Sam and I know today is Black Friday, but here is something to make you see red.
A couple of blogs ago we tried to call attention to the fact that our oceans are becoming so trashed that there are vast islands of floating garbage out there. It’s totally disgusting. Now, there’s worse news. It is reported that “officials” of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are contemplating destroying Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons by dumping them at sea in international waters.
Originally, the chemical weapons were supposed to be shipped to other countries, which would then dispose of them. But “other countries” balked at the idea. Imagine that! And even if they did take the chemical weapons, would they burn them as the U.S. is doing with ours?
According to an article in Aljazeera America by Dave Gustafson, destroying chemical weapons by incineration is a long, costly process. “Since 1990, workers and robots at plants in six states and the middle of the Pacific Ocean have systematically destroyed some 55 million pounds of liquid VX, sarin and mustard agent in a variety of containers and weapons -- some dating back to World War I,” Gustafson reports. “The decades-long process of destroying all of America's chemical weapons is expected to cost around $35 billion, according to a recent estimate.”
In an Associated Press article printed in the Hattiesburg American, Jay Reeves reports, “The Pentagon spent $10.2 billion over three decades burning tons of deadly nerve gas and other chemical weapons stored in four states — some of the agents so deadly even a few drops can kill.”
And the U.S. military estimates the final price tag for destroying America’s weapons will be at least $11.5 billion.
Continuing to quote Reeves, “In Alabama, Oregon, Utah and Arkansas, crews are (now) either tearing apart multibillion-dollar incinerators or working to draw the curtain on a drama that began in the Cold War, when the United States and the former Soviet Union stockpiled millions of pounds of chemical weapons.
“A $2.8 billion incinerator is being demolished in Umatilla, Ore., the Pentagon said, and work will begin soon to tear down a $3.7 billion incinerator at Tooele, Utah. Workers already have finished demolishing the $2.2 billion Pine Bluff Chemical Demilitarization Facility in Arkansas, the military said. The site is being cleaned up and will close officially
“A $2.8 billion incinerator is being demolished in Umatilla, Ore., the Pentagon said, and work will begin soon to tear down a $3.7 billion incinerator at Tooele, Utah. Workers already have finished demolishing the $2.2 billion Pine Bluff Chemical Demilitarization Facility in Arkansas, the military said. The site is being cleaned up and will close officially.”
Boy! That’s a lot of spondoolicks! No wonder other countries don’t want to deal with this problem. But going back to the Al jazeera article by Gustafson, so called experts say destroying Syria’s chemical weapons would require a lot of water (anyway), so dumping the weapons in the drink could have distinct advantages - but what about the potential environmental consequences?
One smart aleck actually proposed destroying Syria’s chemical weapons in Syria. Go figure. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Naftali Bendavid, a Dutch foreign minister liked the idea of bringing (or building) a destructive installation (like an incinerator) to Syria, but apparently, that idea was too far out of the box.
Moving Syria’s chemical weapons out of Syria, according to the WSJ is a “central element” of the plan for destroying their weapons stockpile.
As Gustafson reports in AlJazeera, “The OPCW’s top priority is to prevent Syria from being able to make any more chemical weapons.”
Okay. That’s cool. But dumping those weapons in the ocean which already is befouled in the extreme seems like a REALLY DUMB IDEA!
If today’s blog doesn’t scare three bags of poop out of you Sam and I don’t know what will. Dumping chemical weapons at sea is an idea that doesn’t even hold water.
A couple of blogs ago we tried to call attention to the fact that our oceans are becoming so trashed that there are vast islands of floating garbage out there. It’s totally disgusting. Now, there’s worse news. It is reported that “officials” of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are contemplating destroying Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons by dumping them at sea in international waters.
Originally, the chemical weapons were supposed to be shipped to other countries, which would then dispose of them. But “other countries” balked at the idea. Imagine that! And even if they did take the chemical weapons, would they burn them as the U.S. is doing with ours?
According to an article in Aljazeera America by Dave Gustafson, destroying chemical weapons by incineration is a long, costly process. “Since 1990, workers and robots at plants in six states and the middle of the Pacific Ocean have systematically destroyed some 55 million pounds of liquid VX, sarin and mustard agent in a variety of containers and weapons -- some dating back to World War I,” Gustafson reports. “The decades-long process of destroying all of America's chemical weapons is expected to cost around $35 billion, according to a recent estimate.”
In an Associated Press article printed in the Hattiesburg American, Jay Reeves reports, “The Pentagon spent $10.2 billion over three decades burning tons of deadly nerve gas and other chemical weapons stored in four states — some of the agents so deadly even a few drops can kill.”
And the U.S. military estimates the final price tag for destroying America’s weapons will be at least $11.5 billion.
Continuing to quote Reeves, “In Alabama, Oregon, Utah and Arkansas, crews are (now) either tearing apart multibillion-dollar incinerators or working to draw the curtain on a drama that began in the Cold War, when the United States and the former Soviet Union stockpiled millions of pounds of chemical weapons.
“A $2.8 billion incinerator is being demolished in Umatilla, Ore., the Pentagon said, and work will begin soon to tear down a $3.7 billion incinerator at Tooele, Utah. Workers already have finished demolishing the $2.2 billion Pine Bluff Chemical Demilitarization Facility in Arkansas, the military said. The site is being cleaned up and will close officially
“A $2.8 billion incinerator is being demolished in Umatilla, Ore., the Pentagon said, and work will begin soon to tear down a $3.7 billion incinerator at Tooele, Utah. Workers already have finished demolishing the $2.2 billion Pine Bluff Chemical Demilitarization Facility in Arkansas, the military said. The site is being cleaned up and will close officially.”
Boy! That’s a lot of spondoolicks! No wonder other countries don’t want to deal with this problem. But going back to the Al jazeera article by Gustafson, so called experts say destroying Syria’s chemical weapons would require a lot of water (anyway), so dumping the weapons in the drink could have distinct advantages - but what about the potential environmental consequences?
One smart aleck actually proposed destroying Syria’s chemical weapons in Syria. Go figure. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Naftali Bendavid, a Dutch foreign minister liked the idea of bringing (or building) a destructive installation (like an incinerator) to Syria, but apparently, that idea was too far out of the box.
Moving Syria’s chemical weapons out of Syria, according to the WSJ is a “central element” of the plan for destroying their weapons stockpile.
As Gustafson reports in AlJazeera, “The OPCW’s top priority is to prevent Syria from being able to make any more chemical weapons.”
Okay. That’s cool. But dumping those weapons in the ocean which already is befouled in the extreme seems like a REALLY DUMB IDEA!
If today’s blog doesn’t scare three bags of poop out of you Sam and I don’t know what will. Dumping chemical weapons at sea is an idea that doesn’t even hold water.
No comments:
Post a Comment