Speak Out

Speakers' Stand ... On incineration and technology

By our readers
12-31-2002

In what was by far the most ill-informed and offensive pro-incineration speech I’ve ever witnessed, WJXS television host Jay Holland recently went on for several minutes at a time while his guest Mike Abrams sat silent. Anyone unfamiliar with the show would have thought that Abrams was the host and Holland the guest. At one point Holland said that all those bringing suits against the incinerator are “environmental wackos,” that the opinions of people who are not experts should count for nothing, and (unbelievably!) that neutralization is good only for treating bulk agent. I’d like to respond. First, the following is a partial list of the environmental wackos who have sued to stop the incinerator: the Alabama Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Coosa River Basin Initiative, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, Friends of Terrapin Creek, Friends of Rural Alabama, the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Families Concerned about Nerve Gas Incineration, Serving Alabama’s Future Environment, and Wild Alabama Inc. Second, the idea that only the views of scientists and experts should count makes one question Holland’s basic assumptions about citizenship. For instance, by an analogy he strongly hinted that English teachers in particular should concern themselves only with teaching English and should not entertain serious opinions on such technical matters as incineration. In fact, it was in English classes at Wash-ington & Lee University and the Univer-sity of Montevallo that I learned, from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University, that the most fundamental purpose of a liberal education is training for responsible citizenship in a democratic society. Newman teaches that responsible citizens are open minded, well read, well informed, think for themselves, and work to improve their communities by attempting to influence public policy through sharing their views on any number of diverse issues. I recommend that Holland read Newman’s classic. He apparently knows nothing about it. Finally, Holland’s own abysmal ignorance is appalling and inexcusable. He is obviously unaware of the fact that the Pentagon itself recently recommended neutralization for the treatment of rockets at Colorado and Kentucky and that the National Research Council recently stated that neutralization is “a mature, safe and effective” way to treat Kentucky’s stockpile. Kentucky has the same kinds of rockets as Anniston. If we’re going to have a competent local television station, it’ll have to do a lot better than this if it is to gain the respect and viewership of thoughtful citizens. Rufus Kinney Jacksonville A response In response to recent letters regarding a televised program on chemical incineration, the writers did not hear the message of the program. My view of chemical incineration was developed over the past eight or so years of study by conducting interviews with developers of the technology, listening to true experts, people who have several degrees, even doctorate degrees, in this field (and isn’t education the most important thing in this state?). I have read voluminous reports, books and legal opinions. I have visited the site on two occasions, and have talked to those who will run the plant, and I have seen, first hand, the extraordinary safety precautions built into this reliable system. I have personally talked to many, many people who work at the plant. They are bright, well educated, highly qualified, most with families right here in northeast Alabama. Not one of them had a “death-wish,” they all felt that they were safe and were very comfortable with the safety precautions the Army has put in place. In short, we have the technology, the expertise and, most importantly, the redundant and congruent safety systems in place to continue the already outstanding safety record the Army has compiled in destroying the vast amount of chemical weaponry already destroyed. Now, after my honest confession of trust in what the Army is doing, based on my own personal initiative to truly and objectively study the incineration process over a long period of time, I would challenge the writers to do the same. I believe those who are against incineration are the real culprits in scaring the citizens by suggesting that the Army is not responsible and that this technology is fallible and unsafe. To borrow a phrase, to the contrary, the Army is on our side and they have done an exceptional job to ensure the safety of the public. They have bent over backwards in laying out millions and millions of dollars of your tax money on unnecessary expenditures to please a fanatic few. The point is, we can safely destroy these weapons by fire and be environmentally sensitive in the process. After it is all over, our Northeast Alabama community, which I so dearly love, will be a much safer and better place to live and raise our children. J. Holland Southside

About Speak Out

Letters should be 200 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length, libel and taste. All letters are verified with the author before publication.

Contact Speak Out

Phone: Fax: Mail: E-mail:

256-235-3557 256-241-1991 POBox 189, Anniston 36202 speakout@annistonstar.com