KittyCat72
02-27-2009, 04:23 PM
It's a lot of information, but I didn't want to summarize. You should probably take the time to read it though... it is pretty important.
By Rosalind Peterson
February 21, 2009
NewsWithViews. com
http://newswithview s.com/Peterson/ rosalind114. htm
The United States Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have
decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of
Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for
public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation
will include all of the State of Washington, all of the State of
Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. This
area will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from
California to Washington. (The map designating this program area
also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay
Area under a "warning area" designation. )
The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens
and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on
their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with a final public
comment deadline extended to March 11, 2009, this document is
approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments. In addition
to a short comment time the Navy limited public hearings to five,
with only one held in Oregon, one in California and no hearings in
Idaho. The Navy has allegedly failed to place information about this
EIS in major newspapers or inform our elected representatives about
this program.
Thus, citizens in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are
asking for a realistic extension of time to read, study, and comment
on this decision by the Navy and the Department of Defense, past the
March 11, 2009, deadline. It should be noted that most elected
representatives in California and Oregon were not aware of this EIS
or the consequences of this action by the Navy.
The Navy has declared that this draft was distributed to our elected
representatives. If so, then why haven't our elected officials
spoken up to defend our rights to be heard, required more public
meetings and hearings in California, Washington, Idaho (where not
one was held), and Oregon?
The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Commander of
the U.S. Pacific Fleet have decided, without our consent, that that
are going to use the Pacific Ocean off the Coast of California,
Oregon and Washington and the land over four states to test weapons
of war. They did not contact Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to obtain
permission to use the Nevada Test Site for these warfare
experiments. Instead they decided to use public lands, the Pacific
Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for
warfare testing in four states.
The Navy also has decided to contaminate our air, water, and soils
with the chemicals used in these programs. They fail to list many of
the chemicals that are to be used in these programs. Thus, under the
Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a complete listing of
all chemicals that will be used during these testing programs. It is
easy for the Navy EIS to state that they can mitigate for such toxic
usage but fail to disclose a complete listing of said chemicals.
Also copies of contamination studies conducted at other military
test sites where contamination problems were found and at bases
(like Fallon Air Force Base).
The draft EIS does not fully address the potential environmental
impacts on multiple resources, like air quality, water resources,
airborne acoustic environment (on land and in the ocean), biological
resources, marine and terrestrial impacts and human health and
safety. Without a complete understanding of their programs it is
impossible to determine any impacts…thus, their EIS states that "…
there are no significant impacts…" This statement is made throughout
the entire document even though many of the chemicals used are
highly toxic.
With the failure of the EIS to identify all of the air quality,
water quality, and soils impacts of their programs this EIS appears
to be a whitewash designed to stampede this program through as fast
as the Navy can implement it. And in listing only a few of the EPA
list of toxic chemicals that will be released by military aircraft
(like jet fuel emissions), the Navy has avoided any discussion of
negative impacts on air and water quality. It is not sufficient to
state that our air is already polluted and that additional
pollutants will make no difference in air quality.
There is a short listing of hazardous materials, air pollutants, and
pollutants from munitions, expended materials, and radioactive
materials to will be used in this project. I am requesting a
complete listing of all chemicals that will be used by the Navy, Air
Force, and any other branch of the Department of Defense in this
project. Inshore and offshore detonations may or may not be
considered hazardous – however, until a complete listing of these
chemicals is provided to the public there can be no public
discussion of their hazard to public health, marine life, wildlife,
public drinking water sources or our oceans. The avoidance of making
this specific list public leads one to believe that these hazardous
materials and chemicals are toxic and do pose environmental hazards.
It is interesting that Table ES-5 Summary of Effects (Page ES-16) –
Hazardous Material does not list the name of any hazardous materials
but tells the public that there is no problem with their use. How is
it possible to have a summary table and list none of the chemicals
to be used during the Navy program? They do note petroleum products,
heavy metals, and combustion products but fail to list all of them
along with the number of pounds to be used each year.
The public and marine life in the ocean will be subjected to various
sonar and aviation noise, target noise, surface ship noise, weapons
and target noise, EOD (no definition found), and underwater
explosions. The Navy does admit that marine life will be harmed but
harming our food supply, (fish like salmon), or the whales is not
deemed important by the Navy, as they are expendable according to
the EIS.
The Navy and the Department of Defense have decided that massive
warfare expenditures for testing war products and weapons using
marine life and the public as guinea pigs is in our best interest.
And since a lot of the equipment and other items to be tested are
experimental this leads one to believe that they are testing them on
us for the first time to see how they work and if the public is
harmed by their usage.
Just when did the citizens of the United States agree to be warfare
test subjects when the Nevada Test Site and/or Area 51 which could
be used for these tests? And why use the Pacific Ocean which is a
migratory haven for our food supply and valuable marine life –
including those that migrate along the Pacific Coast? And if this
Navy project is approved and the health of the citizens, marine, or
wildlife is threatened who will be held responsible for this action
and its negative consequences?
The EIS does not give the public standing to say no to this project
or the consequences of being used as guinea pigs during the testing.
In addition, the EIS does not state how long the testing process
will last – providing us with the information that once implemented
testing could be conducted forever in these areas.
I am requesting, under the freedom of information act, answers to
the above questions, listings of the chemicals used and their exact
harm to the public, animals, marine life, water supplies, trees,
agriculture, and soils. This includes information on whether or not
depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, weather modification and
mitigation chemicals will be used, whether or not atmospheric
testing will occur along with aviation over-flights and bombing
runs. Will sonic booms rattle our homes and low flights of planes
shake our houses and wake us up at night? I am also requesting
complete documentation and information on Electronic Combat Training
and how it will impact human health. Noise and electronic levels
should also be made public.
My freedom of information act request also includes the following
questions:
1 - Will aluminum coated fiberglass be used (CHAFF) and how many
pounds will be released each year?
2 - What are the health effects of Chaff particulates on humans,
wildlife, soil and water? Please provide a study on these human and
wildlife health effects.
3 - Will weather modification or mitigation programs be initiated
during the Navy program? If so, what chemicals will be used in this
program?
4 - Will jets be allowed to fly at heights that leave persistent jet
contrails that exacerbate global warming and change our climate
(NASA Studies)?
5 - A complete listing of jet fuels to be used (+ additives), and
the components of said jet fuel with information on the number of
chemicals released and their impact on human health, agriculture,
soils, water supplies, and wildlife. (Include JP-8, JP-10, and other
new experimental jet fuels.
The Jet Emissions report is available online at the EPA Website.
6 - A complete study of depleted uranium showing human health and
animal health effects.
7 - A complete study of the health effects of the compounds listed
in Table 3.3-5 Page 3.3-11 and definitions of RDX and HMX (use and
toxicity).
8 - Toxicity of Red and White Phosphorus – humans, wildlife, soils,
water supplies, marine life.
9 - A complete listing of the propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics,
chemical and riot agents, and smoke canisters (type of smoke and
toxicity) is requested. And a complete listing of obscurants which
will be used in these programs and their toxicity.
10 - How much money will Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho be
reimbursed for hazardous waste disposal and other toxic site clean-
up from the Navy and the Department of Defense? It is requested that
the reimbursement be 100%.
11 - A complete listing and studies of the synergistic effects of
all chemicals used in the Navy program with associated health
effects. This includes cumulative and synergistic effects as well.
12 - Studies of the synergistic effects of project chemicals on
bioaccumulation in fish and other marine food supplies.
13 - Will Maxwell MOAs (1, 2 & 3,) be used in this Navy Project? If
yes, what will be the actions taken over this area by all branches
of the military?
A rough study of the EIS leads one to believe that the Navy and the
Department of Defense intends to leave behind a toxic pea soup of
chemicals and other toxins in their wake along with the human health
effects and dead marine life. Many areas of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho would be contaminated from these experiments
through airborne and water migration across these regions.
It also appears that nothing would be spared in testing weapons of
war on the public (with the Nevada Test Site and Area 51 available
for much of this testing and the Atlantic Ocean also available near
Washington, D.C.); it appears that these Western States will be
sacrificed for building and testing more weapons of mass
destruction. Remember that sacrificing California, Washington,
Oregon and Idaho is just the beginning…your state will be next.
I am requesting that the State of California be excluded from this
Navy project. Citizens in all four states should say "no" to this
proposed project and others like it. Contract your elected
representatives today and let them know how you feel about this
project. We are appealing to Congressman Mike Thompson, Senators
Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to delay this project, allow more
time for public comment, hold hearings in Mendocino County, CA, and
to eventually oppose allowing California to become part of this
costly, toxic warfare project. END
For more information and copy of the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Comment Form.
And here's another site:
Northwest Training Range Complex Get Involved
(http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/GetInvolved.aspx)
By Rosalind Peterson
February 21, 2009
NewsWithViews. com
http://newswithview s.com/Peterson/ rosalind114. htm
The United States Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have
decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of
Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for
public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation
will include all of the State of Washington, all of the State of
Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. This
area will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from
California to Washington. (The map designating this program area
also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay
Area under a "warning area" designation. )
The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens
and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on
their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with a final public
comment deadline extended to March 11, 2009, this document is
approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments. In addition
to a short comment time the Navy limited public hearings to five,
with only one held in Oregon, one in California and no hearings in
Idaho. The Navy has allegedly failed to place information about this
EIS in major newspapers or inform our elected representatives about
this program.
Thus, citizens in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are
asking for a realistic extension of time to read, study, and comment
on this decision by the Navy and the Department of Defense, past the
March 11, 2009, deadline. It should be noted that most elected
representatives in California and Oregon were not aware of this EIS
or the consequences of this action by the Navy.
The Navy has declared that this draft was distributed to our elected
representatives. If so, then why haven't our elected officials
spoken up to defend our rights to be heard, required more public
meetings and hearings in California, Washington, Idaho (where not
one was held), and Oregon?
The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Commander of
the U.S. Pacific Fleet have decided, without our consent, that that
are going to use the Pacific Ocean off the Coast of California,
Oregon and Washington and the land over four states to test weapons
of war. They did not contact Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to obtain
permission to use the Nevada Test Site for these warfare
experiments. Instead they decided to use public lands, the Pacific
Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for
warfare testing in four states.
The Navy also has decided to contaminate our air, water, and soils
with the chemicals used in these programs. They fail to list many of
the chemicals that are to be used in these programs. Thus, under the
Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a complete listing of
all chemicals that will be used during these testing programs. It is
easy for the Navy EIS to state that they can mitigate for such toxic
usage but fail to disclose a complete listing of said chemicals.
Also copies of contamination studies conducted at other military
test sites where contamination problems were found and at bases
(like Fallon Air Force Base).
The draft EIS does not fully address the potential environmental
impacts on multiple resources, like air quality, water resources,
airborne acoustic environment (on land and in the ocean), biological
resources, marine and terrestrial impacts and human health and
safety. Without a complete understanding of their programs it is
impossible to determine any impacts…thus, their EIS states that "…
there are no significant impacts…" This statement is made throughout
the entire document even though many of the chemicals used are
highly toxic.
With the failure of the EIS to identify all of the air quality,
water quality, and soils impacts of their programs this EIS appears
to be a whitewash designed to stampede this program through as fast
as the Navy can implement it. And in listing only a few of the EPA
list of toxic chemicals that will be released by military aircraft
(like jet fuel emissions), the Navy has avoided any discussion of
negative impacts on air and water quality. It is not sufficient to
state that our air is already polluted and that additional
pollutants will make no difference in air quality.
There is a short listing of hazardous materials, air pollutants, and
pollutants from munitions, expended materials, and radioactive
materials to will be used in this project. I am requesting a
complete listing of all chemicals that will be used by the Navy, Air
Force, and any other branch of the Department of Defense in this
project. Inshore and offshore detonations may or may not be
considered hazardous – however, until a complete listing of these
chemicals is provided to the public there can be no public
discussion of their hazard to public health, marine life, wildlife,
public drinking water sources or our oceans. The avoidance of making
this specific list public leads one to believe that these hazardous
materials and chemicals are toxic and do pose environmental hazards.
It is interesting that Table ES-5 Summary of Effects (Page ES-16) –
Hazardous Material does not list the name of any hazardous materials
but tells the public that there is no problem with their use. How is
it possible to have a summary table and list none of the chemicals
to be used during the Navy program? They do note petroleum products,
heavy metals, and combustion products but fail to list all of them
along with the number of pounds to be used each year.
The public and marine life in the ocean will be subjected to various
sonar and aviation noise, target noise, surface ship noise, weapons
and target noise, EOD (no definition found), and underwater
explosions. The Navy does admit that marine life will be harmed but
harming our food supply, (fish like salmon), or the whales is not
deemed important by the Navy, as they are expendable according to
the EIS.
The Navy and the Department of Defense have decided that massive
warfare expenditures for testing war products and weapons using
marine life and the public as guinea pigs is in our best interest.
And since a lot of the equipment and other items to be tested are
experimental this leads one to believe that they are testing them on
us for the first time to see how they work and if the public is
harmed by their usage.
Just when did the citizens of the United States agree to be warfare
test subjects when the Nevada Test Site and/or Area 51 which could
be used for these tests? And why use the Pacific Ocean which is a
migratory haven for our food supply and valuable marine life –
including those that migrate along the Pacific Coast? And if this
Navy project is approved and the health of the citizens, marine, or
wildlife is threatened who will be held responsible for this action
and its negative consequences?
The EIS does not give the public standing to say no to this project
or the consequences of being used as guinea pigs during the testing.
In addition, the EIS does not state how long the testing process
will last – providing us with the information that once implemented
testing could be conducted forever in these areas.
I am requesting, under the freedom of information act, answers to
the above questions, listings of the chemicals used and their exact
harm to the public, animals, marine life, water supplies, trees,
agriculture, and soils. This includes information on whether or not
depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, weather modification and
mitigation chemicals will be used, whether or not atmospheric
testing will occur along with aviation over-flights and bombing
runs. Will sonic booms rattle our homes and low flights of planes
shake our houses and wake us up at night? I am also requesting
complete documentation and information on Electronic Combat Training
and how it will impact human health. Noise and electronic levels
should also be made public.
My freedom of information act request also includes the following
questions:
1 - Will aluminum coated fiberglass be used (CHAFF) and how many
pounds will be released each year?
2 - What are the health effects of Chaff particulates on humans,
wildlife, soil and water? Please provide a study on these human and
wildlife health effects.
3 - Will weather modification or mitigation programs be initiated
during the Navy program? If so, what chemicals will be used in this
program?
4 - Will jets be allowed to fly at heights that leave persistent jet
contrails that exacerbate global warming and change our climate
(NASA Studies)?
5 - A complete listing of jet fuels to be used (+ additives), and
the components of said jet fuel with information on the number of
chemicals released and their impact on human health, agriculture,
soils, water supplies, and wildlife. (Include JP-8, JP-10, and other
new experimental jet fuels.
The Jet Emissions report is available online at the EPA Website.
6 - A complete study of depleted uranium showing human health and
animal health effects.
7 - A complete study of the health effects of the compounds listed
in Table 3.3-5 Page 3.3-11 and definitions of RDX and HMX (use and
toxicity).
8 - Toxicity of Red and White Phosphorus – humans, wildlife, soils,
water supplies, marine life.
9 - A complete listing of the propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics,
chemical and riot agents, and smoke canisters (type of smoke and
toxicity) is requested. And a complete listing of obscurants which
will be used in these programs and their toxicity.
10 - How much money will Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho be
reimbursed for hazardous waste disposal and other toxic site clean-
up from the Navy and the Department of Defense? It is requested that
the reimbursement be 100%.
11 - A complete listing and studies of the synergistic effects of
all chemicals used in the Navy program with associated health
effects. This includes cumulative and synergistic effects as well.
12 - Studies of the synergistic effects of project chemicals on
bioaccumulation in fish and other marine food supplies.
13 - Will Maxwell MOAs (1, 2 & 3,) be used in this Navy Project? If
yes, what will be the actions taken over this area by all branches
of the military?
A rough study of the EIS leads one to believe that the Navy and the
Department of Defense intends to leave behind a toxic pea soup of
chemicals and other toxins in their wake along with the human health
effects and dead marine life. Many areas of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho would be contaminated from these experiments
through airborne and water migration across these regions.
It also appears that nothing would be spared in testing weapons of
war on the public (with the Nevada Test Site and Area 51 available
for much of this testing and the Atlantic Ocean also available near
Washington, D.C.); it appears that these Western States will be
sacrificed for building and testing more weapons of mass
destruction. Remember that sacrificing California, Washington,
Oregon and Idaho is just the beginning…your state will be next.
I am requesting that the State of California be excluded from this
Navy project. Citizens in all four states should say "no" to this
proposed project and others like it. Contract your elected
representatives today and let them know how you feel about this
project. We are appealing to Congressman Mike Thompson, Senators
Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to delay this project, allow more
time for public comment, hold hearings in Mendocino County, CA, and
to eventually oppose allowing California to become part of this
costly, toxic warfare project. END
For more information and copy of the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Comment Form.
And here's another site:
Northwest Training Range Complex Get Involved
(http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/GetInvolved.aspx)