Incinerator emissions
The response to a citizen's legitimate concerns about emissions from the Anniston Chemical Weapons Incinerator (Speak Out: July 9) misses the mark and omits some keys facts. Mr. Tim Garrett (the Army's site project manager at the incinerator) stated, "This proven technology will not emit poisons into the environment." The Army's own data show this statement to be untrue. Army trial burn results from both its chemical weapons incinerators - in the Pacific and in Utah - show that the Alabama incinerator will definitely emit toxic chemicals, of this there is no doubt and no argument among the experts.
The following toxic chemicals, that are documented stack emissions from the trial burns, are already contaminating the entire country, including the Anniston population, above any "safe" or "acceptable" levels: dioxins, lead and mercury. The effects from those toxic pollutants will be compounded by chromium, cadmium and PCBs that are also documented emissions. In addition, identified stack PICs (Products of Incomplete Combustion) at the Pacific facility include acetone, benzene, toluene, vinyl acetate, styrene and xylenes, among other poisons. A number of these compounds are known human carcinogens.
Then you must add to the above toxic brew the low levels of nerve and blister agents that will be emitted on a regular basis and at higher quantities during upsets. Incinerators, as any other piece of industrial equipment, are imperfect and the accident track record of such incinerators varies from not good to abysmal. As for the carbon filters often portrayed as mitigating such emissions, the Army's own studies show, "the PFS (Pollution Filter System) at Anniston has no overall effect on health risk results . . . and in fact may increase risk to workers if installed."
Scientific evidence refutes any claims of "no threat" from the Anniston incinerator. In a community already heavily contaminated with PCBs, lead, mercury and other poisons, it is a grave disservice to the affected residents for an Army spokesman to make such an erroneous and misleading statement.
Peter deFur, Ph.D.
Co-chair, Peer Review of National Dioxin Reassessment,
July 2000
Adjunct faculty member, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia
Incineration technology
Wake up folks! In less than a year the Army is going to begin burning some very powerful and dangerous chemicals at Anniston Army Depot. Those in favor of incineration as a method of destruction for the aging and leaking rockets at AAD have touted its safety. If it is so safe, why the necessity of evacuation routes, hoods, and duct tape and plastic to seal our windows for protection. It appears our county is taking war time precautions as the citizens of Israel do. If we have to be protected by such drastic measures, incineration as a method of destruction is not the method of choice.
That the rockets must be destroyed is not in dispute, but the technology to get that job done certainly is. The Army has told us that incineration is the way to do this. Perhaps in two years the Army may come up with another safer way - just as cars are revamped to make them safer and medicines are developed to save lives. I have read information that says these rockets are probably safe until 2043; some even say the rockets may be safer longer. What is the hurry?
A recent letter to The Star's editor stated that the Depot workers faced more danger from a traffic accident as they traveled to work than they did from being around these rockets. Alternate technologies, especially those that do not involve an open smokestack, can provide safety.
We must demand a technology where a cataclysmic accident will not poison the air, causing us to run for shelter. This technology must involve solutions that control these pollutants before they contaminate the environment. For many years to come Sarin (a nerve agent), VX (a nerve agent), and mustard (an agent) are going to be burned day in and day out - their toxic fumes leaking into the air that we breathe. Thus, on a daily basis our children and ourselves will take in these horrific chemicals. I do believe that those with the means and opportunity will no longer want to call Calhoun County home and will seek communities where their health and welfare are a real priority. The presence of this man-made monster surely can not be a selling point for our community as it seeks to develop Fort McClellan.
We must contact our elected officials, including our state and national congressmen, our county commissioners, our mayors, our governor and, if need be, our president and demand that the incinerator not begin to burn - that other ways, safer ways be used to deal with the rockets.
We must also thank the Calhoun County Commission and the County EMA for their efforts in this David and Goliath battle to protect the residents of Calhoun County.
We have been too quiet on this issue because it seemed so far away, but the burn date draws closer now and it is time to speak up and say NO, NOT HERE!
Sherry Blanton
Jacksonville
Editor's note: The Army will respond to the above letters on Wednesday's editorial page.
The anti-missile network
The expenditure of what will finally turn out to be hundreds of billions of dollars on the missile defense system is bad judgment.
The first nuclear strike against the United States will not be launched as a missile from a foreign country. That would be spotted by one of our "spy in the sky satellites" and we would know where to retaliate. It is much more likely that a tramp steamer, registered in Panama, will pull up to the dock in New York and start unloading its cargo. The crew will not even be aware that there is an atomic bomb disguised in the hold.
We won't know where to retaliate. Since this could happen quite soon we should expand our coast guard functions and inspect every ship headed for our ports. We should encourage all the European countries and Japan to do likewise.
There are other anonymous ways to deliver bombs without using missiles and we can be sure some hate-filled group backed by money from Iran, Iraq, Libya or bin Laden has already thought of them.
Let us hope that our National Security "Think Tanks" are busy. If we expend enormous amounts of money and human resources (in terms of scientists and engineers) on a nuclear defense shield, the terrorist groups will have won a great victory.
As President Reagan would say, "Here we go again."
Thomas D. Hutchinson
Anniston
Tort reform
Tort Reform in Alabama was a good idea gone bad.
I recently had a fire at my building on Quintard Avenue and have found it impossible to get the insurance company to pay or even hurry the process. Speaking with five different attorney firms I discovered that the Tort Reform law has limitations on it that allows for abuse from insurance companies and large firms.
It does not hold insurance companies "accountable" for their abuse. This means consumers, small businesses and their attorneys suing them is limited to damages so small that the insurance companies no longer fear damages against them.
This leads to an abusive system that could bankrupt hundreds if not thousands of consumers and businesses in Alabama. Tort reform must be changed to allow for damages to be severe enough to make the insurance industry accountable.
Apparently the insurance industry has rich and powerful lobbyists who have lobbied for years for tort reform. Now they have the law on their side and can abuse the system.
God help you if you have a fire loss. You could be the victim of a good idea (tort reform) gone bad.
Ronnie Griffin
Anniston
DHR
Amen, someone else knows what I know about the Department of Human Resources. I don't understand the way DHR works. I live in Clanton and have been trying to get a child out of foster care for nearly two months now.
Do they really help our children that are in need of help or do they put the children in worse situations?
Felicia Wilkins
Clanton
