Slashdot Mirror
Another WW-I Chemical Site In Washington, DC
WrongSizeGlass writes "The AP is reporting that the US Army Corps of Engineers has uncovered what appears to be the fourth major disposal area for World War I-era munitions and chemical weapons in the nation's capital. Digging was suspended at a construction site after 'workers pulled smoking glassware from the pit — preliminary tests show the glassware was contaminated with the toxic chemical arsenic trichloride. ... Workers also discovered a jar about three-quarters full of a dark liquid that turned out to be the chemical agent mustard.' Someone needs to remind our government of the meaning of NIMBY."
We seem intent enough upon killing ourselves. Outside help need not apply!
Toxic chemicals leaching into the groundwater would go a long way towards explaining some of the things that go on in DC.
Maybe they're really Saddam's WMDs that Bush and Cheney were searching for all those years! Those sneaky Iraqis!
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Maybe with the government in charge of health care, he can finally afford the operation that makes that possible.
"His name was James Damore."
Someone needs to remind our government of the meaning of NIMBY.
I know, that's what I've always said. I've always said we should have buried that stuff in Germany. Or at least England.
Qxe4
They're one of the very few things stopping "respectable businesses" (of any kind) from dumping such stuff wherever it's possible.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!–An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
There is quite a difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_(condiment) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard (or mustard gas).
Well, technically, mustard the condiment is a chemical agent, in that it has chemicals and it isn't completely inert. But it's only been used as a weapon in food fights, as far as I'm aware.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
they have a sterling track record in dealing with waste disposal, and they always have your well-being as their paramount concern
</sarcasm>
nobody in the healthcare debate believes government will handle healthcare super-efficiently and without bureaucracy or waste. it will simply be BETTER than what we had beforehand. at least the government has a mandate to take care of YOU rather than some shareholders
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Someone needs to remind our government of the meaning of NIMBY."
HUH! I can think of no more appropriate place than in our government's backyard. Where else should they be dumping this? City folk like them want to dump it out in my back yard. I don't want it. Let them keep it.
Aye-aye, Captain! The time travel vessel is being readied in the launch bay, and your message will be delivered to those 1914 morons in just a few minutes!
Brilliant advice, Sir!
To what end? So they don't travel a century back in time to bury their weapons ever again?
Maybe they should also have some military official today apologize for someone else burying weapons in the distant past.
I believe this is a case of personifying the government as a 200-year-old, which leads to ridiculous statements, and worse, ridiculous policy.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
The summary gives the impression like the U.S. Government has has been willfully ignoring the problem. The fact is there were so many munitions created for WWI and they were used in such a concentrated area that it's no surprise that there are stockpiles of the stuff still around. For example, 16 million acres of northern France had to be cordoned off at the end of the war. They are still pulling chemical weapons out of the ground in some places too, like a site off of a beach resort or this stockpile where farmers to this day plow up unexploded rounds in Belgium. The fact is, there are massive amount of chemical weapons scattered around still from that era and there isn't a hell of a lot that anyone can do about it so quit trying to pin this on the current government. In fact, if you read those links, you'll find the army corps of engineers is responding in a pretty responsible way compared with what they're going through in Houthulst (the last link).
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
The problem is that we didn't just have a vote for the government to take over health care. If we did, there might be some hope.
Instead, what we have now is a government plan that mandates everyone (eventually) buy a government-designed plan from a few government-regulated finance companies. There is no "insurance" here - insurance implies some sort of risk and there is no risk possible in the system that has been set up. It isn't a fund you pay into and eventually get all your money back, either.
We would be far, far better off if everyone just put money into a savings account and used that money to pay medical bills. And hospitals and doctors were required to treat the people that didn't have the savings account and cost-shift it all over to the people that did.
Instead, we have a massive cost-shifting scheme whereby Medicaid and Medicare pays a fraction of what care costs and the "insured" pay cost-plus to make up for it. And the bills have to be whirlled around in a blender three or four times to try to hide the cost shifting that is going on. So they are going to take more money out of Medicare. Do you think the hospitals and doctors will just take less money? Do you think the MRI manufacturers will cut their prices? No? Really, you obviously have no faith in the system.
Evidently, Congress seems to think that if the government is paying less the hospitals will just get less. They seem to have had this idea since the 1960s with the very beginning of Medicare. Instead, the hospitals simply charge everyone else more. Part of it is the way Medicare reimbursement works - they pay some percentage of the real bill. Therefore, raising the bill means getting more realistic reimbursement. Yes, if you raise the price to 130% of what it was you get right about 100% of what you would have gotten if the government is only paying 70% of the bill. The government figured that out and cut the rate some more. The hospitals then raised the prices to counter this.
This has been going on since 1966 or so. And this "new plan" does nothing to change this at all.
All we have is a massive welfare program for finance companies that are underwriting medical care. The government isn't doing much other than making sure these finance companies have lots of customers. SO STOP CALLING IT GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE!
"They've created a hazardous waste site in the neighborhood," Wells said.
Actually, the neighborhood was created in the hazardous waste site.
further from TFA: the leftover munitions and chemicals were buried behind the school in what was then rural farmland
The article makes it sound like the chems found their way there after the housing development. How much of this is the army's fault... and how much of it is the housing developers fault? Surely they did a little research on the history of the land before they tried to start a housing development there? Probably not, or maybe that's why they got the land so cheap? I know someone personally that had a very close call with some land he almost bought, (got stuck with) that he found out just in time used to be where line transformers were rebuilt. (can you say "ground and buildings saturated with PCBs?) When you buy something like that, it doesn't become exclusively your problem, but you now share a portion of the responsibility for its cleanup once it's deemed necessary.
Basically, if there's a toxic problem and you own it and you don't clean it up or get it cleaned up, you're on the hook for it even years down the road after it's changed hands several times. Of course, the more hands its passed through before someone forces the cleanup, the more diluted your share of the blame becomes. Unfortunately, for this reason, it's on their best interest to NOT clean it up, and to do everything they can to hide the problem, for as long as possible.
Someone's probably doing some research right now trying to figure out how well this chemical disposal was documented, who if anyone was negligent for not factoring it in or disclosing it, and who all is now on the list of people that will be footing the cleanup bill.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
What, Obama is pro-cloning?
Ezekiel 23:20
Naw, "contamination by abnormally high concentrations of money and power" is a simpler explanation.
Maybe not that big of a difference...remember, it's related to WW1, there were Germans involved.
PS. They were the evil ones.
They were simply misunderstood.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
> Someone needs to remind our government of the meaning of NIMBY.
Yeah, all this crap was supposed to be buried in New Jersey.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The area was the Government's back-yard at the time, and the actual home where the munitions were found is Federal property today, so I think the NIMBY tag is misapplied.
There was a chemical weapons lab at American University during the first world war, and they apparently also were testing the weapons delivery systems, and fired all kinds of nasty stuff into what was then vacant land.
Which is not to say that it's OK, of course, only that it's a documentation and clean-up FAIL, and not really a NIMBY FAIL.
Also, I was surprised to see the article actually did refer to "smoking glassware", I had assumed that was an alarmist mis-interpretation of "smoked glass", but apparently they did find "smoking and fuming glassware".
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
...that the nuclear waste dumps we're planning will remain secure - not just for a few generations but for the millenia promised. What could ever happen in the future that we can't anticipate today?
I thought the meaning of NIMBY was, "Yes, I agree that our town needs a new trash dump/electrical plant/sewage plant/prison, but Not In My Back Yard.
Put it on the Black/Poor side of town.
That is, historically, the meaning of NIMBY.
I think you are confusing the First World War with the Second World War. There were no Nazis involved in the first war (I really shouldn't have to explain this). Allied propaganda aside, the Germans were no better or worse than the allied powers.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I once accidentally breathed in a very small amount of chlorine gas.
I was coughing my lungs up for weeks.
This gave some very intimate appreciation of the horrors of the gas attacks in the trenches.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Cows grazed near Georgetown until the WW TWO era.
I bet the munitions were dumped far from the monumental core, in an area the locals thought of as "the sticks". That doesn't excuse it of course, it just explains it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
WWI wasn't really a "Good vs. Bad" war. Austrian Duke Ferdinand gets assassinated by the Black Hand, Austria waits a few months before retaliating, resulting in defensive 'hidden treaties' between nearly most of Europe. Prussia and the Austrian empire team up, the rest of Europe says "we pretty much have to protect the Balkans because the retaliation took too long (and now the lay people see it as aggression instead of justice.)" Somehow the Ottomans see it as an opportunity to get back what they lost before, the US supplies arms to all sides of the war until the Zimmerman Telegram. Austria & Prussia go "Oh shit, we don't have enough people," keep fighting until they run out of resources, then get screwed over during the final negotiations (which then leads to an atmosphere where an insane Jew declares a war on Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, Gays, and pretty much anyone else he doesn't like)
So unlike WWII, WWI wasn't really a "Good vs. Bad", unless you consider the Black Hand the bad guys. Of course, my experiences may be a little biased since my heritage consists of growing up in what was considered the Little Germany of the US (and where the local papers were printed in German until the US began fighting in the war.) Also, having songs about "going after those Huns" couldn't possibly have been a form of racist propaganda.
Back in the '50s the military lost count of how many 'dial-a-yield' nuclear howitzer rounds they manufactured. IIRC, the best they could do was "8,000-10,000". Removing the powder casing, the warhead is the famous 'backpack nuke' that Victor Bout was supposedly trying to sell before the Brewster Jennings operation was blown by the last Madministration.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
This was 95 years ago. The chemical sites were there first; the backyards came later.
What about bailouts? The free market can't provide that.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
-- Adam Smith
You want to appeal to authority? Fine. I'll see your Adam Smith quote and raise you another. Here's what he has to say about the corporations you'd rather see in charge of things:
"[T]he greater part of [general shareholders] seldom pretend to understand any thing of the business of the company; and when the spirit of faction happens not to prevail among them, give themselves no trouble about it, but receive contentedly such halfyearly or yearly dividend as the directors think proper to make to them. This total exemption front trouble and front risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in [corporations], who would, upon no account, hazard their fortunes in any private [partnership]. ... The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private [partnership] frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, pp. 506 (some archaic terms substituted with modern ones.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Just think of the news story in a few hundred years when they halt the Yucca Mountain shopping center project.
Have gnu, will travel.
Everybody was preparing for the war back then. Everybody.
One that hath name thou can not otter
There is quite a difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_(condiment) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard (or mustard gas).
Well, technically, mustard the condiment is a chemical agent, in that it has chemicals and it isn't completely inert. But it's only been used as a weapon in food fights, as far as I'm aware.
The condiment - especially the spicy brown type - causes my uncle Milt to generate some mighty potent mustard gas...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think we can be entirely absolved from blame on the imperialistic front.
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side; and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
George: Oh, what was that?
Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
I'm a patriotic military vet, a stickler for honoring the sacrifices of our troops from all wars... I just got back from a ceremony honoring WW II veterans in fact.
And I've come to completely agree with you about WW I. The more I look at it, the harder it is to see the Germans as particularly evil. They didn't start the war, that's for sure. And Britain and France didn't have a moral advantage over them in any way. The whole thing was one big great powers pissing match, and Woodrow Wilson should have kept his promise to keep the US out of it. Further, and it pains me to say this, but the allied powers are directly responsible for the rise of Hitler. The brutal conditions imposed on Germany after the war made his rise possible. And you can be sure that leaders of the US in WW II knew that as well, which is why they took a completely different approach to Germany after victory. Instead of making them wallow in suffering, rebuild the country to democratic standards and market prosperity. Because the communists were waiting for their opportunity of we did not.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Yes, and [what would become] Germany and France had been invading each other back and forth, with some British support on the Continent thrown in, since the middle of the 19th century with no major bloodshed or escalation. Small wars over border areas were so common they were pretty much considered a rite of passage and an opportunity for adventure and national pride. People on both sides _looked forward_ to another chance to swipe some territory from rivals, and had no idea that technology and tactics would render WWI into something very different from the "glorious wars" their fathers and grandfathers told stories about.
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
The brutal conditions imposed on Germany after the war made his rise possible. And you can be sure that leaders of the US in WW II knew that as well, which is why they took a completely different approach to Germany after victory. Instead of making them wallow in suffering, rebuild the country to democratic standards and market prosperity.
That is incorrect. Look up JCS 1067. Allies quite openly wanted to essentially starve large part of German population (they activelly prevented food aid from some neighbouring European countries). Plus all German industrial base, patents, etc. was for the taking. German POWs quickly reclassified to fall outside protection of conventions. Steps which could improve economy - forbidden. This changed only after few years, because...
...the communists were waiting for their opportunity of we did not.
That was the primary reason for sudden change of heart. So Germany won't fall, whole, into Soviet Block.
And still, any aid Germany received (also, for them it was only a loan) was dwarfed by war reparations.
One that hath name thou can not otter
The problem is that we didn't just have a vote for the government to take over health care. If we did, there might be some hope.
You're right. Instead, we had an election where we (overwhelmingly) voted for a party that touted HCR as a huge portion of its platform. Shame on them for following through on their promises!
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
At least credit Wilfred Owen for his work, "Dulce et Decorum Est".
The First World War poets turned out some amazing work. I prefer Siegfried Sassoon, who is well worth reading,
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You've missed the bit where US healthcare is the most expensive in the world due to various insurance scams etc. Removing a lot of the middlemen between the sick and the health care workers actually saves money.
I'd bet McCain would have tried something similar if he thought he could convince his party - Nixon certainly tried.
That sick kid from a family that can't afford private healthcare could infect yours, it's only common sense to do something about that.