Mickey Finn is correct that the note by The Almanzora Group (TAG), as re-posted by Lenox, does not cover all the issues that he now raises. This is because it was written three years ago purely in response to the original erroneous newspaper articles that were published without the least prior attempt to verify the so called facts. This response will seek to fill in the gaps in the information as identified by Mickey Finn, whose queries are re-produced in italics below:-
The reply from the Almanzora Group does not mention:
1. In 2006 the US discovered the plutonium pollution was more serious and extensive than at first thought.
Yes indeed they did and this is what is referred to in the ninth paragraph of TAG’s original response, where it refers to the re-measurement of the land affected, some surprises being discovered and the appearance of hot spots.
2. In 2009 Almanzora Group were allegedly refused a building licence to extend Desert Springs because of the dangers of pollution, according to this report: Were reassurances given to allow building to proceed?
The Almanzora Group Ltd (TAG) is the UK holidays and property sales, marketing and public relations agency for Desert Springs and other companies in the Levante Almeriense. TAG does not “run” nor is it the developer of Desert Springs and has never applied for any such licence.
It is Desert Springs SL, a Spanish company, which is the developer of Desert Springs and which was responsible for obtaining the initial planning consents and the subsequent building licences. Contrary to the erroneous report in the Leader, it has never ever been refused a building licence on these grounds or any other for that matter. This can be confirmed at the local Town Hall.
No assurances have been given nor requested of Desert Springs in respect of this issue because, as the original note states in more detail:-
- The nearest part of Desert Springs is 1.25km from the nearest impact site.
- The resort is up-wind of all of the impact sites and of the burning of contaminated vegetation.
- The area of the Resort was never part of any contaminated or de-contaminated area.
- The land between the Resort and the nearest contamination site was tested by CIEMAT, at the specific request of the developer before the future site of the resort was purchased, and it was proven to be uncontaminated.
3. The USA and CIEMAT continue to prevaricate with inter departmental wrangling on the final clean-up of the land and the costs of so doing.
Agreed. The USA’s reluctance results from its fear of the global consequences of a moral and legal precedent being created by its paying for and/or cleaning up its infamous mess here in Spain. This would have obvious implications for other less well known jobbies that it has left elsewhere around the world.
As for the Spanish government, its reluctance to put the pressure on the Americans is much less explicable, but there has self-evidently been something holding it back all these years up to the present. It may be because it made compromises or understandings with its American counterparts in the past which have not been published (see Jose Herrera’s thoughts below) and/or because it failed for, some unknown reason, to insist on the Americans completing the clean-up to the full extent agreed at the time and/or because of its supine lack of activity over the last 48 years in carrying out its duty to Spanish people and/or, bearing in mind the ingrained attitudes in the upper levels of the Spanish administration, it could just be that be that they are reluctant to embarrass and upset their American counterparts for the sake of a few peasants and foreigners down here.
4. The need for a final 'clean up' of the plutonium pollution is acknowledged by the US in diplomatic cables.
Yes, by some, but unfortunately not by all of the officials involved in the correspondence. Although some accept the need for a proper clean up and worry about the impact on US/Spanish relations if they do not, other leaks show that the US authorities are determined to demonstrate that nobody on their side has made any commitment of any kind to do so.
5. If medical monitoring has taken place since the incident happened, have any medical statistics ever been released to the public on the cancer rates of the local population? Is there any evidence of cancer or leukaemia clusters?
Medical monitoring certainly has taken place, in the area we all know people here who have been on the annual visits to Madrid for monitoring. In September 2008, Jose Herrera Plaza, a respected independent journalist published a long study of the incident in an effort to throw some light onto these questions that remain. This is a translation of what he has to say on this aspect:-
“Each Spring and Autumn, 150 residents of the affected zone travelled to Madrid to be submitted to medical tests. From 1966, 1,029 residents were investigated, involving 4,132 medical analyses and measurements of the radiation dose present internally by urine passed over a 24 hour period. A significant number of them had been born up to 10 or 20 years after the accident, which generated a certain suspicion amongst them, given that throughout these decades it had been denied that any radiation remained. The object of this process of monitoring did not seem to be to protect the inhabitants from the risk of radiation, but - according to the current director Asuncion Espinosa – What is correct is that if there had been a risk, we would have detected it and then put in place the necessary measures.
Until the 6th of November of 1985, none of the people, who travelled to Madrid for these checks, had received any clinical history or information about the results. This basic right was eventually achieved, after many delays and some 22 months of protests by the residents led by the village mayoress, Antonia Flores. Some people, like the sisters Isabel and Toni Zamora, who throughout their childhood had played in one of the most contaminated areas, Zone 2 which has now been expropriated, did not receive the results of their urine tests for a year and a half.
The Centre for Investigation of Energy, the Environment and Technology (CIEMAT) states on its web site: That the analysis of the results of the urine tests show that 96.4% were below the lower limits of detection- that is to say only 3.6% were positive and even then supposedly below the maximum level permitted – It goes on The results of the medical examinations have shown no outcomes that give rise to the suspicion of any morbidity induced by radioactive agents.
Something similar is learnt, albeit with some queries, from the only epidemiological study carried out to date, whose author Dr. Pedro Antonio Martinez Pinilla, has patiently gathered over more than two decades data on the incidence of morbidity in Palomares and in an unaffected reference site, the village of Guazamara, from the year 1940 through to 2005. In his conclusions, he confirms: Over period of 40 years, there is sufficient time and data to be able to be sure statistically; to be able to confirm the facts without fear of committing errors, that there is no relationship between the bombs and cancer deaths….. That is between the fall of the bombs and deaths as a result of cancer, not between the radiation and the incidence of cancer, the latter is not known.
6. If these statistics have not been made public, why not?
As can be seen from the above, information has eventually been made available to those directly affected and overall generalised results have been published on CIEMAT’s web site and confirmed, as to the incidence of cancer deaths, by independent study. However, the Spanish authorities have never given any information voluntarily, it has had to be squeezed out of them.
Jose Herrera believes this is because the American and Spanish scientists involved saw, in Palomares, a great opportunity, which previously they had not had, in the mere 25 years since plutonium was first discovered, to study the effects of low level radiation in vivo. An American Defense Nuclear Agency report completed in 1975 concurred: "Palomares is one of the few locations in the world that offers an on-going experimental laboratory, probably the only one offering a look at an agricultural area."
This whole business has been handled poorly by both the USA and the regional government of Almeria. They were simply concerned not to upset their close bilateral relationship and military cooperation which is extensive.
Besides sporadic political contacts, the key relationship has been between the US National Defence Agency and CIEMAT, which is a Spanish national government organisation. It is thought that the regional government, being the Junta de Andalucia in Seville with its delegations in Almeria, have not been significantly involved.
Yes but in fact the whole business has not so much been poorly handled as appallingly and incomprehensibly handled. The issue is why over decades of changing Spanish governments from dictatorship, through PSOE and PP, have none of them made a serious and sustained effort to sort it out and insist on the Americans, who can well afford it, clearing up, which surely is their clear liability.
Soothing words from a property developer with vested economic interests in the area does not in my view cut it.
Maybe not, but who else is going to, or indeed is in a position to, defend a development which is being unjustly and damagingly maligned through scurrilous repetition of false allegations, which nobody has taken the least trouble to verify, in a Name & Shame forum.
The statements made in response to point 2 above and the conclusion to TAG’s note that residual contamination is confined to well defined and controlled areas that are well away from Desert Springs and from other tourism areas, such as the coast of Palomares and Villaricos village itself are simple matters of fact.
Furthermore, they are easily verified as can be seen from brown lines delimiting the remaining affected areas in the report that is referred to Mickey Finn’s latest post.
Desert Springs SL has a fully approved plan parcial for its resort, has completed all legal procedures and planning obligations and has constructed a golf course, club house, academy of golf, a family resort centre with swimming pools and play areas, a Sports Club with gymnasium, tennis, padel, beach volley and basketball courts and grass football pitch and 300 villas, townhouses and apartments to date. It welcomes not only many family and golf tourists, but also a lot of national and international golf, football and cricket teams and sportsmen for winter training. It is one of the very few fully legal developments in Cuevas del Almanzora.
Desert Springs has received numerous awards including for its environmental sensitivity and has recently published a Guide to its Flora & Fauna, with over 1,000 photos of different species of Fuana and Flora present on the resort.
I believe it's time the USA and the Spanish government got their act together and made an effort both to clean the existing plutonium pollution up. In doing so finally lay this story to bed and end the damage the US caused almost fifty years ago.
We could not agree more.
Finally, in response to Scambuster, please note that The Almanzora Group Ltd’s respondent, besides having an office in Cheltenham, has also lived in the Palomares area on and off since 1984 when his investigations into the incident first began. The Almanzora Group comment that there “... may have been no further spread whatsoever of contamination, but for the initial attempts to clean up…” has been misunderstood as a re-reading of the note would make clear. Further spread of contamination certainly did take place as a result of the initial activities at the impact sites causing the re-suspension in the air of contaminated particles and the process of burning made matters even worse. What is clear is that if the Americans had first stabilised the arid dusty soils at the impact sites and had not started burning, then the spread of contamination would have been much much less and would have been more easily dealt with.
The point being that the cause of the contamination was not merely the accident itself, but also, and to a far greater extent in terms the area affected, the incompetence of the clean-up effort.