From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 11 Dec 1998 14:19:24 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Mitch Moves Mines |
Mitch Moves Mines It's a tragedy compounded by tragedy. Floods and landslides from Hurricane Mitch dislodged landmines in Honduras and Nicaragua, killing and injuring numerous people and making the task of wide-area landmine removal even more difficult. Here are the URLs for two recent articles on the subject. http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/mine_111698.html http://cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9812/02/PM-Mitch-LandMines.ap/index.html Two winters ago, when I left Yosemite ahead of floods that washed heavy picnic stables and iron fireplace griddles down the Merced River, I started to wonder what impact flooding might have on buried unexploded ordnance. Clearly, rushing waters, particularly those which peak rarely, can move and unearth dangerous weapons. What's the best risk management strategy? If it's fairly certain that flooding will cause significant erosion within the next couple of years, then deep subsurface clearance probably makes sense. In other case, riverbeds and flooded areas should probably be surveyed after each signifcant event. Where floods (or their magnitude) are totally unexpected, maybe its best to treat such disasters as sources of new contamination, but even then it's important to link responses to any previous responses made in the area. But how does one determine when each response is most appropriate? Lenny -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org | |
Prev by Date: Oral history at Military Bases Next by Date: Alameda Refuge | |
Prev by Thread: Oral history at Military Bases Next by Thread: Alameda Refuge |