Some of the top scientists in the nation have, once again, taken a look at the question of destruction of chemical weapons and have determined that Anniston as well as communities in Arkansas and Oregon should proceed as “quickly as possible” with incineration.Now that really ought to be the end of it. Hasn’t this debate gone on long enough? Isn’t it time this community move forward with the destruction of these lethal agents, materials that pose a constant threat to this community, contribute to our awful image and work to depress economic development? Isn’t it time we begin the process that will bring about the rebirth of this community?
The scientists with the National Research Council put it rather straightforward when they said the risks of continued storage of the stockpile outweigh any risks presented by incineration and that the incineration process is sound.
So based on science, and on what the scientists tell us, we should begin burning the stockpile as quickly as possible.
That ought to be clear.
But it isn’t to everyone. In fact, some of the people who insisted that the NRC do this study are now debunking the report and calling the scientists part of some dark conspiracy to bolster the Army’s desire to use incineration.
Craig Williams, the director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group — the Kentucky-based organization that advocates an alternative neutralization disposal technology — called the study a “whitewash” and insisted that “the report is anything but objective and balanced.”
He also went on to attack the NRC directly by saying the report “is a setback for the credibility of the National Research Council.”
That kind of talk is a clear indication that Mr. Williams is fine with the NRC as long as he agrees with the body’s findings. We say that because just a few short weeks ago Williams was full of good words to say about the NRC when it issued a report that favored neutralization of the stockpile in Kentucky.
Williams’ response to this week’s report means he places little value in the science and much in his agenda — to push for neutralization.
While we appreciate Mr. Williams’ concern for our community, we would ask kindly that he recognize that there is a very big difference between the advice he dispenses and the advice dispensed by 13 of the top scientists in the field of chemical incineration in the nation. For that matter we will add that there is a huge amount of difference between the advice offered up by some of our county commissioners and the scientists.
We know and respect our commission members, even those who continue to bad mouth incineration and advocate neutralization — a process that will surely delay destruction of the stockpile. But we have to point out that there is not a Ph.D. in physics or chemistry among them.
So we have to ask the question: Whose advice should we follow, a group of men who are self-described “road commissioners” or a group of people who have devoted their lives to science?
Sorry, but we’ll go with the scientists.
While this report makes it clear that we should move forward with incineration, it also stresses the need for tough oversight and attention to safety procedures.
There have been some 40 serious incidents, the report found, at Johnston Island and at Tooele, Utah. Since human error is the biggest worry in incineration the best way to keep more accidents from occurring is, in the words of one government official, to create a “safety culture.”
So the people who run our incinerator should take the advice of the NRC and place a greater emphasis on training and safety, learn from the mistakes of the past at the other facilities and then prepare for the incineration of the stockpile.
