From: | Stella Bourassa <Stellalogic@cfl.rr.com> |
Date: | 5 Nov 2003 20:19:15 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance |
Thank you Christine for 'sharing the truth'!!! NOW, back to my question about 'ripping the blinders' off about the deadly health impact to the environment and humans-did any newspaper 'print' this information about the 'dead birds'???? More importantly, did anyone care? I wonder if apathy is as big a threat as the contamination issues. Just some thoughts......Stella "Integrity is doing the right thing....... Credibility is doing the right thing consistently" ----- Original Message ----- From: "christinebettencourt" <christinebettencourt@earthlink.net> To: <Stellalogic@cfl.rr.com> Cc: "Military Environmental Forum" <cpeo-military@igc.topica.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: RE: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance > 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 > > | |
Prev by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance Next by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] British Court Blocks Dismantling Vessels | |
Prev by Thread: RE: [CPEO-MEF] A fort of ordnance Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Contamination detected at former missile site |