Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Interestingly, after years of downplaying the threat posed by dirty bombs, government officials are now being forced by embarrassing revelations in the Litvinenko radiation attack to revise their assessments. Also, as Peter D. Zimmerman writes, the incident is forcing officials to confront evidence that regulation of nuclear materials has been too lax and urgently needs revision.  How could this happen after Dick Cheney publicly said that nuclear terrorism was the country's greatest threat?

It is no mere coincidence that lax regulation of a powerful industry existed simultaneously with unfounded assurances that dirty bombs presented only a minor radiation threat. There are many similar examples indicative of a general policy that promotes and takes advantage of public ignorance about radiation hazards. Take, for example, government's inexcusable failure to secure radiological materials following the invasion of Iraq, or the delay in securing East German nuclear materials, hastily conducted after the Litvinenko incident raised worldwide concern about access to dangerous radionuclides like polonium-210. (Some would say that it is cold comfort to know that the material was shipped to Russia, suspected to be the origin of the attack on Vitinenko.)

When not trying to shut down public discourse on nuclear safety, the radiation-is-good-for-you folks stay busy retaliating against whistleblowers in ways disturbing and consistent.  There are many cases to choose from, including that of a nuclear safety expert who refused to go along, in October 1996, with a blatant coverup of nuclear emergency preparedness deficiencies at the Salem nuclear power plant.

At the Salem exercise, state representatives demanded a "perfect score" from FEMA in its official report, despite several holes in preparedness reported by two experienced evaluators.  The problems included failing to demonstrate the ablity to properly quarantine contaminated areas, a serious threat to public health. FEMA caved to the demands, eliminating all negative findings from the final report. But, one evaluator steadfastly refused to cave and afterward reported the coverup to members of Congress and the Office of Special Counsel.

While the Salem coverup was unusually blunt, it was hardly unusual for safety issues to be ignored or trivialized at nuclear preparedness exercises. Respected experts have confided that most, if not all, evaluators report being pressured to under-report safety issues.

The Salem whistleblower, a federal employee with years of experience and successful performance reviews, subsequently received the traditional  whistleblower 'treatment':  slander, threats and excommunication - three years on forced administrative leave, under threat of removal. Eventually, all of the charges were dropped without explanation (for indeed they were bogus all along), and the whistleblower returned to work - but not to exercise evaluations - and humiliating marginalization was the rule.

Prior to 9/11, at least, FEMA published on its website lists of exercises conducted for each nuclear power plant, including those for the Salem plant with one glaring exception - the October 1996 exercise.  Deprived of knowledge that the exercise had been held, the public was unlikely to make potentially embarrassing inquiries about the results. To preparedness experts, a "perfect" exercise is inherently suspicious.

Intimidation of those who attempt to educate the public about threats to public health, whether radiation or food safety, has always been a problem, but it drastically worsened with the Bush administration.  The Office of Special Counsel, charged with protecting whistleblowers, routinely ignores or rejects whistleblower disclosures and reportedly itself engages in retaliation. Not surprisingly, managers in federal agencies are no longer subtle in hinting that heresy is dangerous to one's career.

Unrepentant, the Salem whistleblower warned in 1999 of inadequate preparedness for WMD emergencies and terrorist attacks on government buildings and employees. Two years later, terrorists struck the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers housing government offices, and anthrax contaminated U.S. post offices. Thousands died.  Six years later, thousands more died when Hurricane Katrina exposed flawed preparedness long hidden from the public. A nuclear power plant emergency exercise conducted by FEMA in Lousiana mere months before the disaster, rightfully should have revealed seriously flawed shelter preparation, evacuation and federal/state coordination. Indeed, the Salem whistleblower warned that the Louisiana exercise gave state and local officials an inaccurate picture of federal disaster assistance procedure and, moreover, the existing procedure was dangerously bureaucratic. Ultimately, the dismal state of preparedness revealed itself in the midst of a disaster - to the surprise and horror of local residents and the world.

Whatever form it takes, suppression of information is a crime against society. As we have seen far too often in the current administration, ignorance kills; and James Madison's words ring as true today as they did in 1832.