Members of our Community Editorial Board, a group of community residents who are engaged with and passionate about local issues, respond to the following question: Boulder County commissioners are considering whether to continue supporting a project that would create a new trail connection on land contaminated by plutonium that’s next to the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. Your take?

The vision of connected open space properties and trails along the Front Range is appealing, as is the fantasy that this contaminated land could be healed. But with Broomfield, Superior and Westminster having already withdrawn support for the project, even if the land was safe for human activity, and despite the years and funds already invested, I can’t imagine how or why Boulder County would try to continue.

A panel opposed to constructing the underpass/trail recently presented evidence to the County Commissioners. Among other experts, the panel included Jon Lipsky, the retired FBI agent who led the raid that shut down the nuclear plant (which had a long history of leaks, fires and other violations) as well as a scientist whose 2024 air sample testing at Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge detected plutonium. At the meeting, Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann said, “We know that it has been reduced in the amount of plutonium that’s there, but there’s no dispute whether there is plutonium on the site. … The federal government doesn’t dispute that. No one disputes that.”

The original Rocky Mountain Greenway Extension project partners appear to have worked off soil and air studies that found “safe” conditions at Rocky Flats. The sad truth is a site like this can never be “clean.” The half-life of a plutonium particle is 24,100 years. “Legal levels (of radiation exposure) are not safe levels,” said Diane D’Arrigo, radioactive waste project director for Nuclear Information and Resource Service, as quoted in the Daily Camera. Plutonium particles have already been “migrating” in the area, and underpass/trail construction and trail usage would exacerbate this. The nature of the dry, dusty landscape, and the frequency of high wind events, increase the potential for radioactive particles to be dispersed. Exposure is through inhalation. Imagine hiking or biking through this landscape knowing this! The idea that informational, know-the-risk “signage” would make the new trail acceptable seems absurd, and of course, people living in nearby communities have no way of consenting to or protecting themselves.

There are much bigger environmental threats out there, and they’re only going to get worse as the EPA is gutted by the current administration. The danger to any particular individual is, in the moment, invisible and unknowable, and an adverse health effect (in the form of cancer, birth defects, etc.) would take years to materialize. It’s sad that this beautiful wildlife refuge is not benign but we have a moral obligation to prevent harm when we can.

Diane Schwemm, parksidediane@gmail.com

The Rocky Mountain Greenway project is a perfect addition to the Trump administration’s overall plan for the environment. Not only does it present a threat to the health of the environment, it also presents a threat to the health of those who visit and live near it. And, as a bonus, it’s located in a blue state! If I didn’t know better, I would assume this project was the brainchild of whoever claimed that cigarette smoking was a safe way to alleviate stress.

Why are we even considering this? Have we learned nothing from the history of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and Rocky Flats itself? Are we seriously considering building a recreation area that warrants signs warning of radioactive contamination? Planners are actually suggesting that the international symbol for radiation and a QR code that leads to additional information appear on the posted map of the property along with the list of rules and regulations. Under most other circumstances, taking a child on a hike in an area with such a warning might well be followed by a visit from child protective services.

As I searched for a good reason to build this trail, all I came across were arguments about the importance of access to nature. Do we really have to remind our government that the mental and physical benefits of being in nature are, in the worst case, obviated by the presence of radioactive materials and, in the best case, subverted by the anxiety generated by suspicion about the potential presence of such materials? Have we forgotten that our area offers many plutonium-free recreational areas? Did the calming effects of cigarettes outweigh the effects of their carcinogens?

Other local governments (e.g., Lyons, Westminster) have already withdrawn from this project. They cite what should have been the final rhetorical and empirical nail in the coffin of the Rocky Mountain Greenway project: the lingering presence of radioactive materials that could, according to experts, “kick up contaminants creating potential cancer risks.” Are we so distressed by what’s happening in the world that we wish to hasten our and its demise? Do the responsible officials want to be called before Congress — as the cigarette manufacturers were — to justify their decision to go ahead with the project despite all the documentation of potential hazards?

On the other hand, I did find one positive aspect to this plan: At least it does not burden us with the kinds of complex ethical dilemmas raised by most other controversial topics.

Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com