For years, the issue of Hanford has polarized Eastern and Western Washington into pro-and anti-nuclear camps. It's a little tiresome.

The polarization is not helping the cleanup.

I think it simply is stating a fact that the general view of those in the Tri-Cities' community is different than those found on the west side of the mountains. The classic areas of dispute include the level of hazard presented by radioactivity, whether it is OK to use Hanford as the national nuclear dumping ground, proposals to build new nuclear facilities and whether Hanford is of anyone's rightful concern outside of the Tri-Cities.

An article in the Nov. 18 Herald highlighted some of that polarization by reporting on a meeting being held by Hanford Challenge in Richland to begin planning for a Hanford Summit.

Ironically, at least to us, we were trying to hold a quiet, private meeting with a number of folks from the Tri-Cities and Hanford to discuss how we might build a new dialogue. The Herald article gave selected quotes from Hanford Challenge's website that portrayed us as attacking the Tri-Cities as not caring about the environment.

Unfortunately, the reporter was unable to reach any of us because we were in meetings at Hanford. The point is, while it sells newspapers to go after a Seattle-based group – affirming biases and stoking fears - it hurts the legitimate efforts to improve the dialogue.

While we cannot expect each other to give up our positions and beliefs, it is necessary to acknowledge and work through those differences in the interest of cleanup and protecting future generations. While the Hanford Advisory Board is a valuable tool for providing advice to the government, it is not the right container for the big-picture discussions that urgently need to happen.

We have models for such dialogue, even at Hanford. The Herald has complimented and supported the Hanford Concerns Council, a mediation group consisting of contractors, Hanford Challenge, and neutral members, to work through employee concerns that threaten to turn into litigation.

For those who care to remember, Hanford was plagued with dozens of whistleblower lawsuits in the 1980s and '90s, many of which caused disruption to the workplace, unnecessary costs, and a escalation of disputes that almost invariably led to the career-ending departure of the "whistleblower."

Many such lawsuits and disputes have thankfully ended because of the dialogue that led to the formation of the Concerns Council. It is tough stuff, though, to maintain the agreements and honesty necessary forthe council to work. One of theingredients for success of such a council is trust. Another is confidentiality.

Time, and money, are in short supply. Congress can choose to stop funding the cleanup, and may do so unless we start listening to each other and finding common ground. We hope that a Hanford Summit occurs soon, and we hope that the Tri-Cities community and the other stakeholders embrace the opportunity to bring about a change in relations.

There is no doubt that we at Hanford Challenge own the responsibility for watching our words, and the Tri-City Herald pointed out some examples of that.

Let's talk.

* Tom Carpenter is the executive director of the Hanford Challenge.