LETTER IN THE NEW YORK TIMES 2/22/04 

A Plum Island Solution: Why Not Move It?

Re: "Heaping More Dirt on Plum Island" [Feb. 15]: "My agenda is not to close Plum Island, it's to make it safe," said Michael Christopher Carroll, author of "Lab 257," diluting his strong warnings.

  Why not move it?

What benefit is there from having deadly animal research two miles from such a heavily populated area, when birds and mosquitoes can easily travel that distance and beyond?

Why has nothing been learned from 9/11, anthrax, ricin, West Nile_, virus, SARS and bird flu?  Why ignore the fact that most new human viruses come from animals and become more deadly when they jump species?

Why do we have to wait until after terrorism, accidents or naturally oc­curring dangers create widespread epidemics from Plum Island? Why is there not an outrage from the public, the media, and politicians?  And most of all, why are government officials doing nothing but stubbornly defend^­ing their unconvincing assurances of safety?

Carol Goldberg

LETTER IN THE NEW YORK TIMES 8/23/02

Plum Island Safety

    No one doubts the importance of the research being conducted at Plum Island, but why there, so close to Long Island?

     New York's dense population, still suffering from the Sept. 11 attacks, should not be subjected to needless risks and worries.  Whether from a strike, accident, or terrorism, Plum Island is a disaster waiting to happen.

Carol Goldberg

LETTER IN NEWSDAY 1/23/02

Too Close to Home

     There is no doubt about the value of Plum Island's research, but why there?  I cannot imagine one benefit of that location.  The laboratory should be relocated to a remote island, not remain in a densely populated area.

     Since September 11, New Yorkers have suffered too much.  They should not be subjected needlessly to stress from the threat of terrorism or even an accident on Plum Island.  Removing research from Plum Island should be a top priority for New Yorkers and their political representatives in 2002.

Carol Goldberg