IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The big question I have is
why the hell didn't they do the cheap thing and take care of it properly in the first place?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hindsight is cheaper than foresight
I would guess that once the "put it in barrels and bury it" is accepted as a cheap solution, it would be hard to change for an expensive one. By the time the barrels leak, it's another can of worms, so the problem is put off for as long as possible to allow someone else to deal with it. It's not a justification. It is just the way things seem to work in large organizations. I have no idea how to change that.
New Some of the ground contamination is due to intentional use.
It was also used as a herbicide.

[link|http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:WnvJuPi-5WAJ:hq.environmental.usace.army.mil/Corps_Environment/story12.html&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a|Google Cache]:

During the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Department of Defense was responsible for the protection of the East Coast from communist missile invasion and the execution of an offensive missile attack. The highly specialized radar systems were susceptible to oxidation, corrosion and electrical shorts due to oils used on the equipment. Chlorinated solvents performed an excellent job in cleaning the electronics. In particular, trichloroethylene (TCE) performed a superior job in this cleaning effort and it didn\ufffdt take very much to clean the equipment. Unfortunately, today it doesn\ufffdt take much TCE to contaminate groundwater to a level that is unsafe to drink.
\t
In addition, the toxicity value of TCE was found to be so effective that it was occasionally used as a defoliant to eradicate unwanted weeds or woody vegetation at the DoD facilities. The government did nothing wrong, for it followed standard waste disposal practices when using TCE, but society didn\ufffdt understand health implications of contaminants in our drinking water at that time.

Now 40-50 years later, we are trying to recover the TCE discharged at these facilities via sub-surface septic systems, waste disposal sites, floor drains and/or stormwater collection systems. Complicating this effort is the fact that these facilities were constructed on the highest topographic features to gain the most direct and unobstructed radio and radar signals. The geology of these locations in New England is typically fractured metamorphic and igneous rock. This rock is typically referred to as "hard rock" and it is generally a solid media with small fractures or fissures making up the porosity. This geology makes our job of determining groundwater and contaminant flow very difficult. Two Defense Environmental Restoratin Program Formerly Used Defense Sites, Glenburn and Bucks Harbor, Maine, demonstrate geophysical techniques to determine groundwater and contaminant flow. Both projects have TCE contaminatino in the bedrock aquifer.

[...]


Cheers,
Scott.
     Ashton; dabbling in hyperbole, or not? - (dmcarls) - (16)
         The Pentagon has a big problem - (ben_tilly)
         Funny thing about that solvent -- - (Ashton)
         That story is a bit disingenuous. - (Another Scott) - (13)
             obvious riposte - (rcareaga) - (6)
                 Touche' - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     nit lung cancer appears to be caused by other people smoking - (boxley) - (1)
                         Linky? TIA. -NT - (Another Scott)
                 Arrogant stupidity - (drewk) - (2)
                     Screw you back - (broomberg) - (1)
                         Bah, completely different - (drewk)
             Statistically speaking - - (Ashton) - (5)
                 Without statistics, the squeaky wheel gets the grease = $$$. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     The big question I have is - (jake123) - (2)
                         Hindsight is cheaper than foresight - (hnick)
                         Some of the ground contamination is due to intentional use. - (Another Scott)
                     Re: Without statistics, the squeaky wheel gets the grease - (Ashton)

None of us is as dumb as all of us.
51 ms