HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-439c
tOiVLA
~.1:7
Michelle McConnell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sara Mall Johani [housojay@olympus.net]
Monday, March 02, 2009 11 :25 AM
Michelle McConnell
Fwd: HUGE iceberg looming dead ahead, captain
FYI. smj
From: joe breskin <joe.breskin@gmail.com>
Date: March 1, 2009 3:56:24 PM PST
Subject: HUGE iceberg looming dead ahead, captain
this is some really serious shit
http://www.breskin.com/navy_eis_letter.htm
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 1 :00 AM
Warning to the Western States: You Are About to Be Used
for Target Practice;
Pentagon Plans Massive Environmental Impact on Puget Sound in
More Ways Than One!
By Rosalind Peterson February 21, 2009
Without scarcely any public notification or input, 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 ofIdaho , 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,
1
2Pt~1
~9
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 V.S. Navy, the V.S. Department of Defense, and the
Commander of the V.S.. Pacific Fleet have decided, without our
consent, that they 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. . . "
2
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 mayor
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?
3
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:
I - 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-l 0, and other
new experimental jet fuels. The Jet Emissions report is available
online at the EP A Website .
4
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 ofRDX 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.
5
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 (ElS). Comment Form.
http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/GetInvolved.aspx
http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/EIS .aspx
6