The Most Toxic Place in America
Counterpunch’s Joshua Frank joins Ralph to discuss his new book, “Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America” about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State— the Cold War plutonium manufacturing facility that even after a $677 billion taxpayer clean-up bill still leaks radioactivity. And immigration lawyer extraordinaire, Susan Cohen, regales us about her experience representing asylum seekers and refugees as chronicled in her book “Journey From There to Here: Stories of Immigrant Trials, Triumphs and Contributions.” Plus, Ralph makes one final pitch before the midterms for “Winning America.”
Joshua Frank is an investigative journalist and the managing editor of the political magazine CounterPunch. He is also an author— his latest book is Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America.”
Everyone would agree that any amount of money should be spent to clean this place up (Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State), but if it’s lining the pockets of private corporations and the job’s not getting done, then something’s wrong.
Joshua Frank, author of Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America
That’s their answer (to radioactive waste)—tarps. They don’t have an answer. Because it’s a very technical, very laborious process. And, I would argue, takes more ingenuity in figuring out how to clean this up than it did to produce it in the first place.
Joshua Frank, author of Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America
Susan Cohen is an immigration attorney and founding Chair of Mintz Levin’s Immigration Practice. She is president of the board of the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, and led a team working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts to obtain a temporary restraining order on Trump’s 2017 Travel Ban. She is the author of Journeys From There to Here: Stories of Immigrant Trials, Triumphs and Contributions.
The fact that there are so many authoritarian regimes and corrupt regimes that we have had a hand in supporting over the years—where people can’t get justice when they’ve been egregiously harmed, or where the facts are evident and there’s not a question about what happened— is just another indication of the kinds of intolerable life situations that people face in these countries where they truly have to escape for their very lives.
Susan Cohen, author of Journeys From There to Here: Stories of Immigrant Trials, Triumphs and Contributions
The stark choice on November 8th is between a fascist/autocratic party and one that supports a major social safety net for tens of millions of Americans and their children. For anybody who says, “What about third parties?” I say, “Go for it.” But you know what’s going to happen on November 8th— it’s either going to be the Republican or the Democratic candidates for the duopoly. And there's never been a bigger gap in domestic policy— they’re very similar on empire— than at the present time.
Ralph Nader
The Most Toxic Place in America
Ralph Nader went to the root of the problem: how U.S. policies have contributed to or created the situations that propel people from their home countries. He is also correct in asserting that the role of U.S. policies is not even discussed when immigration is talked about.
Over decades the U.S. has created harm because of our military, trade and banking, drug, anti-union guns, and other policies Where is "the conversation" on what we are doing with these policies and how they relate to immigration?
The speaker, Susan Cohen who was very informative, told Ralph that she thought the reason that root causes and the role U.S. policies play are not talked up is because they are so complex. I don't think that is the reason. It is easier to use one's compassion to help one person than it is to understand a policy, however, understanding just a couple U.S. polices and their impact on people in another country is not beyond the capabilities of a concerned citizen. I think the problem is that this aspect is hidden; it's really not part of the politicians' and pundits' "conversation" on immigration. So, for me the question is why is there so much silence on the effect of U.S. policies on our neighbors?
These are two excellent topics. Mr. Nader brought up some very astute points with both guests which are ignored or otherwise overlooked by many other commentators including many progressives. Before I get into that, I wish to correct both Mr. Frank and whomever wrote the show description for this RNRH episode. The show description says that the Hanford situation is a “$677 billion taxpayer clean-up bill.” Mr. Frank essentially said the same thing. This is not correct.
Federal spending in the United States does not come from taxpayer money. Taxes serve other purposes even if that is not generally understood by the public. Now, if the spending came from the State of Washington or local municipalities, then an argument could be made that the spending is funded by taxpayers, but I suspect the great bulk of that $677 billion is federal funding. As such, taxpayers are not funding the clean-up. This by no means devalues the importance of this issue as taxpayers, and all US/global citizens, pay a high price for these environmental hazards, but that is not an excuse to spread falsehoods about how federal spending works. I realize these concepts are not widely known, even by educated people, so I only say this to encourage everyone to understand this subtle, but vitally important point.
Regarding the rest of the discussion with Mr. Frank: As someone who lives quite far from the Pacific NW, I was not aware of the Hanford issue. I’m glad the RNRH and Mr. Frank discussed this issue. The Columbia River area is one of America’s natural treasures and, of course, this issue impacts many people. It was a subtle point in the discussion, but Mr. Nader very correctly points out that being ‘green’ starts with conservation of energy. The three Rs are in weighted order: reduce, reuse, recycle. We must be very careful when corporate greenwashing and poor government regulation, non-regulation often, obfuscates this point.
Regarding the discussion with Ms. Cohen: It’s a shame the bulk of Mr. Nader’s excellent points were in the ‘wrap-up’ part of the program and not in the main show, but I understand there are time constraints. Mr. Nader’s point about ‘brain drain’ is spot-on and a great starting point for further discussion. Not only is the developing world missing a doctor, nurse, engineer, educator, etc. when people leave their home countries (and this has been really felt in the developing world during the pandemic), but these countries are losing some of the brightest, most educated minds they have who may help democracy in those countries and who can assist those countries in progressing rather than moving towards backwardness. Ms. Cohen brings up some good points in her discussion, but quoting the research, which I’ve seen before, about ex-pats sending money home and such only does so much good for those at home when those countries are lacking in fundamentals such as healthcare, sanitation education, and so forth.
Of course, this discussion isn’t only about immigration. Naturally, doctors, scientists, and so forth would be compelled to leave developing countries when their countries are lacking resources to allow them to do their jobs thanks to austerity imposed by foreign debt by the likes of the IMF and World Bank. These countries often get the bad end of trade with the US/west with the US getting their natural resources at below-value rates, but then these countries have to buy medical technology, green technology, etc. made with those same resources at inflated prices all while maintaining imposed austerity. Of course skilled, educated people in these countries cannot operate like they can in the US and elsewhere.
There is a potential solution to this issue though. Professor Fadhel Kaboub of Denison University has a very intriguing model of technology transfer which benefits both countries such as the US and the developing world. This is absolutely something the RNRH should look into if Mr. Nader wishes to expound on the ‘brain drain’ issue and what can be done about it since it’s not really just an immigration issue.
As Mr. Nader alludes to in his comments, there are beneficial aspects to immigration, but there are downsides as well and we must assess our own rôle in creating humanitarian disasters and backwards international (and domestic) governments that lead people to leave homelands they wouldn’t leave if it wasn’t for failed foreign (and domestic) policy by others. The US contributing towards humanitarian disasters and then taking pride in taking in refugees/asylum seekers is akin to people voting for poverty-causing policies in the US and then the same people beam with pride when they volunteer in soup kitchens when the soup kitchens need not exist in the first place.