Dear Sir:
I am writing to express my opposition to Chemical Weapons Incineration
in
Alabama. If safer alternatives to incineration can be utilized
in Pueblo,
Colorado, there is no reason to make Alabama residents feel like
second-class citizens who do not deserve equal governmental protection.
In these troubled times when people are deeply concerned about
possible
terrorist attacks, when their very security at home is thrown
into doubt, I
find it incredulous that the government would intentionally throw
people
into harm's way by burning chemical weapons. Imagine the confusion
experienced by children being told to put on gas masks not because
a
horrible terrorist has attacked their state with chemical weapons
but
because the US government chose incineration - rather than available,
safer
alternatives to incineration - to deal with chemical weapons.
What will the
headlines say? What will the media photos communicate to American
children
and citizens across the US?
Now is the time for us to show how deeply we respect people's
concern about
terrorist threats and the hazards of biological and chemical weaponry
by
mandating safer neutralization alternatives instead of incineration.
Incineration creates both hazardous air emissions as well as contaminated
ash that then becomes a disposal problem. Since it is not safe,
I urge you
to choose safer alternatives as exemplified by recent decision
making for
Pueblo, Colorado.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on this important matter.
God bless
you and the safety of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Judith Robinson
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
************************************
Dear Secretary Aldridge,
I applaud your decision to recommend water neutralization and
biological
treatment for destruction of the mustard agent stockpile in Pueblo,
Colorado. I support the use of safer technologies for such wastes
and I
thank you for your courage in recommending this technology which
will
accomplish the job while protecting the health and safety of the
residents
of Pueblo. I am very pleased at the Army's forward-thinking decision
in
this matter.
However, I am appalled that while Pueblo residents are being
offered a safe,
non-incineration destruction technology, the community near the
chemical
weapons incineration site in Anniston, Alabama are being offered
gas masks.
According to the 2000 Census, Pueblo is 76% white while Anniston
is 49%
black. It it crucial that communities of color be afforded the
same
protection as majority-white communities.
Trial burns recently began at the incinerator in Anniston --
a community
ravaged by industrial and military contamination from PCBs, lead,
mercury
and tricholoethelyne. If allowed to operate, the chemical weapons
incinerator will release more PCBs, more lead, more mercury and
chemical
agents into the environment. This is unacceptable.
Incineration is a reckless, dangerous technology. Low-temperature,
low-pressure neutralization methods can destroy chemical agents
without
further destroying public health. Please take steps immediately
to afford
maximum protection from chemical agent to Alabama citizens by
implementing
safer, non-incineration technologies.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Taylor
Bowdoinham, Maine
************************************
Dear Secretary Aldridge,
After over fifteen years of serious engagement on this issue,
including national and international grassroots organizing, one
thing is clear to me. Every time the Army ignores citizen input
and proceeds with plans to incinerate chemical weapons, the schedule
gets farther behind and the baseline technology develops more
problems. And in the cases where alternative technologies are
applied--Maryland, Indiana, and now Colorado, the program moves
forward quickly, effectively, and with active citizen assistance
in the regulatory realm. Please review the decision to proceed
with incineration in Alabama. It's just a bad idea, and an accident
waiting to happen. Alternative technologies could eliminate the
population risk more quickly, and more importantly, more safely.
Thank you for your time to consider this.
Sincerely,
Peter Hille
Berea, Kentucky
************************************
Dear Mr. Aldridge,
We are writing from Green Bay, Wisconsin to oppose the military's
plans to
incinerate chemical stockpiles in several places around the world.
We know
there are safer alternatives which could and should be used, such
as the
destruction technology to be used by the military in Pueblo, Colorado.
It makes no sense to try to destroy dangerous chemicals and
in the process
create new toxic air pollution to be distributed willy-nilly across
the
countryside, contaminating everyone's food base. Here in the
Great Lakes
region, the air deposition of toxic incineration byproducts is
a serious
contamination problem for the lakes. Our valuable fishery is
being loaded
with long-distance toxic fall-out which threatens public and wildlife
health.
Wisconsin is also a dairy state, and very vulnerable to dioxin
and furan
contamination (and other toxic incineration byproducts) falling
on the
pastures and fodder used by dairy cows. A recent study by researchers
from
New York State found that dioxin contamination in milk on 4 Wisconsin
farms was predictable based on incoming air contamination, often
from long
distances, and mostly from incineration sources.
We are also extremely interested in the Anniston, Alabama,
situation and
have followed their local news articles for more than a year.
They have a
severe PCB contamination problem, as we do in Green Bay. (For
more
information, please visit our website at: http://www.foxriverwatch.com
).
Neither of our communities can afford more toxic contamination,
as the
general population is already well-over the health effects thresholds
identified by local and national health agencies. To impose
another toxic air
pollution source on the Anniston population is to add insult to
injury. That
community has already suffered enough and needs better treatment
from
government agencies.
The bottom line is that the military is supposed to advance
public security,
not poison us. Please use safer methods.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Katers, Exec. Dir.
Clean Water Action Council of N.E. Wisconsin, Inc.