Re: [CPEO-MEF] Australia

[ourcoast@westnet.com.au]

I would like to make it clear that by comparing Lancelin to Vieques I in no
way intended to infer that we were worse off than the Viequenses ( at this
stage ) or to in any way  make light the terrible suffering they have had to
endure.

but I do think the comparrison is justified.

I do realise that these ships are from the Pacific fleet but it was my
understanding that since the closure of Vieques the US navy does not have a
range where they can do live ship to Shore bombing together with Air to
Ground bombing ? ( both of which they do here )

With the proposed scale of Seaswap, plus the increase in use by Australian
forces, we seem to be destined for use on the scale of about 200 days per
year of use for ship to shore and air to ground. On top of that the
Australian Army and SAS also use this range for small arms live fire.

The range at Lancelin is only 5 miles from the homes of some residents - the
range at Vieques is 8 miles from residents there - so there is an almost
certainty of a public health disaster here.

Lancelin area is prone to strong winds - we are known as "the wind surfing
capital of the world" - and the northwest winds blow straight off the
training range to where I live. On Thursday what we consider a reasonable
strong northwester ( we do get much worse ) caused the cancellation of ATG
training. We have certainly had live ship to shore bombing in much worse
conditions.

Our environmental laws stink - there has been no Environmental Impact
Assessment of the increased use and the Australian DoD refuse to acknowledge
there are any air emmisions and thus to do any air monitioring or to provide
MSDS for what is used here. This is one of the areas we are hoping to work
on to try and force the US to obey its own laws ( while they are still in
place we hope ) and do an Environmental Impact Assessment )

It looks like the main area of US operations in the future will be Asia and
Lancelin will become the main training area. The other main ship to shore
range in Australia is Shoalwater on the north east coast but the close
proximity of this range to the Great barrier reef makes increased use
difficult.

Anne Snow


-----Original Message-----
From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
To: Military Environmental Forum <cpeo-military@igc.topica.com>
Date: Saturday, 12 July 2003 1:54
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Australia


>I'd like to clarify one aspect of the U.S. Navy's activities in
>Australia. The Navy may be increasing its use of Australian bases and
>ranges, and there may environmental consequences.
>
>However, it's my understanding that the Australian activity is
>associated with the Pacific Fleet, while Vieques historically has been
>used by the Atlantic Fleet. Thus, I believe that it is mistaken to
>conclude that the increased Australian activity results from the closure
>of the Vieques ranges. I associate it,  instead, with the high level of
>continuing Naval operations in support of U.S. military ventures in
>Central Asia.
>
>Lenny
>--
>
>
>Lenny Siegel
>Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
>c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
>Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
>Fax: 650/961-8918
><lsiegel@cpeo.org>
>http://www.cpeo.org
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at
>
>http://www.cpeo.org/newsgrp.html
>
>If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please
send a blank message with no subject to:
>
>cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~