edited bv
view From my clcrssroom
FRANK CARDUL& Niles Township High School 9800 Lawler Skokie, IL60077
Teaching about Radioactivity Using the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Issue in Cortland County Marcia Bonneau Cortland Jr./Sr. High School, Cortland, NY 13045
Sparking and maintaining student interest in chemistry is a concern for all dedicated teachers and a topic that receives much attention in this Journal. One possible avenue of attack is the use of a societal issue, one of the basic premises underlying the ChemCom-Chemistryin the Community curriculum ( I ) . When this societal issue is of both immediate and real concern in the students' own community, a unique opportunity presents itself. Such was the case in Cortland County, New York, when it was sited as a possible location for the storage of low-level radioactive waste. Cortland County is located in the center of New York State, just east of the beautiful Finger Lake region. The area can be characterized as politically conservative, rural and sparsely populated, with many marginal farms. This article outlines some of the key events that led to the political unrest, demonstrations, and my classes' involvement in the radioactive waste issue. In 1980, the Low-Level Radioactivity Policy Act was passed by the Federal government. This act mandated that states assume responsibility for low-level waste produced within their borders. In 1986, New York State passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act that established a Siting Commission and procedures for selecting site.; and technologies for waste storage. Ry Septernher 1989, the Siting Commission narrowed is prospective sltes t o two lomt~onsin thc Town of Tavlor in Cordand County and three in Allegany county in wistern New York (2).By November, public opposition escalated with approximately five-thousandpeople in attendance at a public hearing in Cortland held by the Siting Commission. The Commission attempted to establish an informational office near Taylor. It was soon vandalized and ordered closed by Governor Cuomo to prevent further violence. December found citizens forming human chains across roads leading to the Taylor site to prevent the Siting Commissions access. Twenty people were arrested for disorderly conduct aRer surrounding a van carrying Siting Commission staff, forcing them to abandon their inspection, and trapping them in their cars for several hours. Commission members accused the auti-dump protesters of taking hostages, even going so far as to express fear for their lives (3). As the above illustrates, a great deal of emotion surrounded the issue of Cortland being selected as a possible dump site. Fears centered around possible water and air pollution, land depreciation, and possible accidents involving vehicles transporting materials to the site. By the fall of 1989, Citizens Against Radioactive Dumping, CARD, and other groups became more organized, handed out flyers, wrote letters to the editor of The Cortland Standard,
the daily newspaper, conducted tractorcades, erected billboards, and distributed orange protest signs that appeared in windows and on telephone poles throughout the county Cortland's students were anxious to participate in some of these anti-dump activities and demonstrations, but I was hesitant to promote any overt action. Feeling obligated to do something constructive, I had a conference with my principal, who suggested that my students prepare a study guide on radioactivity and low-level radioactive waste that could be used by the general public and the student body It was an opportune time to begin the unit on radioactivity in my ChemCom classes, so I divided my students into cooperative-learninggroups. Each group had to prepare a part of the total guide, which was divided into sections as follows: The History of the Radioactive Waste Issue What Is Radioactivity? How Is Radiation Measured? What Is Ionizing Radiation and What Are Its Effects on the Body? What Is Low-Level Radioactive Waste? What Are Same Methods of Disposal of Law-Level Waste? What Is the Record of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facilities?
For materials, the students used the Nuclear Chemistry in Our World unit in the ChemCom-Chemistry in the Community textbook, newspapers, and documents from the New York State Health Department, the Siting Commission, and the Cortlaud County Low-Level Radioactive Waste Ofice. In February of 1990, Cortland's Superintendent of Schools announced that there would be a debate at the high school on March 6th on the low-level waste issue. Representatives from the Siting Commission and the site opponents were to make up the panel, but the idea of a debate met with a great deal of opposition from some citizens in the community. The February 14,1990, issue of the Cortland Standard, reported, "The city school board was criticized last nieht for azreeine to hold a Low-Level Radioacnve Waste Siting Commission panel discussion ibr students." Several members of the Citizens Aeainst Radioactive Dumping, who said they had children attending Cortland schools, attended last night to say they felt that the school board was merely assisting the commission in spreading propaganda. In the same issue, a letter to the editor contained this comment, "What gives you people the right to cooperate in bringing representatives of a heinous nuclear project to indoctrinate our children, over our heads?" Some parents refused to allow their children to participate in the debate.
~.
.. ~.
Volume 71 Number 8 August 1994
651
The Principal requested that copies of the study guide prepared by the ChemCom students be issued to all science and history classes. A day was set aside for students to read the guide, discuss the problem, and dense questions that would be screened and used at the debate. On the day of the debate, pickets from CARD appeared in front of the school along with media and television cameras causing the students to become very excited and to expect a confrontation. No outside spectators or media were allowed into the debate, but the proceedings were videotaped by the Cortland High School Video Club to be broadcast later on public television. When everyone was seated and introductions were being made, a false fire alarm forced the evacuation of everyone into the cold March air, where they were confronted by the demonstrators still picketing at the entrance. Order was eventually restored, the debate resumed, and both sides presented their arguments and made their rebuttals. Representatives from each class were allowed to ask the panel some of their selected questions and, after two hours, the debate was over. Some of the students were interviewed by the media about the debate and although they were opposed to the siting of the dump, they felt they had a better understanding of the issues. The anticipated hostility and confrontation between opponents never materialized, and the administration of the school appeared vindicated for their open approach. The ChemCom students were the only students in the high school who had the opportunity to research the material in order to compile a comprehensive guide on radioactivity and low-level radioactive waste. Their study guide was praised during the debate, and their efforts were recognized with a personal letter of commendation from the Superintendent and the Board of Education. This not only did wonders for their self-esteem, but also they learned much about the way decision-making takes place in the real world. They could weigh the benefits and risks of the
652
Journal of Chemical Education
low-level radioactive waste issue and make their own decisions based on their knowledge of the subject, rather than being swayed by emotional and sometimes inaccurate statements of opposing groups. On May 11,1993, the Siting Commission voted to scrap its preferred site list, specifically the two areas in Taylor and three sites in Allegany County due to the opposition. Is this the end of the LLRW issue in Cortland County? Y dont think so", said Denise Cote-Hopkins of Taylor, who leads the county's anti-dump fight. Commissioners left open the possibility of once again considering those five sites after they select a disposal method within a year (4). A bill in the state's legislature was to be passed that would lift the state's ban on using West Valley, New York, home to a former nuclear waste d u m ~and . an area that has voted already to accept the state's I&-level radioactive waste. As of Julv 3. 1993, no bill has been introduced. "We have to find w& to deal with low-level radioactive waste. It might not be West Valley. But then you better come up with something else," Governor Cuomo said (5).I believe our experiences in Cortland illustrate how utilizing a societal issue can make chemistry both interesting and relevant to students. I would encourage readers to question whether there might be issues worth examining in their own community, such as high radon or lead levels, low-level radioactive waste dumping, industrial polluting, or proximity to nuclear power plants. Any of these or a multitude of other possibilities can serve as a basis for involving students in learning scientific and technological concepts.
a
Literature Cited 1.ChomCom-Chemistry in the Communify. KendaW Hunt Publishing Co.: hrbuque. 1988,265328. 2New Bph ~ t ~ t ~ ~ r n - l ~ ~ dS i~t i o w Commission d i ~ ~ tBuNetin;Albany, i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1989. ~ t ~ 3. Monaco, C.; Snyder, P. FirstAnnua1Rqor:;The Cortlend Camty Experience,1990. 4. Nogas, C. CartlandStondonl(May 12,19931, 1-2. 6. CortlondStm&n( (July3, 1993). 1.
