• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How military activities effect the environment

Kathy

Well-known member
http://www.pgs.ca/updir/militarism_environment_web.pdf

THE IMPACT OF MILITARISM ON THE ENVIRONMENT:
AN OVERVIEW OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS
A research report written for Physicians for Global Survival (Canada)
By Abeer Majeed
February 2004
ISBN 0-9735916-0-9

Definitely worth looking at! Discusses the problems associated with military activities and agriculture, plus much more.

Chemical Weapons— One of the best known examples of accidents involving chemical weapons occured at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah in 1968. In early 1968, a small amount of VX nerve agent escaped during testing. As far as forty-five miles away, sheep began to die. As a result of the accidental release, 4,377 sheep died and another 1,877 were disabled. Wild animals that died in the area were never counted , or at least the statistics were never made public (Lanier-Graham 1993).

"Depleted uranium (DU) munitions, may be considered incendiary weapons although their radioactive properties put them in a new class. The DU used in antitank projectiles is metallic, but is encased, because uranium metal oxidizes rapidly in air. Upon striking the wall of a tank,
however, the greatly heated uranium, which becomes exposed to air on impact, burns brightly, producing small oxide particles in consequence. Thus, such projectiles, which are pyrophoric on impact, have an incendiary effect (Hogendoorn and Prokosch 2002). The environmental
consequences of DU use are enduring in nature. 70-80% of all DU weapons — around 250 tons in the Gulf War region alone — are thought to remain buried in soil (Royal Society 2002). [note: the amount used in GW I and GWII is alot more than 250 tons]

Decades on, corroding weapons may still release DU into the soil, to be taken up by plants and animals or leached into human water supplies. In an assessment of the health effects of DU weapons use, IPPNW conclude:
“Furthermore, DU weapons indiscriminately contaminate the places in which they are used, and the contamination persists long after the conclusion of hostilities, adding to the radioactive and toxic burden imposed upon civilians, wildlife and ecosystems. From this perspective, DU weapons should be considered a form of ecological warfare prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (IPPNW 2001, website)

There is an imperative need that comprehensive and independent studies be conducted to assess the detailed impact of uranium on ecosystems."

This is just a sample of this 45 page report. I recommend you look at it, the environmental effects are far-reaching....

3.1.2 Airspace
The worldwide military use of airspace is not known. Canada, however, may have the world’s most extensive airspace for military purposes. The zone assigned to Goose Bay air base at the northeastern coast of Labrador extends over 100,000 km2 (Renner 1991) and in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Cold Lake air weapons range stretches over 450,000 km2 (Miller and Ostling 1992). In the US, at least 30% and as much as 50% of airspace is used by the military (Renner 1991).

One of the most contentious issues surrounding military aviation is the low-level supersonic flights. Noise levels of up to 140 decibels (at which acute hearing damage can occur in humans and other mammals) are produced by planes flying at an altitude of 75 meters. In Nitassinan, near Goose Bay, Labrador, four NATO countries (Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom) have yearly performed thousands of low-level flights at the height of 100-250 feet, almost at maximum speed (Heininen 1994).

The land over which the exercises occur are inhabited by the Innu. As a consequence of these activities (sonic booms and aircraft emissions), the feeding and migration behaviour of caribou herds have been disturbed and the livelihoods of the Innu imperiled. In 1996, Canada renewed the 1986 Multinational Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) for another 10 year period with the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands.
The current memorandum allows for up to 15,000 low level and 3,000 medium/ high level training flights annually (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Finance 2001). Italy also signed the memorandum in 2000 while France, Belgium and Norway conducted trial activities at Goose Bay in 2001."

Sonic booms are described by Mark Purdey, and industry as a tool to cause the sintering of metal particles. This process of shaking metal nanoparticles together (in a non-oxidizing method) fits the criteria outlined by Dr. Vitaly Vodyanoy for the formation of PNCs - proteon nucleating centers which he hypothesis' is the template for prion formation.


3.1.6 Non-Fuel Minerals
Available global figures in the absence of reliable data are rough estimates. However, the worldwide use of aluminum, copper, nickel and platinum for military purposes is thought to surpass the total consumption of these materials by all developing countries combined (Biswas 2000). The military is estimated to account for 11% of global copper use, 9% of iron, and 8% of lead (Renner 1991). Overall, on a global basis, between 2 and 11% of fourteen important minerals is consumed for military purposes: aluminum, chromium, copper, fluorspar, iron ore, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc (Biswas 2000). The manufacture of a single F-16 jet requires 5,000kg of materials: 2,044kg titanium, 1,715kg nickel, 543 kg chromium, 330kg cobalt, and 267kg aluminum (Renner 1991).

Military demand for these minerals contributes to the major and highly visible environmental damage caused by mining operations. Ponting (1991) cites 70% of the world’s ore (95% in the US) is obtained by the most environmentally destructive of all methods — open cast mining. Durning (1990) explores the potentially powerful effects that military demand for minerals can have on the environment. In an assessment of apartheid’s environmental toll in South Africa, broad land areas were revealed to have been deeply scarred by reckless mining to finance the military superstructure that upheld minority rule (Durning 1990). The connections between natural resources, armed conflict, state oppression, and mining corporations are examined later in the report.

3.2 Arms Production, Storage, and Disposal

The production, maintenance, transportation, storage, and disassembly of weapons systems and equipment generate vast quantities of toxic materials. However, due in part to military secrecy, it is difficult to quantify the contribution of military-related hazardous waste to overall
environmental pollution. Nonetheless, military production facilities and bases are significant sources of contamination. For example, the Pentagon alone generates half a billion tons of toxic waste per year, more than the top five chemical companies combined (Donohoe 2003)."
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Just wondering where do you ranch-farm in Alberta Kathy?Are you in the only safe place in Alta. that doesn't have metal,chemical exposure?Do you own cattle,horses ,sheep,any animals?I think these are fair questions,don't you?I'd be glad to reciprocate,if your interested.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
The problem with your tone, is that you live in fear of finding BSE, "on your farm"...

I don't! My animals might not be exposed to the same chemicals and metals that other animals are, or they might be. If they are... I sure would want to find out about it and do something to prevent it, rather than wait around for someone to shelter me from the truth.

I live down wind to some degree of the Sheerness Power station SE of Hanna-Alberta depending which direction the wind blows....You are welcome here to discuss this or any matter you'd like... the coffee pot is always on.

I am some distance west and north of the Suffield military base. CWD has been located east/NE, of the Suffield base (in the last three years).

If, by chance, something from Suffield (Wainwright, Cold-Lake, Swan Hills etc) were causing the contamination which 'may be' responsible for BSE and CWD would you want to know about it, or not?

I would.

Then I would do something to stop further contamination, find treatments and prevent others from suffering from the "Madcow Mysteries"....

In the end, testing of some sort (BSE, heavy metals, metabolic markers for chemicals, etc) will likely be required for every animal consumed.... ALL animals, not just cows - and other food products ie; vegetables, fruit..

If rogue metal PNCs, which can include Depleted Uranium, Strontium90, and other such pollutants are spread in the environment by governments, private businesses, or military... each of us will suffer the consequences eventually [economically or health].

If there is a negligent polluter responsible... then they should (and will) be held accountable - even if only to say "they contributed to this problem", and acknowledgement of the truth will set us on a path to better understanding of many diseases.

Mark Purdey had even suggested an amnesty for those in government who forced the use of the toxic soup, called Phosmet, in the warble eradication program of the UK, or other such culprits.

It is better to know what (or who) you are fighting against... Otherwise, you can bend over and kiss your @$$ goodbye.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Well Kathy,we live off our own homegrown beef that we let our most loved grandson eat,so how in the heck do you get any idea I live in fear of having BSE on our ranch :? You seem to be afraid of everything...amazes me that you live so close to a power plant,aren't you scared of the boogy men that live in the chemicals blowing out the smokestacks :shock: How about the coal mine,aren't there some scary contaminants there?Surely you don't 'swim' in that lake right beside the plant do you :eek:

BTW,we're fairly close nieghbors but don't worry about putting the coffee pot on,I'm too scared of the chemicals and contaminents from the mine,plant and lake
 

Kathy

Well-known member
I'm sorry that I assumed you were living in fear of finding BSE on your farm... it was wrong to say so. How do I know what you think...

I do worry about the emissions from the coal mine and power station. I have lost more than a few neighbors from Cancer and I have suffered its rath myself.

Where do we live to escape the effects of man?

The fine and ultrafine emissions from the coal powered station don't usually stick close to it, they travel for hundreds of miles and fallout in the rain or snow. In Canada, we are getting alot of the fallout from China's coal-powered electrical stations. The planet is "one backyard".

I grow my own garden, even though I'm not a green thumb.

I eat our own beef, which is grass fed - no hormones and no profilactic antibiotics (only use them on individual sick animals when they absolutely need them). That doesn't mean our beef is perfect, is our environment perfect?

I'd still rather have a coal-fired plant (hopefully with new technology to sequester the emissions more effectively) than a nuclear plant. My own inquiries into the nuclear industry and their use of depleted uranium in bullets and bombs has provided me with an understanding that the nuclear industry is just a tool of death.

Please answer me this question. Do you expect the cattle industry, our livelihoods on our ranches, to last - and how long under the present conditions?

I see the cattle industry being "set-up" as the fall guy for all the diseases (especially wasting diseases like vCJD/CJD, etc) associated with the nuclear industry's waste, weapons and emissions.

By revealing what I believe is the truth about "depleted uranium" nanoparticles (and other radioisotopes) contaminating our backyards from military (Suffield, Wainwright, Cold Lake) and the Swan Hills incinerator in NW Alberta, and the flaring of gas wells with NORMs.... and showing that the danger is more significant with the "inhalation" of these ultrafine toxic metal nanoparticles than ingestion, I hope to stop the further contamination of all our backyards.

I can't change what has been done. I can change what will be done in the future.

I can hope to convince people that while ingestion of these radionuclides in ALL foods and water is a danger. The inhalation of these nanoparticles contaminating our AIR is by far - the most dangerous form of contamination. These particles can readily travel via the olfactory channels directly to the brain, where they may lodge and 'zap' our cells, destroying nerves and their protective mechanisms ie: macrophages etc..

It shocks me to learn that there are still active "community pastures" on the Suffield military base (which is approx. 664,000 thousand acres).

It's too bad you don't want to discuss our differences of opinion over a coffee. You might have thoughts/ideas which could relieve my concerns; or I might be better able to explain all the reasons for why I am concerned and why I do what I do.

You are welcome in my home.
 

elwapo

Well-known member
Yes the sabo anti tank rounds are tungsten carbide. That being said,there are 664000 acres of land and a very small portion is actually used for the live fire templates. There is also an abundance of very healthy wildlife on the base. There were 260 head of elk put on the base when the horses were removed in the late 90,s, today there are over 1600. If the environment was poisoned, as you imply, the reproduction rates would not be as strong. I also suspect that if the military was causing bse we would have seen a case in the over 5500 head that graze in the base.
I believe your sketchy science and wild assumptions have led you in the wrong direction on this one!
 

knabe

Well-known member
a good book to read about fear is "state of fear" by michael chrighton.

yellowstone park was basically ruined by overcaring environmentalists from when they found it by not allowing any hunting of elk. it cascaded from there. the trees changed, the fauna changed. it goes on everywhere by not harvesting trees. then they go up in smoke releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere, probably causing global cooling. environmentalists are absolutists, and must be called on it and marginalized. does that mean we should cut down all trees? no, that's a strawman argument. military is necessary, unless you want to negotiate with your head on a pike, which is what the democrats are backing us in a corner to do, though i do disagree with bush, we should be MORE aggressive, not constantly trying to run a politically correct war. it is causing us to lose the pr war and our soldiers.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Kathy said:
I see the cattle industry being "set-up" as the fall guy for all the diseases (especially wasting diseases like vCJD/CJD, etc) associated with the nuclear industry's waste, weapons and emissions.


:lol: :lol: :lol2: :lol2: :frowns:

:disagree: :liar:


your hopeless kathy, or you are the fall guy for the cattle industry trying to cover up mad cow disease's and the ramifications there of. nuclear proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with it. you know it, i know it, and so does everyone else. you crack me up with your nonsense :lol: :cowboy:
 
Top