PAVE PAWS draft EIS draws two comments
Dee Lewis on Jul 19th 2008
PAVE PAWS draft EIS draws two comments
July 16, 2008 6:00 AM
BOURNE — One critical comment and another in support, that’s all a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on PAVE PAWS generated at a public hearing last night.
Bernard Young, whose daughter died from Ewing’s sarcoma in January, said the results of health studies summarized by the Air Force report are flawed. Specifically, he said, data collected does not properly report peak emissions from the radar station. He called the conclusions of the impact statement disappointing.
Wayne Sellin, who served on the PAVE PAWS steering group, said the measurement standards used were “superb.”
Last December, a state Department of Public Health study concluded it was unlikely that PAVE PAWS was the main cause of 14 local cases of Ewing’s sarcoma since 1982. Ewing’s sarcoma is a rare bone cancer.
PAVE PAWS, on the Massachusetts Military Reservation near Sagamore, scans the eastern skies for missiles, satellites and space debris.
Written comments on the environmental impact statement will be accepted through Aug. 4. They should be addressed to: HQ AFSPC/A4/7PP, Attn: Lynne Neuman, 150 Vandenberg St., Suite 1105, Peterson AFB, CO 80914-2370.
— GEORGE BRENNAN
Filed in Massachusetts | One response so far
One Response to “PAVE PAWS draft EIS draws two comments”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bernard J. Young Sep 3rd 2008 at 12:05 am 1
Reporter Brennan understates my objections to the Draft Supplemental EIS. Of the 292 individual measurements of the radar power flux density, 143 are derived from the maximum specified output of a microwave preamplifier between the measurement antenna and the power meter. The result is a clipped measurement; the true values are unknown, but greater than reported. It’s like driving down the highway with your speedometer pegged; You know you going at least as fast as it will report, but you really don’t know just how fast you’re going.
The “measured” values of power flux density were tabulated, but never plotted. They were never compared with the specifications of the the radar, a simple one term calculation. When you perform the calculations, you find the reported values exceeded the exposure we should receive at ten of the 50 sites.
At Scargo Tower, a popular scenic attraction in my town of Dennis, 18.5 miles from the radar transmitter, the reported measurement was 46 times the specified value. Two cases in the Cape Cod Ewing’s sarcoma cluster occurred in Dennis.
There are more troubling issues which are raised in my written response to the EIS. I will try to post them in their entirety.
Bernard J. Young, P.E.