LETTERS

Speak Out ... On incineration monitoring

By our readers
11-28-2003

Surely additional (continuous) monitoring for chemical weapons incineration is safer. Congress (Thanks Senator Shelby!) thought so, too. These are our deadliest weapons; the Army’s incineration technology has had problems, and the current monitoring system, sensitive and prone to false alarms, can require an hour’s lab work to verify, or can lead (i.e., Utah’s incinerator) to a real sarin leak being wrongly written off as a false alarm.

I was happy, therefore, to read Birmingham News’ Nov. 18 editorial, a sensible “both/and,” not the Army’s false “either/or” view of monitors: use both the old monitors and the new monitors. “... The Army doesn’t have to choose one or the other. It can add a second system that would provide instantaneous monitoring for large leaks while the original monitors could still screen for low-level leaks that could pose more of a long-term hazard to incinerator workers.”

Thanks to the Birmingham News for providing the leadership so greatly needed in our area!

Gene Blanton
Jacksonville