OT: weapens of mass destruction in alabama- to be burned

The Ultimate On-Line Whistle Community. If you find one more ultimater, let us know.
tansy
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: SV/Strayaway

OT: weapens of mass destruction in alabama- to be burned

Post by tansy »

"they"- the military, now have the go ahead to burn-destroy chemical weapens in annistin alabama.
i am writing this because of the deep sorrow that will spread into all of nature on this day.
i guess this fits right into the present agenda of relaxed polution standards for large companies(air and water).
"they" said they will give us a warning before committing this act of enviromental terrorism.
what are we suposed to do, spend christmass in yemen?
when i feel a sorrow this deep in my heart,
i listen :(
ashamed, tansy
shy the blond water
illuminatus99
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:52 am

Post by illuminatus99 »

has there been any proof that it'll hurt the environment? if they incinerate the chemicals properly there's not much harm it can do.
User avatar
slowair
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: WWW

Post by slowair »

I feel for you, honest I do.

There shouldn't be weapons like this in the first place.

Instead of destroying them in Alabama, why don't we send them to Iraq. Those folks didn't seem to have any problem getting rid of theirs.

Just a thought.

I'm not sure what lasting effects it will cause to the enviroment, but hopefully this will save some human lives.

Mike
User avatar
pthouron
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:30 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Nutley, NJ, US
Contact:

Re: OT: weapens of mass destruction in alabama- to be burned

Post by pthouron »

tansy wrote:"they"- the military, now have the go ahead to burn-destroy chemical weapens in annistin alabama.
i am writing this because of the deep sorrow that will spread into all of nature on this day.
i guess this fits right into the present agenda of relaxed polution standards for large companies(air and water).
Yes, it does. But keep this quiet, we wouldn't want the word to get out!...
tansy wrote:"they" said they will give us a warning before committing this act of enviromental terrorism.
what are we suposed to do, spend christmass in yemen?
Don't worry, maybe we'll have Iraq rebuilt by then and we can move Alabama there.
tansy wrote:when i feel a sorrow this deep in my heart,
i listen :(
ashamed, tansy
You're not the one who should feel ashamed, Tansy. I share your sadness.

All the best,

Patrick
User avatar
Lorenzo
Posts: 5726
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by Lorenzo »

Hi Tansy,

Right now, I live about halfway between the Boardman-Umitilla Army Depot (a chemical weapons facility), and Hanford (THE major nuclear plant in the US)...a kind of triangle, like 50 miles between the dots. This site has been under de-construction for the last couple of years. I understand they are destroying the chemicals on-site, so I hope they are not shipping them to Alabama to be destroyed!

Image
These bunkers, called "igloos," cover the 25-square mile Umatilla Army Depot. During WWII they housed 2,000 pound "blockbuster" bombs used in aerial bombing. At sunset, driving down the freeway (I-84) these igloos look like hundreds of little Great Pyrmids (from the front angle). An eery site, flat sagebrush desert, and dust blowing across the setting sun. I think there are about 4,000 of these pyrmids.

Thank God they're disassembling them, but with caution. There's 35 sirens located throught the small neighboring communities, with fire departments continually doing evacuation exercises.

I've know several celtic musicians who have worked at the Hanford Nuclear Facility over the years. I once asked them about removing the dams on the mightly Columbia River and they told me that one of the reasons that would never happen is because of the contamination from the plant that leaked out over the years and settled in the bottom of the river. IOW, it would be a public health hazard. I guess they figure that as long as we are only windsufing on the surface...there's nothing to worry about! :(
jim stone
Posts: 17192
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

The question asked above seems a good one:
why do you think this will harm the
environment?
tansy
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: SV/Strayaway

Post by tansy »

far less sinester(SP) things than chemical weapons harm the enviroment, so i feel that they would. i could be wrong. i am not a chemist, just a gut reaction to a bad situation at best. they exist and the people who made them live among us.
do you believe it harmless to burn these weapons?
they probably can not be stored for ever.
humans are not intellegent enough to have such things as these and nuclear power/weapons. they let fear and greed rule them too often.
tansy
shy the blond water
User avatar
chas
Posts: 7707
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: East Coast US

Post by chas »

tansy wrote:far less sinester(SP) things than chemical weapons harm the enviroment, so i feel that they would. i could be wrong. i am not a chemist, just a gut reaction to a bad situation at best. they exist and the people who made them live among us.
do you believe it harmless to burn these weapons?
they probably can not be stored for ever.
humans are not intellegent enough to have such things as these and nuclear power/weapons. they let fear and greed rule them too often.
tansy
I agree with some of this. I also agree that we should never have been making chemical weapons.

But some of what's said above shows some of the false dichotomies of the environmental-industrial complex. You say that these weapons can't be stored forever, but don't want them burned. Then what's the alternative? The safest thing is to burn them. As has been pointed out, done properly, it's not harmful. Would you rather be in the shoes of the people in DC who have chemical weapons buried in their yards, some of which have been leaking? If those had been buned instead of buried, none of that would be happening. I'm sorry, but the NIMBY attitude just can't hold everywhere. I'd much rather have these things incinerated near me than have the very real possibility of someone harmed elsewhere due to improper disposal of them.

Second you say that people aren't intelligent enough to have nuclear power, but they let fear and greed rule them. Again, what's the alternative? We can keep burning fossil fuels, pumping CO2 into the air. Alternatively, we can rely to a great extent on nuclear power, which creates no greenhouse gases and is extremely safe compared to coal mines, oil spills, etc., when properly regulated. There is a disposal problem, but, again, it's a NIMBY attitude that's the primary problem. Fear is, in fact, the thing that's preventing us from implementing nuclear power, which is quite possibly the best alternative to fossil fuels and the best solution for reduction of global CO2 levels.

What about solar and wind, you ask? Well, unless we really curtail (and I'm not talking about back to 1990 levels, I'm talking about 1900 levels) our power consumption, wind is simply not going to provide a great percentage of our power -- the windy places are generally not near population centers (transmission losses would be great), and there aren't enough of them. Solar is a mixed bag. There are chemicals used in the production of solar panels that are nastier than any of the chemical weapons you are worried about. They're very expensive to produce -- I looked into going solar myself, and I would have had to have the panels for like 80 years to pay for themselves, nevermind the batteries (expensive, plus toxic waste to dispose of). And, there's cloud cover 240 days a year here. As with wind, if you want to produce power commercially, most of the best places are away from population, it's expensive, and there may not be enough sunny area to produce a significant percentage of what we use.

I've studied it. I honestly think nuclear is the most environmentally friendly type of power.
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
illuminatus99
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:52 am

Post by illuminatus99 »

tansy wrote:far less sinester(SP) things than chemical weapons harm the enviroment, so i feel that they would. i could be wrong. i am not a chemist, just a gut reaction to a bad situation at best. they exist and the people who made them live among us.
do you believe it harmless to burn these weapons?
they probably can not be stored for ever.
humans are not intellegent enough to have such things as these and nuclear power/weapons. they let fear and greed rule them too often.
tansy
many chemicals, even chemical weapons can be neutralized either chemically or by incineration. for example chlorine gas was used in WWI if I remember right, simply combine it with sodium and you get salt, or you can force the gas into water to make bleach, but breathe it and you're toast.
User avatar
Blackbeer
Posts: 1112
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Wrong side of Washington state

Post by Blackbeer »

I hear what your saying Tansy and what we have done to our children and their children is truely unforgivable. We have habitualized ourselves to a way of life that is not in harmony with the earth. And guess what. Nobody cares. As long as we can party on friday night and drive our rigs and have our way then the hell with it. But I do know one thing, this planet will out live us by a mile.

Tom

OUR LIVES BEGIN TO END THE DAY WE BECOME SILENT ABOUT THINGS THAT MATTER
Martin Luther King jr
User avatar
Walden
Chiffmaster General
Posts: 11030
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
Contact:

Post by Walden »

So this isn't a thread about Dale's collection of low whistles?
Reasonable person
Walden
User avatar
Daniel_Bingamon
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Location: Kings Mills, OH
Contact:

Post by Daniel_Bingamon »

Yes, solar cells take pretty dangerous chemicals to make.
Cheap low power solar cells can be produced in large quantities with
lesser dangerous chemicals though:

http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks3/solar/index.html

You do have to consider what the word 'dangerous' means though.

Take table salt for instance - separate it and you have bombs and deadly gas.

Take ordinary ammonia cleaner and mix it with clorox and your in a lot of trouble. Chlorine gas.

Many things can be done regarding the environment - I wish people in politics and other area would use thier hands rather than their mouths as a solution.
'
You know, for example when we used unleaded fuel and much lead content polluted the ground around the highways. Also pollen seems to be a big deal these days - it affects more people. Any relationship? Yes, Ragweed is a phytoremediator - it pumps lead out of the soil, the pollen is contaminated. Now, I am not ready to give up my automobile - besides it uses unlead fuel. However, it would seem that someone would offer a solution - either kill the ragweed and leave the lead in the ground or harvest it and bury it somewhere. Is it a problem to bury lead in the ground? Why it came from the ground.
allezlesbleus
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:15 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: The Southern Part of Heaven
Contact:

Post by allezlesbleus »

Some like the burning:

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/poli ... m?hdlid=32

Some don't:

http://lwvbmc.iclub.org/Pentagon%20Recommends.htm

Weird that it's the Pentagon that initiated non-incineration program and now are burning again?

I agree that NIMBY is a definite problem with a lot of hazmat disposal sites but I also agree that C & B munitions are about as freaky as hazmat gets.

A whole bunch of bad options...why did we even create these weapons in the first place? Oops, sorry, dumb question. :roll:

PC
"You think you've cornered the truth, so I point out that you may have missed a thing or two."
--Carl Sagan from <i>Contact</i>
jim stone
Posts: 17192
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Here's the apparent end of the story, for now anyway.
Environmental groups went to court to block the
incineration.

Judge Allows Army to Incinerate Weapons
Fri Aug 8, 6:57 PM ET
<http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/my/my16.gif> Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer

ANNISTON, Ala. - The Army plans to start destroying Cold War-era chemical weapons Saturday at its incinerator near Anniston, the first time the military has burned the deadly munitions near a populated area.

The timetable to start destroying the chemical weapons came Friday after a judge in Washington rejected motions by opponents to delay it. The incinerator will begin operations Saturday morning unless weather or other factors cause a delay, incinerator spokesman Mike Abrams said.

The Army plans only "limited burns" on weekends and between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays until certain schools and other community buildings near the incinerator are provided with safety pressurization this fall.

Opponents say incineration raises too great a risk near homes and schools ? about 35,000 people live in the "pink zone" within 9 miles of the Army site, which is about 50 miles east of Alabama's most populous city, Birmingham.

The Army's decision came only hours after U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling cleared the way for burning to begin.

After the judge's decision, Sharon McConathy took her granddaughter to pick up safety gear being provided to thousands of Anniston-area people ? protective hoods that resemble gas masks and plastic sheeting to seal up a room in her mobile home in the event of an accident.

"It's real scary," McConathy said. "I think they're putting everybody at risk."

The Army and others in the Anniston area contend it is far safer to burn the chemical weapons than leave them in the concrete bunkers at the depot.

Environmentalists had asked Jackson first for a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction blocking the startup, but he denied both. He said their arguments were "purely speculative" and they had not shown sufficiently that "harm will flow."

Craig Williams, executive director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, which filed for the restraining order, said it may take days to decide if the ruling will be appealed.

"It's a sad day for those in Anniston and for this nation when our government is unwilling to prevent U.S. citizens from exposure to toxic chemicals," Williams said.

The Army had planned to begin destroy some 2,254 tons of nerve agents and mustard gas this past Wednesday, a project expected to take seven years. But the military agreed to a delay so the hearing before Jackson could be held.

Sherri Sumners, president of the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites), said a few opponents have created hysteria among some in the community.

"They have been told so much and heard so much," Sumners said. "Incineration is a lot better than letting it sit out there."

She expects most community fears to subside after the incinerator has operated safety for a couple of months.

Betty Wall, who lives outside of the pink zone, went to pick up her safety gear after seeing news reports Friday that the incinerator was about to begin operating.

"You just don't know what's going to happen," she said. "People just need to get right with the Lord."

David Ford, a spokesman with the county Emergency Management ency, said about 3,300 people have picked up safety gear this week at an old military building where it is being given out free, but Friday was slow.

"We don't know how many are left who want it," he said.

He said about 6,000 of the protective hoods remain to be given out.

Williams' group advocates another method of destruction called chemical neutralization, but the Army contends incineration is just as safe. About 7 percent of the nation's stockpile of Cold War-era chemical weapons is in Anniston.


[
TelegramSam
Posts: 2258
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by TelegramSam »

actually, burning is a crummy way to destroy much of anything, even standard garbage. Things like heavy metals won't burn away and a concentrated toxin is left behind, the smoke pollutes the air and generally it's just a poor way of disposing of garbage, particularly toxic garbage.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
Post Reply