Re: Range Fires

[Ted Henry <thenry@umaryland.edu>]

Rick

Having read your response, I went back to read again the posting a wrote
in August to make sure I did not have a bad day when developing my initial
statement. In short I did not and it reflects what I would believe most
would considerable reasonable concerns and questions. Having read your
response, I will assume you are having a bad posting day and will, in
turn, recap the main points of my posting in response to your specific
comments below (***). Regardless of how many may find your statements
offensive, it is good you jump into the party, it is through such
exploration of both emotion and logic that we all get to better decisions
that most accurately reflect some middle ground.
******

for this listserver On 21 Sep 1998:

> Ted:
>
> Would you rather have an individual killed or seriously injured
> attempting to clear those areas of unexploded ordnance (UXO)? Or,
> provide him/her the extra safety of removing (by burnning) high grass
> and vegetation that hides and covers UXO that is on the surface of the
> ground. Allowing him/her to safely see where they are walking and to
> allow the safe identification of very hazardous dud-fired munitions.

*** No one wants to blow up EOD specialists. As for my specific posting
to which you responded, to my knowledge I did not and would not support
injuring or killing EOD personnel through detonation. What I did suggest
is that currently we are relying on the burning of ranges although we have
never (to my knowledge) conducted a reasonably thorough assessment of what
is coming off such ranges. The scientific value of risk assessment is to
evaluate all risks to receptors, not just the ones a particular party
cares to investigate.

***How many examples should we review in science where the benefits of a
particular chemical use or application resulted in adverse consequences
far worse than any over-confident or short-sighted supporter at the time
could have realized. Shall we revisit lead in gasoline? I assume we are
all up to speed on the potential impacts of ignorance, the influence of
money, etc.

>
> UXO workers, work daily both at Ft. Ord and hundreds of other locations
> nation-wide locating and disposing of very hazardous munitions. One of
> their tools is to burn off dense undergrowth to allow them to safely
> work in those areas.

***Certainly, burning is a current tool for UXO clearance. Whether it
will be 5 years from now after the EPA and DOD is forced to do some
reasonable scientific assessment of the process remains to be seen.
You will see the open detonation of chemical-filled rounds disappear in
the not too distant future not because someone wants to blow up an EOD
specialist, but because reasonable air sampling has shown that
over-packing with explosives releases chemical agent. Air quality is
important and there are many with asthma, allergies and other
ailments that would agree, and such concerns are not indicative of
emotions running wild as some would like to believe - it is science,
medicine and really common sense.

> > It really up-sets me to read and hear about ill-informed people who
> scream bloodly murder to have "their" areas cleaned of UXO, but have no
> understanding on how it is accomplished. And, the risks that is taken
> by those underpayed workers.

***Where did you read about individuals screaming bloody-murder? There
are some community members who, through long cleanup battles with the
military, are so frustrated and angry (and justifiably so) that it hinders 
the
ability of interested and dedicated people from DOD and EPA to approach and
help resolve some problems and wrongdoings. There are community members
who say "just clean it all up and start yelling". This is true. Yet, at the
same
time, there are contractors who manipulate risk assessment and data to
present inaccurate site characterizations all in the name of getting the next
contract or obtaining the best profit margin. There are regulatory
personnel who have felt so threatened by an active community that
representatives of the state I live in once said to me "why do anything
for the community, they won't appreciate it anyway". I believe it is time
we rise above such hatred and begin to go down a better path, don't you
think? Lets all take a breath and realize that no one has all the
answers. Then we should teach everyone to stop presenting everything with
100% certainty and recognize that money is often times the overarching driver
in many decisions.

> How many of you would be willing to daily go out and located and work on
> dud-fired munitions that sometimes contain fuzes so sensitive that a
> slight jar could cause a detonation. All for anywheres between $17.00
> to $19.00 per hour. Life insurance is provided by most companies!

***We should not discuss what paths different citizens have chosen for
employment. It will suffice to state that the best protection
possible should be available for every hard-working individual as well as
the hard-working individuals who live next to a work site.

> I would ask all of you that are involved in various local support groups
> to think a little and realize that people are involved in remediating
> your problems and those people need to work in a safe environment. As
> much as possible considering Bomb Disposal/UXO Remediation by its nature
> is not all that safe an occupation.

***Dealing with UXO and other bombs is not a safe occupation. I hope that
DOD will listen to the DSB Report and the community and develop UXO
policy, goals, research into technology and objectives. This will be
critical to EOD personnel and community. Furthermore, I can assure you
that the community members I know who fight for good site characterization
and clean up at military sites do so not only with their own interests in
mind but also the health and well-being of installation workers and
residents. In fact, I would not work for someone who did not
consider risks to others. With regard to intentional fires
to clear ranges, I am not sure that DOD or the EPA is really considering
the health of all people involved and it is time we do some type of
scientific evaluation instead of conducting fiscally driven assumptions
that there is no harm.

Sincerely

Ted

> Anyone interested in discussing this futher please contact be at either
> {rstauber@olg.com} or (301) 705-7384.
>
> Rick Stauber
> Master EOD Technician
> US Army Retired
>
>

*******************************************************************

Theodore (Ted) J. Henry, MS

Managing Director,
Community Health Assessment & Public Participation (CHAPP) Center

100 North Greene Street, Room 417
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 706-1767 - phone
(410) 706-6203 - fax
thenry@umaryland.edu
*******************************************************************