Dear Wilmington Residents,FACT: There are significant risks associated with Olin Superfund Site and the looming New England Transrail (NET) in south Wilmington.FACT: The Olin site is responsible for shutting down the Maple Meadow Brook Aquifer back in 2003.FACT: There are millions, millions, of gallons of contamination in the groundwater associated with the site and has over 100 chemicals of concern.FACT: It is one of the worst sites in the state!FACT: NET is a proposed transrail facility by Olin at the site that is poised to have NO (emphasis added) over sight from the town because they are exempt as a rail carrier.FACT: Olin is seeking an exemption from top level EPA staff to not have to clean up their mess, something that is called a technical waiver. This could soon happen, anytime.FACT: The town has one of the best environmental attorneys in the state that has represented the town well on these issues.FACT: The BOS knows all this.The Wilmington Environmental Restoration Committee (WERC), to which I am VP, is a non-profit set up to oversee the Olin site through a technical assistant grant from the EPA. We also received a grant to help in the review of the NET proposal. We recently went through a similar situation as the town’s current law firm did where our consultants’ company was bought out and split. We did everything in our power to keep the people we had working on the site because the prospects for getting someone up to speed on the complexities of the Olin site would clearly hurt our ability to properly review the site and pending comments on deliverables. It would take years like it took years for the EPA and our current consultants to get up to speed.I voiced these concerns to the BOS at the hearing for town counsel. I said for the past 20 years many citizens have worked 1000’s of hours behind the scenes. We don’t get pay nor recognition and want neither. What we do want is support. Don’t cut our legs from underneath us and leave us with counsel that is uninformed and not up to speed with the nuances of these issues. Unfortunately, once I left a selectman disputed me and said it would only take a few days for new counsel to get up to speed with Olin and NET. That comment just shows the lack of understanding and knowledge about these issues and the multiple layers of regulation and complexities. Makes me wonder what knowledge of the site he posses to say such a thing. I could see taking this risk of replacement if there were issues with the firm. But none have been presented. Otherwise, why then? Politics? This position has been the subject of political significance before and could be playing a role behind the scenes once again.Dan Duetch the environmental attorney for the current firm has done well for the town. Not one Selectman disputed this or the associated attorneys’ credentials. He was an important cog in the wheel to stop NET from putting in a trash transfer station and identifying that the town was at risk with out having a tolling agreement with Olin to protect our rights. Something overlooked by the prior counsel. Any issues brought up at the meeting with counsel ended being the town’s will, not counsel’s. If there are issues find ways to work them out, maybe a temporary agreement? But do not throw the baby out with the bath water or try to fix what is not broken. Too much is at stake and depends on having the best legal representation and that is what residents deserve. I hope the Selectman respect the work WERC is doing on behalf of the town and they do the right thing and not leave us in a more vulnerable position than we already are in regarding Olin and NET.Suzanne SullivanLike Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email email@example.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedLETTER TO THE EDITOR: Former Selectwoman, Environmental Activist Slams Selectmen For Town Counsel VoteIn “Letter To The Editor”STATE REP RACE Q&A: Judy O’Connell Discusses State Rep Pay, Environmental IssuesIn “Government”SELECTMEN NEWS: Town To Decide This Fall Whether To Run Water Line To Residents With Contaminated WellsIn “Government”
(Phys.org) —Cosmologist Christof Wetterich of the University of Heidelberg has uploaded a paper to the arXiv server in which he claims it’s possible that the theory of expansion of the universe might be incorrect. He suggests instead that the redshift observed by researchers here on Earth might be caused by an increase in the mass in the universe. Journal information: arXiv Researchers detect B-mode polarization in cosmic microwave background Explore further Citation: Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all (2013, August 14) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html Image credit: Hubble/NASA More information: A Universe without expansion, arXiv:1303.6878 [astro-ph.CO] arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878/AbstractWe discuss a cosmological model where the universe shrinks rather than expands during the radiation and matter dominated periods. Instead, the Planck mass and all particle masses grow exponentially, with the size of atoms shrinking correspondingly. Only dimensionless ratios as the distance between galaxies divided by the atom radius are observable. Then the cosmological increase of this ratio can also be attributed to shrinking atoms. We present a simple model where the masses of particles arise from a scalar “cosmon” field, similar to the Higgs scalar. The potential of the cosmon is responsible for inflation and the present dark energy. Our model is compatible with all present observations. While the value of the cosmon field increases, the curvature scalar is almost constant during all cosmological epochs. Cosmology has no big bang singularity. There exist other, equivalent choices of field variables for which the universe shows the usual expansion or is static during the radiation or matter dominated epochs. For those “field coordinates“ the big bang is singular. Thus the big bang singularity turns out to be related to a singular choice of field coordinates.via Nature © 2013 Phys.org For nearly a century, the consensus among astrophysicists has been that the universe started with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. This hypothesis formed because researchers found that in analyzing the light emitted from stars, a redshift occurred—where its frequency changes as an object that emits light moves away from us. But Wetterich says the redshift might me due to something else—an increase in the total mass in the universe.Wetterich’s idea is that light emitted from an atom is governed by the mass of its particles—if that atom were to become larger in mass, the light that it emits would change in frequency as its electrons became more energetic. More energy would appear as light moving toward the blue spectrum, while less energy (an atom losing mass), would move toward the red spectrum. Thus, Wetterich reasons, if the mass of observable objects were once less, we would now see them with a redshift as they expand. If his line of reasoning is true, Wetterich says it’s possible that the universe is actually contracting.Wetterich’s paper hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, but thus far, comments by others in the field suggest openness to this new line of thinking. That might be because one exciting prospect of this new theory is that it would do away with the idea of a singularity existing just before the Big Bang—a point at which conventional physics breaks down. Instead it might suggest that the universe is simply in a constant state of flux with no real beginning and no real end.Unfortunately, Wetterich’s theory can’t be tested because of the relative nature of mass. Everything we are able to see has a mass that is relative in size to everything else. Thus if it’s all growing, we wouldn’t have anything to measure it against to see that it’s happening. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.