Chris Waddle’s “Light My Fire” took The Star’s editorial page to a new low.According to Mr. Waddle, anyone who disagrees with The Star’s highly selective and routinely twisted “investigation” of incineration is as demented as some unnamed lady who saw a three-headed dog on Pelham Range 15 years ago. In Mr. Waddle’s eyes, opponents of incineration as well as advocates of collective protection and accurate toxicity thresholds are nothing more than “protestors” who have set an “hysterical tone” throughout this debate. Mr. Waddle levels the accusation that incineration opponents “made up their mind on incineration. Then they set out to get the facts ...” Actually, Mr. Waddle nor The Star has not let facts stand in the way of the pro incineration mantra. Indeed The Star has continued to withhold important information from readers.
Just look at what has happened in the last month. On Dec. 3, the Calhoun County Commission wrote to Gov.-elect Bob Riley to ask about his position on the federal government’s failure to overpressurize our schools, to require the most accurate toxicity thresholds, to protect our special needs population, and to get the Army to turn on the sirens in the event of an accident. The Star never reported anything on this.
The same is true of Sen. Richard Shelby’s letter of Dec. 12th to Army Assistant Secretary Brownlee in which the senator asked pointed questions about the Army’s failure to use the EPA’s AEGLS (revised toxicity levels) after promising 14 months ago that it would do so immediately. Sen. Shelby also asked for answers about why collective protection has not been completed, why no plan is in place for our special needs population, and why the Army continues to refuse to warn and notify our citizens. Once again The Star did not report this. (If readers want to know what The Star is not telling you, both letters can be found at the Chemical Weapons Working Group’s website, www.cwwg.org
The Star’s editorial page took the same approach to a letter that nine eminent Ph.D.s sent to The Star weeks ago. These nine scientists disagreed with the National Research Council’s recent report and defended alternative technology. Their letter was a response to another Star editorial attacking incineration opponents as being ignorant because they lacked Ph.D.s and belittling our local County officials as mere “road commissioners.” When The Star finally published that letter, it listed only two of the nine Ph.D.s who signed the letter. Once again The Star gives its readers a false impression of the level of our support in the scientific community.
Mr. Waddle advocates incineration that he says is “swift” (several years for disposal), and “safe elimination of the stockpile” (upset conditions? spiked feed rates? constant emissions of heavy metals, PCBs, lead, chemical agents, and other toxins?).
We’re working for a safer and faster option.
Brenda Lindell
Anniston
