Recent editorials and news-itorials (editorials disguised as “news”) in The Star have been aimed at “neutralizing” the Chemical Weapons Working Group’s (CWWG) effectiveness in getting the truth out about chemical weapons incineration.Recognizing The Star’s historical posture — defending incineration under all circumstances — these attacks reflect The Star’s siege mentality as possible start up approaches.
Extracting statements out of context to “spin” facts is an old method of creating an image tailored to one’s agenda — The Star editors and Jason Landers have perfected it.
Word restrictions on responding conveniently prohibit a point by point rebuttal, but a few scream for attention.
The Star’s news(itorial) of Jan. 1, 2003 (“A Matter of Trust”) states there will be “seven smokestacks” in Colorado and that retrofitting ANCDF is impossible — pure prejudicial fantasy. By carefully mixing: sources, data, agencies, disposal systems and quotes, Landers crafted a totally inaccurate comparison of controllable neutralization vs. open-ended incineration and possible options.
Example: Landers writes that neutralization efforts in the 1970’s did not completely destroy agent. This statement has been proven wrong by scientific reviews done over 15 years.
Example: Landers attempts to downplay the incineration emissions, comparing them to existing emissions. Existing emissions do not contain GB, VX, Mustard and PCB’s — just to name a few. Comparing volume without comparing toxicity is meaningless — other than to create a desired image.
Example: Landers writes that ACWA officials say that more dioxins and furans will be emitted from Colorado’s neutralization vs. Anniston’s incinerator. This has been flatly and unequivocally denied by the ACWA program. Show us the hard data Mr. Landers — please!
So many examples — so few words allowed by The Star to respond.
Concerning the NRC report the pro-incineration crowd waves around like some manifested prophecy from the New Testament — our position — “it’s a whitewash” — remains. The Star’s focus both in articles and in editorials on my noting possible conflicts of interest ignored my repeated qualification to Landers of this possibility being based on a “very preliminary review.” He then printed an inflammatory remark out of context as my stated position. That was very unprofessional. My apologies to those whom The Star claimed I accused in order to advance their sabotaging myself and my organization.
The more important aspects of criticism were conveniently glossed over.
Example: Over 1,000 pages of documents, submitted on a single agent incident in Utah — perhaps the largest release to date — ignored by the Committee.
Example: Reviewing safety of processing fully loaded rockets. Committee — “outside our scope.” Yet the scope directs they “review process technology/ operational activities” which would clearly include the “chop ’n’ drop” of rockets.
Finally, the Star’s maligning the CWWG for supporting one NRC Report endorsing neutralization while criticizing another for supporting incineration, is irrational, infantile and asinine. Turn it around and The Star supports neutralization! No, intelligent people should reach conclusions based on specific evaluations, not blind devotion to organizations. I recommend the Star consider this and note that all stockpile sites (4) that have chosen a technology since 1996 have selected neutralization over incineration.
Craig Williams, Director
Chemical Weapons Working Group
Berea, Ky.
