05-12-2003, 01:45 PM
|
#10
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
MagiK, this argument was used in the 80's when Reagan used national security to exempt nuclear sub facilities from NEPA review (which makes gov't agencies consider the environment when undertaking action).
Now, 20 years later, we are suffering the consequences. Any idea how many of the nuke facilities were located on the Hudson River? Lots. Do a web search to find out more about the $20 billion EPA dredging of the Hudson that is taking place to remove nuclear processing contamination.
If their usage was not that harmful, they wouldn't trigger CERCLA or RCRA anyway. Besides, isn't it good practice to police your spent ammo casings?
|
Casings [img]smile.gif[/img] yes, however I object to people objecting to lead content of the sands in a firing range [img]smile.gif[/img] not to mention it is usualy big land developers who are trying to grab as much land as they can as close to the non-use areas as possible that cause the problem....answer is....don't buy a home next to a military weapons facility [img]smile.gif[/img] the Hudson river issue ..hmm not as familiar with that as you seem to be. Im thinking it wasnt permitted to dump toxics int he river in the first place and that the companies did it any way. Obviously waterways are not a place where you can dump water moves pretty quickly.....stray islands vieques or deserts like near Camp Pendleton in California are....since land masses don't shift all that fast.
|
|
|
|