads. I believe that the statistics that folks have
given is that the total national volume would cover a football field about six to eight feet deep.
That's on an annual basis. That's on an annual basis. So the fact is it isn't a terribly large amount of
waste. For instance, when you compare it to the amount of solid waste, say municipal trash and such
generated in the nation annually, it's about one ten thousand by volume. I was going to say as a
New Yorker when you're describing garbage. That doesn't even sound like it. Well, enough garbage to worry about.
I was going to mention this later in the show talking about the issues of equity of disposal
distribution, but New York City currently ships two thousand tons of municipal garbage waste to
Virginia every day. So that gives you some idea. Now, again, I think both thinking I don't wish to
understate the care and caution that one should treat low level waste with, but at least in terms
of volume, it's certainly a small volume compared to other types of garbage that are generated in
the country. So basically, we're talking about garbage that's got to be stored somehow,
securely for 500 years. What is being done with it today? Holmes, you want to take a crack at that?
Right. I'll start with that. And then Nikki can talk a bit about the situation in California.
Again, in 1961, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewed the performance of the first round of
nuclear waste disposal sites. And there were lessons learned from those sites, including the one in
West Valley. And they came up with new standards, new construction, criterion, and so forth,
all of which were designed to securely contain the waste for the period of its hazard.
Currently, there is a site in Barnwell, South Carolina, which is accepting waste from
the Earth throughout the nation. There is a facility operating in Hanford, Washington,
which is accepting waste from two interstate compacts. And we can talk a bit about the compact system
a bit later of the Northwest and the Rocky Mountain compact. And finally, there is a facility
in Utah, which is accepting this lower activity waste that Nikki referred to again from throughout
the country. Now, these facilities are they basically a big above ground boxes that this stuff
has put in? These facilities actually are underground trenches. They are excavated. They have,
with a higher activity waste, they have concrete barriers over top. And then they are covered
after the waste is in place and then the waste is in place in them in metal boxes. And it's very
carefully recorded as to what waste is in there where it came from and so forth. And these sites are
licensed reviewed by the states. In fact, the states have a regulatory person on site during all
hours of operation. And you mentioned West Valley 20 years ago, and I was environmental
commissioner in the state of New York. We struggle with that. That was one of these sites that
perhaps was not built according to current standards. That's correct. And the water flowed through
the bottom of it. And indeed, when it came out on other people's property elsewhere, it was radio
active. Well, that's right. And I actually work at the National Governors Association at that point.
And I had many dealings with regulatory officials in New York. And that's precisely the type of
problem that the new regulations are designed to avoid. Now, Nikki, in California, you've had quite a
fight about building a new one of these at Ward Valley. What's been going on there? Well, California
was one of the first states to step forward to accept its responsibility under the Low Level
Waste Policy Act that Holmes referred to. It was originally enacted in 1980 and amended in 1985.
And just by shorthand, that was the federal act that says that each state's got to be able to take
care of its own. Is that correct? That's true. That's true. It delegated the responsibility for
low-level waste to the states. The California set out to implement their portion of the policy act.
They passed legislation early in the 1980s, selected a licensee in mid 1980,
and went through an extensive process. We're looking at 17 years now from 1982 when California first
began. We have been unable to build a facility even though the state has licensed the site
here in the southeastern desert of California because we cannot get possession of the land
from the federal government. What this has done to the generators, the waste generators, the
hospitals and the universities and nuclear power plants and other people who use radioactive
materials is it has really put them in a bind and they are now currently storing the waste on
site where it is generated. This is an environmental show and I think it's just obvious to almost anyone
who looks at this situation that this is an environmental solution that is probably the worst of
all worlds. Does that mean that in California every hospital university or whatever that's
generating this stuff, whether it be through medical procedures or research, is basically stuffing
into the cellar and holding onto it? Many of them are. Some California generators have been
shipping to the Barnwell South Carolina site or to the Utah site. Many others have elected not to
ship to those sites because of legal concern about liability in case something goes wrong at those
sites in the future. Now your problem though, inciting that one, I think illustrates a national problem.
You decided through whatever process you have that XYZ was the ideal site, the federal government
owned it and then I presumed for a combination of scientific and political reasons, the federal
government decided not to give the state the land thereby blocking the construction. Is that what
happened? Well, that's almost exactly right. Actually the Bush administration had decided to
transfer the land to California. The state must own have title to the land. So the Bush
administration did decide to transfer the land to California. However, before that happened,
the Clinton administration was inaugurated and one of the first acts that the new secretary of
the interior, Bruce Babitt, did, was to reverse the Bush administration's decision on word valley.
And thus began the long struggle that's been going on since 1983. And I gather there are people in
California who feel very strongly that they shouldn't go forward, which I'm sure is some of a sentiment
cause this to happen. Does this raise the larger problem that nobody really wants one of these
things? And if that's the case, is it irresponsible to keep on generating low level nuclear waste?
Well, there are opponents to just about any project to ever undertake. However, I think that
mainstream Californians understand that the benefits that come to us from the use of radioactive
materials are huge. And to say, well, we're simply going to stop generating low level waste means
that we would also have to give up the benefits. And I assume you're talking about things like
X-rays that all of us presumably use all of a time? Yeah, there are 14 million medical procedures
each year that use radioactive materials. Not all of them generate low level waste, but lots of
them do. They're in California. We have a huge biotechnology industry that is doing research to
find curious for cancer and AIDS and Alzheimer's disease. Their research absolutely depends on the use
of radioactive materials. We cannot go on in a modern world and expect the modern benefits,
the health benefits, the safety benefits, and the convenience benefits that come from radioactive
materials and not deal honestly with the waste problem. So, Holmes, where do we go from here?
You work with states that are struggling with this. I assume lots of states have citing problems.
What next? The opposition to any number of types of projects is certainly not unique to
California. I mean, even sometimes people want to build a new church or something and folks
object to the parking. So, you have a punished almost anything. I think the folks that I work with,
first of all, are convinced that low level nuclear waste, when properly managed and disposed of,
can be safely done. They're state officials whose job is to protect the public health and safety,
and that's what they want to assure. Secondly, there are in fact some communities that are
interested in low level waste sites. The Barnwell facility in South Carolina has enjoyed
considerable community support ever since it was opened. The facility in Hanford, Washington,
again, is in a nuclear complex. I think the local folks understand nuclear materials and what
protections need to be taken. I think the real challenge for state and compact officials
is to provide assurances to the public that the facilities that are being proposed
are safe and are going to contain the materials. That's what a lot of people are doing.
In fact, there have been considerable benefits from the low level waste program to date. For
instance, the volumes of waste that have been generated have diminished. The waste form that is
being varied is much more stable than it was 20 years ago. I want to thank my guests. Holmes Brown,
he's with Afton Associates, which is an environmental consulting firm that works with low level nuclear
waste, and Nikki Hobson with the California Radioactive Materials Management Forum, which
represents organizations that actually generate low level radioactive nuclear waste.
We know that you have thoughts about this, so we hope you'll share them with us. Our number is 1-888-49-green.
We've been talking green, and I'm Peter Burlite.
As always, we'd like to hear from you. Our email address is green at wamc.org. That's green at wamc.org.
Regular mail, it's the Environment Show. 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 12206.
Scientists tell us that our planet is experiencing the largest mass extinction since the dinosaur age.
Endangered species breeding programs are one tool that is being used by zoos to save some critters
from extinction. The effort includes natural breeding, artificial insemination, and in vitro
fertilization, and a number of these efforts have been successful. Last week, we told you about
breeding programs at the Cincinnati Zoo and at the Autobahn Institute in New Orleans.
In this second of our two-part series on endangered species breeding programs,
the Environment Show's Stephen Westcott looks at two institutions that have historical roots in
the field, and why such programs, by themselves, cannot stop extinction.
Breeding exotic animals is challenging work. There's a lot more to it than just putting a male
into female in a cage, with the hope that they like each other. Cheetahs, for example, are
traditionally solitary animals and don't care much for the company of others, except during the
mating season. But by researching the animal's hormonal cycle and behavior, the San Diego Zoo has
been successful in breeding this beautiful feline. Joe Nambri is conservation ambassador for the zoo.
She's worked there for 30 years, and you may recognize her from her appearances on the tonight show
and other national programs. We found when the females were cycling and receptive to the males,
by introducing them at the appropriate time, we could be successful and had the first Cheetah born
in the Western Hemisphere in 1970, his name was Juba, and it was quite an event. And based on the
information collected without program, we have now had over 100 Cheetah born at our wild animal park,
which is significant, looking at the entire world captive population is somewhere around 1200.
Natural breeding is just one method being conducted at the San Diego Zoo.
Embri says the zoo has a center dedicated to breeding endangered species, where researchers
in a number of disciplines propagate animals through a variety of methods.
Well, the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species is a multi-faceted representation of
our scientific knowledge in fields, everything from ecology to pathology, verology, behavior,
reproductive physiology, endocrinology, genetics, all of these areas are covered. To give expertise
in each of those fields, often they work as a team to address some of the serious issues with wild
life. The Center breeds some animals for captivity, while others are introduced to the wild.
Researchers have been breeding endangered Cuban iguanas that are released to their natural
habitats and monitored with an electronic device that is inserted beneath the animal's skin.
Cuban iguanas are important seed dispersers for many endemic plants, and the loss of the animal
would have serious effects on the ecosystem. The Brock Zoo has also played an important role in
the breeding of endangered species in the United States over the years. William Conway is
president and general director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, which is part of the zoo.
He says one of its most famous captive breeding programs occurred around the turn of the century.
About that time the American bison was facing extinction. There were only a couple of dozen left
in Yellowstone, and a few hundred on various farms around the country, mostly in the West,
and curiously enough in the North East. The Brock Zoo gathered as many of these animals together
from farms as they could, began breeding them in the southern 40 acres of the zoo. At the same time,
found in the American bison society, convinced the Congress to stop the killing of the bison and
to set up new reserves in the West where the bison once ranged. Then every year from 1977 until 1917,
the society shipped bison from its breeding herds out to Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Montana. Today,
there are about 150,000 bison in the United States, and a good many of them could give you a Bronx
chair. The Brock Zoo is a member of the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA,
in an effort to better address the extinction problem. The AZA developed the species survival plan,
or SSP, which William Conway helped to create. What it says in essence is that the 185
credited zoos and aquariums of the AZA are going to work together to collaborate, to save
a series of species that they believe are important, that they have, that they're worried about losing,
worried about losing in nature, and worried about losing in their zoos and aquariums,
by treating them essentially as though they're common property, moving them back and forth
usually without any money change at hands in order to assure that the animal has the best chance
of reproducing. Wildlife Conservation Society has played a key role in the SSP. Staff members
help monitor the genetic and demographic management of the entire North American captive population
of a given species, and the societies involved with 58% of all species survival plans.
Today, WCS is helping to propagate a number of animals, including Chinese alligators,
Pygmy chimpanzees, Andy and Condors, and Black lemurs just to name a few.
Saving large animals from extinction is obviously good for the planet, but it raises the question
of how much effort should be devoted to reproducing less charismatic forms of life,
like insects that also play important roles in the food chain and the overall health of ecosystems.
Dr. Betsy Dresser is Senior Vice President of Research at the Audubon Institute Center for
Research of Endangered Species and New Orleans, Louisiana. It's going to be on my lifetime probably,
but someday I think we are going to need to be able to reproduce or manage in some way an
insect population, as well as a snail population, or a lot of aquatic invertebrates, all of those
things. Here in New Orleans, we're building a new insectarium, and part of the reason for it is
to be able to learn how to culture these animals. But William Conway, with the Wildlife Conservation
Society, believes the overall contribution of captive breeding programs is extremely small.
He says preserving genetic material by freezing so plants and animals can be reproduced in the
future is important, but the trend is really towards megazoo's, large protected natural areas.
Conway says WCS is mostly concerned with preserving natural habitats, which in the long run will save
more species. What good is a bison frozen in a straw in a deep freeze? So modern zoos have to have a
too pronged approach. They've got to work like the devil to encourage the preservation of nature,
to encourage the preservation of wild animals in nature. At the same time hedging our bets by
trying to sustain species that are losing their homes for a sufficiently lengthy time so that there
may be a chance of reintroducing them. Endangered species breeding programs are helping to save some
species from extinction, but zoos only have a limited amount of space. So where will we put the
plants and animals we propagate in the future if habitats are gone? And are we willing to restore
habitats we have already converted to satisfy some human desire? For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen
Westcott.
Thanks for being with us in this week's Environment Show. I'm Peter Burling. Are the grizzly bears
eating the wood duck? Will low-level radioactive waste cook some of us before the climate change
negotiations could stop global warming? It's all terribly confusing and listening to the show again
won't help. Try it at sea. Order show number 509 by calling 1-800-323-9262.
The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Shartock is executive producer, Stephen Westcott is producer, and the show is made possible
by the W. Walton Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the J.M. Kaplan Fund, and Hemings Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Collector Car Hobby,
www.hemmigs.com. Be good to the Earth and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0