“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
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.
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
Yes, it does. But keep this quiet, we wouldn’t want the word to get out!..
Don’t worry, maybe we’ll have Iraq rebuilt by then and we can move Alabama there.
You’re not the one who should feel ashamed, Tansy. I share your sadness.
All the best,
Patrick
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!
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!
The question asked above seems a good one:
why do you think this will harm the
environment?
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.
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.
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
So this isn’t a thread about Dale’s collection of low whistles?
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.
Some like the burning:
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?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
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.
[
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.
It seems that every weapons inventor since Gattling has said that his invention would make war too terrible to comtemplate. And every inventor should have been right - but out capacity for the terrible is much greater than any single person can immagine.
American society is unsustainable at a world level. (no great shocker) but we are slowly reducing the earnings of the “ordinary” person.
I suspect that we don’t poison ourselves first, poverty will solve some of the problems of polution
As it turns out, the Undisputed lives about 50 minutes down the Interstate from the Anniston depot. I’m not sure what makes me more nervous, the incineration process or the ongoing storage of these chemical weapons. They have tons and tons of evil stuff there. You know, the kind of get-one-drop-on-your-skin-and-you’re-a-dead-guy kind of thing. Actually. I do know what makes me more nervous–the ongoing storage. I just have to, uh, trust the Army technical people to know what they are doing. They’ve been preparing to start this burn for a long time. Incidentally, it’s starting right NOW.
Dale
As it turns out, the Undisputed lives about 50 minutes down the Interstate from the Anniston depot. I’m not sure what makes me more nervous, the incineration process or the ongoing storage of these chemical weapons. They have tons and tons of evil stuff there. You know, the kind of get-one-drop-on-your-skin-and-you’re-a-dead-guy kind of thing. Actually. I do know what makes me more nervous–the ongoing storage. I just have to, uh, trust the Army technical people to know what they are doing. They’ve been preparing to start this burn for a long time. Incidentally, it’s starting right NOW.
Dale
What really puzzles me is that they didnt bring in PAul Stametts and his Mushrooms of mass destruction 
http://www.fungi.com to do the job. Fungi perfecti already has a strain of mycelium that safely breaks down one of the nerve agents (cant remeber which one), and already has relations with the DOD.
The really neato mushroom they have is one that will decompose 95% of aromatic hydrocarbons, as in oil spills.. For only $30 you can try this at home with a doormat sized mycelium infected doormat thingie…
just saw on the news they plan to burn 10 rockets today, they drain the chemicals and burn them and chop up the rockets and they go to a land fill. they plan to be burning 40 per hour by next year 
.
there was one lone soul outside the gate protesting with a sign.
fluctuating between outrage and sorrow, tansy 