Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
For the three City Council members who voted against the Brady rezone, thank you.
With all of the time, money and energy that has been expended over these last many years to build the Colorado Riverfront into an attractive area, I am bewildered at the three council members voted for the rezone.
Grand Junction’s economy is more and more based on tourism and retiree relocation to our city. Anything we can do to enhance our amenities to attract these two groups to our city is going to enhance our economy. (These people come here with their money and they spend it here)!
If the Brady rezone is allowed, won’t that establish a precedent for other industrial sites to come into the river area? And, during the next 20 to 30 years, when private properties between Brady and Corn Lake come on the market, aren’t they then likely to be sold for industrial uses?
Has the council thought about the way it wants that area to look 20 to 30 years from now?
Traffic is another issue. There is already a considerable amount of traffic, including many large trucks, now using D Road between 32 Road and Ninth Street. That will only increase in the future and more so when the parkway is completed. Is it really a good idea to facilitate the increase of truck traffic onto D road now and in the future by such a rezone?
I feel we, as a city, should be planning now for a continuation of parks, natural areas, recreational amenities and the like all along the riverfront from Corn Lake to Fifth Street and beyond.
BARBARA C. HILL
Grand Junction
30 Responses to “Future must be considered in riverfront rezone”
Posted June 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ia agree Barbara. Let’s remember the Council members’ actions on this one, especially, at voting time.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 6:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
first, our local economy is driven by energy at this time, not retirement and tourism….second, whether you like it or not, d rd will continue to be a major artery for big trucks, and it will only grow as our community does, not because of the zoning, but more for convenience than anything else…to think that we need grand junction to become a retirement community is a lack of common sense at this time, simply because then we would be a service oriented community….those jobs don’t pay enough to feed families
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 6:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh come on hite, no one is against trucking companies. We just want to keep our riverside nice. There is plenty of room for industry of all ilk, but no heavy industry needs to be located on the banks of the Colorado River.
Residents of all ages, retired or not, benefit from having some quiet areas with a bit of nature and room to breathe without having to drive 5 or 10 miles out of town to find it.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, just my thoughts, for whatever they are worth. A trucking company, by nature would be on the road during the day, not making noise by the river. The time that it would be noisy is in the early morning when they are warming the engines to go to work. The impact from toxic material would be extremely minimal if they maintain their fleet of trucks, because maintainance helps them make money with efficiency from the engines, transmissions and so forth. I completely understand wanting open space, but I also think that people (or companies) should be able to use the land that they own for what they see fit. And I agree with Hitek that the retirement community cant pay our bills.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I understand and respect these property rights … but no one is suggesting putting anyone out of business over this. It is the city that needs to step up and give this business the INCENTIVE to operate somewhere else; to correct the dismal planning decisions of the past that allowed heavy industry all along the riverside. If we could give Van Gundy millions to scooch over a bit then surely we could afford to do right by this business and restore this slice of riverfront to what it should be at the same time.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen,
Just to add a little more fuel to the debate. Are you aware that Brady
Trucking also provides and stores Iridium? This highly radioactive substance is used by the oil and gas industry in the natural gas production process and is very dangerous. Not too long ago, four containers of this dangerous substance were discovered at the Mesa County landfill. Apparently, it had been misplaced by the company. Is it really a good idea to allow them to store it next to the Colorado River?
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I was not aware of that so thanks for the info. I hope they were fined substantially for their “mis-placement”. I was aware that they did work in the O&G industry. I guess my main point is that when a trucking company does work the right way then they should be able to put a yard where they want. As far as storing things near the river, if it is done properly, and I do mean poperly, then okay, but if a company cant keep track of their “stuff” then they need to be dealt with on a different level and be held to a higher account in the future.
Good Morning Ashhugger.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen,
Yep, I also believe that, generally speaking, private companies should not be messed with as long as they are playing by the rules. What would really be great would be to see the owners of Brady Trucking understand the vision of a green riverfront that Grand Junction has desired for so many years and back off on their own. It is worth it to the community for the GJ city council to work hard to accomodate Brady Trucking. To my knowledge, they are a good company who has a right to exist and thrive and some incentives to encourage them to locate elsewhere are not inappropriate.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And hi to you Jen!
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
Iridium is not radioactive. It is almost completely unreactive, thus its usefulness to industry since it is virtually impervious to corrosion.
There are isotopes of iridium that are somewhat radioactive, but none are “highly” so.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the info, Scott. I will check my source. I may have been misinformed.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m not a chemist or a metallurgist, and there very well may be isotopes of iridium that are more toxic and/or radioactive than I know about, but normal iridium is actually valued just for it’s non-reactiveness. It’s not even considered toxic as far as I know.
Odd for such a heavy element to be so inert, when other heavy elements are so dangerous.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Maybe this is the material being referred to. Snipped from the Center for Disease Control website:
Radioisotope Brief: Iridium-192(Ir-192)
What is it used for?
Ir-192 is used in industrial gauges that inspect welding seams and in medicine to treat certain cancers.
How can it hurt me?
Exposure to Ir-192 can increase the risk for cancer because of its high-energy gamma radiation. External exposure to Ir-192 can cause burns, acute radiation sickness, and even death. Internal exposure could occur only if a person were to swallow one of the Ir-192 seeds or pellets. Internal exposure from Ir-192 could cause burns in the stomach and intestines if the high-energy industrial pellets are swallowed. Ir-192 seeds and pellets would be excreted in the feces. Long-term health effects of internal exposure would depend on how strong the seeds or pellets were and how long they stayed in the body.
For more information on protecting yourself before or during a radiologic emergency, see CDC’s fact sheet titled “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About a Radiation Emergency” at http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/emergencyfaq.asp, and “Sheltering in Place During a Radiation Emergency,” at http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/shelter.asp.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I have discovered that there are 8 isotopes of Iridium. 2 naturally occurring and non-radioactive and 6 radioactive isotopes. I have also discovered that at least one company ( Cardinal )that uses it for well logging requires a waiver of liability related to radiation issues which seems to indicate that the radioactive variety is used by the gas industry.. I will look further.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, scott,
The Radioisotope Iridium-192 is used in industrial gauges that inspect welding seams, in well logging, and in medicine to treat certain cancers. It can cause burns, acute radiation sickness and death. It is one of the candidates for use in dirty bombs so it is tracked carefully although some is lost every year. Go to the Center for Disease Control for more information.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Troglodyte,
So I would say that health concerns RE Brady Trucking storing it by the river are appropriate.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It would seem so, although I would look at the concentrations involved. It would seem logical that the amounts used in industry are far less than those used in medicinal applications. Any radioactive substance will cause burns, sickness and death in sufficient quantity, but usually the reasons for its use outside medicine are along the lines of tracing leaks and so on. You don’t need much for that.
What is it used for in well logging?
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: Odd for such a heavy element to be so inert, when other heavy elements are so dangerous.
Not really Scott. It depends upon their repective chemistry. Gold for example is extremely inert.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“respective” “chemistries”
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
The way Iridium 192 is used it is considered a sealed source because it has been encapsulated to prevent leakage or escape of the material. It is very inert, it doesn’t react with anything other then fluorine. So even if it was thrown in the water it wouldn’t corrode and spread. It is pretty hot stuff with a half life of 74 days. And it is supposed to be tracked by the by a national web based database. The main concern is using it in a Radiological Dispersion Device(RDD) or dirty bomb.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Troglodyte,
I can see what you are saying, but I have a couple of questions. In order to be used in well logging it would need to be in liquid form instead of the solid in which it generally occurs in nature. How is that accomplished? and, I suspect it is used in rather larger quantities than in medical applications.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quick Unrelated Comment to dc…….if you are Duke Cox, which another poster has suggested, I would like to sincerely Thank You. Saw you on CBS Denver channel regarding the COGCC rules hearing in Denver. I and hundreds of others on the western slope appreciate all you have done to help protect our health and wildlife, as it relates to O&G production. Your sacrifices are not going un-noticed. Thank you again.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Troglodyte,
Is the Iridium 192 the one that decays into platinum? I know some gold panners that would appreciate some being dumped into the river in that case.
Also, it is not so much the quantity used that can make it dangerous, but the concentration (compared with the medium it’s in). Assuming that they use it to track leaks, the quantity may be high but at a low concentration so the overall dosage being emitted is also low. For medical purposes, it would be used at a fairly high concentration. I’m just speculating, but the barrels found at the dump were probably a low concentration and not very dangerous. You wouldn’t want to keep them in your kitchen, but they wouldn’t cause another Three Mile Island if they spilled either.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RanchersWife,
I am, indeed, Duke Cox and I thank you for the kind words. I am but one of a small army of dedicated people who have been working tirelessly for many years to protect our beautiful home.
Six years ago, I sat in the Rifle fire station and listened to one local resident after another tell their stories through tears and with fists clinched in rage. Encana set their subcontractors loose on Grass Mesa, Hunter Mesa, and Mamm Creek like so many cattle in a corn field. The results were so devastating that a shocked Encana corporate executive who happened to unofficially visit the area hooked the GVCA up with the corporate staff from Canada who were being told that all was lovely in the Piceance.
After a year of meeting almost every month with Encanas’ folks, we convinced them to change many of their management practices. It is to Encanas’ credit that they sat down and talked to us and made some changes. The net result was very positive.
If we could see the same kind of cooperation from COGA and the CPA we would really be able to get somewhere.
Just for Rexalls’ benefit (and for Scott McKinnis, who claims to know me but whom I have never met), I am a volunteer and have been for my entire involvement in this issue ( I did serve as the interim director for WCC for 4 months and was paid a very small salary for that period only). I have been able to devote the time to it primarily because my wife has worked so hard to help our business be successful.
At some point soon I will take Scott McKinnis to task for his false claims about me. The only things he knows about me are the lies he hears from Kathy Hall, Craig Meis, and the other industry toadies with whom he associates.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Duke,
The army you refer to may have been small at one time….but I am sure it is growing.
How can I join your “small army?”
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, Scott,
Yes Iridium-192 decays to Platinum-192. I didn’t know that. After some more research I found that the EPA does not consider Iridium-192 a hazardous waste because of its inertness it can’t get into the water supply. I guess that is why it is used in well logging. Well logging involves characterizing the properties of underground formation, such as gas wells, according to their reaction to the radiation emitted by the logging source. I think they call the sealed source “beads” and mount them in the collars of the pipes. Nuclear gauges are used to measure various properties based on how the radiation from the source interacts with the material under study. They use a source in a shielded container to emit radiation that is then measured by a detector. Another advantage of Iridium-192 is the short half life, it becomes harmless relatively quickly unlike the waste from nuclear reactors that takes a long long time. The NRC has rules on disposal. The well drilling sources stay down in the well. The other use for Iridium-192 is to check the welds on gas pipelines. The source is placed inside the pipe and emits radiation around the weld and onto photographic film on the outside. I would imagine this stuff is just stored until it is harmless or shipped back to the manufacturer.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Troglodyte,
Very interesting stuff. Thanks.
RanchersWife,
I have contacted you by PM.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So it isn’t something that they should find in the county landfill, but it isn’t exactly used uranium rods either.
Thanks for the information.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 9:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To all on the thread:
Upon reflection, I have decided that my comment in post #24 was improper. Regardless of my lack of respect for Craig Meis and Kathy Hall, it was bad form for me to refer to them as “toadies”. I offer my sincere apology to both of them and to the readers of this post. It does not, however, change my opinion of their policies or their behavior.
Posted June 24th, 2008 at 9:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc … reflection? Reconsideration? Apology? Am I in the right place?
LOL
Seriously that was cool.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.