Type your text hereThere will be no requests to dig for remains in Charlestown on the Bunker Hill battle site footing, said Erik Goldstein of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
In a letter to the Patriot-Bridge, Goldstein said Boston journalists had misconstrued the story he told about two dozen British regulars most likely resting in a filled-in trench about 10 feet below the earth in the backyard of a home on Concord Street.
That story appeared on the front page of last week’s Boston Sunday Globe.
The inference given was that Goldstein and his associates might want to dig up the bones.
He added that inference was completely untrue.
“After being interviewed by Boston Globe reporter Brian MacQuarrie and two or three TV reporters, the facts and intentions of the Bunker Hill research project expressed by Chris Anderson and myself have been hijacked and replaced with pure supposition, fear and anger,” he said.
He added that no one associated with him regarding the research on the Bunker Hill battleground had any intention of digging up graves – or anything – in Charlestown.
“There’s absolutely no need to do so,” he said. “We know exactly what’s in the grave – bones - bones which we can all agree are those of the heroes that fell in Charlestown on June 17, 1775.”
He said those patriots had the unequivocal right to remain undisturbed.
The mass grave on Concord Street, he said, isn’t the object of the search. “It is simply the point of origin,” he said.
Instead, non-invasive ground penetrating radar, Goldstein said, would be used to see below the ground’s surface, without digging.
In addition, Goldstein pointed out 251 bodies, British and American, were buried on the battlefield on June 18 and 19, 1775.
Also, that figure doesn’t include the dead Americans who were buried during the battle.

The main and recurring theme emanating from the Charlestown Neighborhood Council’s (CNC) Development Committee meeting on the proposed Massport wind turbine blade-testing facility to be located on Boston Autoport leased land was noise, noise, noise.
The principal concern expressed by both CNC members and residents of the community who attended the meeting on March 9 in the conference room of the Charlestown District 15 Police Station on Vine Street, was the potential noise level that would emanate from the testing area and its impact on the quality of life of abutting residents.
The meeting was chaired by Jim Conway, CNC Development chairman, assisted by committee secretary Dave Whelan. Other CNC members who attended included: CNC Chairman Tom Cunha, Second Vice Chairman Peg Bradley, Eileen Ward, Mark Rosenshein, Jonathan Morey, Grace Bloodwell and Michael Parker. The main presentation on the proposed facility was given by Ellen Watts, AIA, LEED AP, of Architerra. Massport representatives Deb Haddon, Nhuy Hoang and Alaina Travaglini and Ian Springsteel of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative also attended.
Massport and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative are looking to situate a Wind Turbine Test Facility on the 66-acre Autoport site. The facility would test approximately 10 to 12 blades a year. The facility would consist of a “hangar” like building which would measure 268 feet long, 128 wide and 80 feet tall, with height that would be graduate - lower at one end and higher at the other. The horizontal stress test defines the needed width of the building and the vertical test dictate the height of the building. There will two bridge cranes housed in the complex and the facility would employ approximately10 people.
According to the presentation, there are a limited number of testing facilities in the United States and wind technology is a growing industry. The concept is that if the testing facility is here, producers will locate facilities here that will increase available jobs. The biggest growth in the wind technology market is in the United States. Massachusetts and Texas were the only two sites considered for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative grant because they both have deep water berth accessibility, which is needed for the siting, but the grant award is still not definite.
Presenters indicated that blades, which can be 16 feet in diameter and could be up to 200 feet long and weigh 20 tons, would primarily be delivered via ship, but there was some discussion on delivery via roadways. If by road, many state and local regulations, and police involvement would be required.
The basic premise of the facility is that blades are put through a variety of stress tests. Sensors are placed on blades to capture data. Tests would run 24 hours a day, seven days a week and could take months, and the blades are often run to failure - when they snap.
There are two main types of tests. The first, “fatigue test” would run constantly to see how the blade does over time. The second is a “static load test,” where various amounts of weight would be applied to a blade to see when it breaks, and is fairly quick.
With respect to siting , Massachusetts Technology Collaborative looked at various options, but the location in Charlestown in regard proximity to the water and dock is optimal. To construct the building, 42 caissons will be placed in the blue clay to support the blade testing. The actual building will have a separate support structure.
The anticipated noise of the testing will be 60-90 decibels adjusted (dBA), which is consistent with existing traffic noise. All testing will be done indoors. The hydraulic system will also be enclosed to minimize noise.
The commonwealth and Governor Patrick are fully behind this project, which is on the stimulus list of “shovel ready” projects. If things go well, construction could be started in about a year and done within six months.
Many attendees were concerned about what the noise facility may produce. Suggestions as to materials used for construction (to abate noise), to sideproofing and side facing the community were brought up for consideration.
As Massport is the owner and ILA has the rights to ship, traffic, etc. Massport indicated that Massachusetts Technology Collaborative should begin discussions with ILA. Community members voiced their concerns that the facility be union built and Massport indicated that prevailing wages would be stressed in construction documents.
Many wanted the presenters to gather some information from other facilities in urban areas about noise levels and bring to future meetings. Many in attendance, especially CNC members, felt strongly about using the water instead of roadways. CNC chairman Tom Cunha suggested that in addition to delivering the blades by water, all construction materials should be delivered that way.
Then CNC made a motion that it is comfortable with the concept of locating this facility as far away from the community on the Autoport site (Option 1 as presented) if it comes to fruition.
The CNC asked the presenters to come to a future meeting with information on impacts of other facilities on urban communities. If development goes through, delivery methods must be solidified regarding blades and materials. Developers would need to agree to a series of ongoing dialogues with the community during the construction process and noise abatement issues need to be addressed.