RE: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance

[christinebettencourt <christinebettencourt@earthlink.net>]

Don't get your hopes up about people knowing the difference between dna
mutating smoke and political and media smoke.

It is no use trying to convince the herd that Fort Ord fires are not safety.
They are too educated to think for themselves. Now, people are saying the
cleanup is really necessary because the can 'see' the munitions poking up
from their ten foot trenched landfill.

Soon, they will see more of their children, animals and plants get sick and
die and they will never link it up because they do not die during the exact
time of smoke and ash exposure.
By the way, hundreds of dead birds have already washed up on the same beach
the smoke passed over, more to come. Is there a mention of the toxic fires.
No, of course not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stella Bourassa [mailto:Stellalogic@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:47 AM
To: cpeo@cpeo.org; cpeo-military@igc.topica.com
Subject: Re: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance


Was this 'accidental' out of control intentional fire a 'blessing in
disguise'?  Did it not 'reveal' the truth regarding the amount of ordnance
and land used by the military all these years? I listened to the same
complaints over and over again regarding the heavy underbrush on Camp
Bonneville and the amount of time, money and safety issues it would take to
clear the same.  I  shared with a few RAB members that a 'fire' would be a
blessing in disguise from 'Mother Nature'; one to stop the complaining and
two, exposure of the truth.

On the other hand, the 'barren/moonscape' land bore witness to what
'training' does to the land and the fire exposed this truth to the naked
eye.  My opinion, 'Mother Nature' and man did all of us a 'big' favor by
exposing that ugly truth and 'ripping' off the blinders called 'underbrush'.
I wonder what it is going to take to rip the blinders off and expose the
damaging contamination consequences to the human body?

Stella
"Integrity is doing the right thing.......
 Credibility is doing the right thing consistently"
----- Original Message -----
From: "CPEO Moderator" <cpeo@cpeo.org>
To: <cpeo-military@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:48 PM
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance


> California
> THE REGISTER-PAJARONIAN
> A fort of ordnance
> By Michael Seville
> Nov 1 2003 12:00AM  By
>
> Test rockets, artillery shells litter the landscape of former base
>
> FORT ORD - As fire officials continue to monitor several hotspots
> dispersed among the rolling hills of the former Fort Ord after last
> week's prescribed burn, the reasons for the fire have become astonishing
> clear.
>
> Looking out over the barren moon-like landscape that was left after the
> intentional blaze charred more than 1,450 acres, almost 1,000 more than
> expected, hundreds of anti-tank rockets and mortars lay exposed
> haphazardly among the skeletons of the maritime chaparral.
>
> "If people could see the amount of ordnance that is out there, they
> would definitely understand why it was necessary for us to burn the
> area," said Lauren Solis, public affairs officer for the United States
> Army.
>
> Last Friday, a prescribed burn that was meant to consume only 490 acres
> jumped a fire barrier and burned more than 1,450 acres among the 8,000
> acre Main Range Area. The area was used by the Army and Navy to test
> rockets and artillery shells from 1917-96, which explains both the sheer
> volume of ordnance and the different types.
>
> The different types of munitions that were on display include anti-tank
> 3.5-inch rockets to large 60-millimeter artillery shells, which were
> fired from handheld launchers, tanks and enormous cannons.
>
> While the rockets stayed above the surface of the soil, many of the
> larger artillery shells landed with such force that they could be
> several feet underground and will have to be found with minesweepers and
> metal detectors.
>
> Whether the ordnance was above or below the surface, the thick brush
> that covered the hills would have made removal of the ordnance nearly
> impossible without the burn.
>
> Military and ammunition officials escorted a group of journalists
> Thursday into the heart of the areas burned to show the public why the
> burn was necessary.
>
> Though detonation of ordnance was heard throughout the burn, which
> lasted several days, military officials warned that much of the ordnance
> would not have been set off by the blaze.
>
> "The fire did not necessarily detonate all the ordnance, but that is not
> what the fire was for," said Colonel Mike Simone of the U.S. Army. "What
> the fire did was clear out all the thick brush so that we can see or
> allow mechanical instruments to check to see if there is any dangerous
> ordnance out there."
>
> A hurdle now facing officials is that there is much more land to clear
> of ordnance than was originally planned.
>
> "Now the challenge is that we have more than three times the area to
> clear than we were planning on," said Simone. "We have to clear all that
> land by next spring so that the vegetation doesn't grow back before we
> can clear it out."
>
> To view this article, copy and paste the following URL into your
> browser:
>
http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=10444460&title=%3CP%3EA%20for
t%20of%20ordnance&BRD=1197&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top%20Stories&CATEGORYID=410
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our
> important work on military and environmental issues will continue.
> Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
> http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0
>