ACTION NEEDED: MARINE MAMMALS WILL DIE IN NAVY WARFARE TESTING PROGRAM

By Rosalind Peterson
March 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The United States Navy requests permissions from the United States Department of Commerce (NOAA), to kill thirty two species of marine mammals over five years in their Pacific Ocean Warfare testing program.

The Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation will include the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. The final date for public comment is April 13, 2009.

These designated areas will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from California to the State of Washington and areas along the border between the United States and Canada. (The extent map designating this program area also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay Area under an “Extent Map Warning Area” designation.) Once implemented there is no date specified in E.I.S. for this Navy Warfare Testing Program to end although various documents show that this is a five-year Navy Warfare Testing program.

The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with the final public comment “stay of execution” deadline moved to April 13, 2009. U.S. citizens in four states demanded this extension and more public hearings and are opposing this catastrophic program. (This document is approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments.)

The United States Navy has also published an application, as an addendum to their program, in the U.S. Federal Register, dated March 11, 2009. This application from the Navy “…requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals during upcoming Navy Warfare testing and training to be conducted in the NWTR areas (off the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years…” Final public comment date is April 10, 2009.

The Navy Warfare Testing Program will “…utilize mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training…”

According to Navy Public Relations Officer Sheila Murray the United States Navy is already conducting warfare testing programs throughout the United States. During the last two years, it is alleged that the Navy has issued nearly identical environmental impact statements for Navy Warfare Training Range Complexes in the following areas: the Mariana Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, Jacksonville Florida, Cherry Point, North Carolina, the Gulf of Alaska and Southern California. It is unknown, at this time, how many marine mammals have been killed in these programs since their inception.

The Pacific and Atlantic Ocean belong to all the people of the world not just the United States. This “taking” of marine mammals negatively impacts the entire ecology of our oceans and the life in them which feeds large numbers of people and other species around the world. Now the United States government has decided that California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the Pacific Ocean marine life in those areas, are expendable in order to test more war weapons of mass destruction. It should be noted that the list of toxic chemicals is a long one as noted in the Navy E.I.S. Depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, and a whole host of chemicals known to be toxic not only to man, but to marine life, are being served up on the “Navy Warfare Chemical Menu” that will contaminate our air, water, and soil.

White Phosphorus is just one of the chemicals on Navy Toxic Menu: Berkowitz et.al (1981), in assessing the potential hazards associated with the use of phosphorus smoke munitions, reported that White Phosphorus residues in aquatic systems can be extremely toxic. Berkowitz stated that the deposition of washout of…White Phosphorus, especially in water bodies may create exposure risks to resident finfish, invertebrates and waterfowl, even if resultant White Phosphorus concentrations are in the low ppb range. 1996)

Water Quality Criteria for White Phosphorus – Authors” Kowetha A. Davidson; Patricia S. Hovatter, Catherine F. Sigmon, Oak Ridge National Lab TN: Abstract: Data obtained from a review of the literature concerning the environmental fate and aquatic and mammalian toxicity of white phosphorus are presented…Laboratory and field studies indicate that white phosphorus is quite toxic to aquatic organisms, with fish being the most sensitive…bioaccumulation is rapid and extensive, with the greatest uptake in the liver and muscle of fish and the hepatopancreas of lobster…other toxic effects to aquatic organism include cardiovascular and histological changes. (1987) (White Phosphorus is an airborne contaminant – used in fog oil and smoke obscurants.)

Mammalian Toxicology and Toxicity to Aquatic Organism of White Phosphorus and ‘Phossy Water’ by Authors Dickinson Burrows; Jack C. Dacre: AWARE INC Nashville TN – Abstract: “…white phosphorus is highly toxic to both experimental animals and man…white phosphorus is also highly toxic to aquatic animals…”

Concerned citizens in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, along with citizens across the United States are protesting this action by the United States government and the United States Navy. Almost all of our elected representatives are silent when it comes to opposing this disastrous program. The major news media has elected not to cover this story leaving coverage to a few small newspapers located in remote areas.

A Navy public hearing will be held in Mendocino County, California on Tuesday, March 31, 2009.

We hope that everyone will join us in demanding that the current ongoing Navy weapons program in Oregon is suspended permanently and that the new proposed Navy Warfare Testing Program expansion is stopped. Public protests should be filed with your elected representatives, the President of the United States, and to both the United States Navy and NOAA (United States Department of Commerce).

1, United States Navy Environment Impact Statement (Download one chapter at a time – works the best.)

2, U.S. Navy Public Comment Form Online

3, Write to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest,
1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203
Silverdale, Washington 98315
ATTN: Mrs. Kimberly Kier – NWTRC EIS
Deadline: April 13, 2009

4, NOAA Public Comments Address to:
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225.
Deadline: April 10, 2009

5, E-Mail Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 For More Information click here:

6, PETITION TO STOP NAVY PROGRAM:

7, The Peterson Perspective

8, Northwest Training Range Complex Draft EIS/OEIS

9, Northwest Training Range Complex Draft EIS/OEIS

The following Notice is in the United States Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10557:

“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XN87 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals;

Navy Training and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Activities Conducted within the Northwest Training Range Complex

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to military readiness training activities and research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) to be conducted in the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) for the period beginning September 2009 and ending September 2014.

1 - NOAA Definition: “TAKE”
2 - Defined under the MMPA as "harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect."
3 - Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy’s request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy’s application and request.

DATES: Comments and information to NMFS must be received no later than April 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to:

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225.
The mailbox address for providing email comments is PR1.0648–XN87@noaa.gov.
NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to
10558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10–megabyte file size.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

A copy of the Navy’s application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION).

The Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for NWTRC was made available to the public on December 26, 2008, and may be viewed here.

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as:

(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

Summary of Request

In September, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals (4 pinniped and 28 cetacean) incidental to upcoming training and RDT&E activities to be conducted in the NWTRC (off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years.

These training and RDT&E activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these training activities may expose some of the marine mammals present in the area to sound from various mid-frequency and high-frequency active tactical sonar sources or to pressure from underwater detonations. The Navy requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals by Level B Harassment.

Specified Activities

In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training events and RDT&E utilizing mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training.

Table 1–1 in the application lists the activity types, the equipment and platforms involved, and the duration and potential locations of the activities.

Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy’s request (see ADDRESSES). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy’s NWTRC request and NMFS’ potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy’s NWTRC activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization.

Dated: March 6, 2009. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Division of Permits, Conservation, and Education, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

© 2009 - Rosalind Peterson - All Rights Reserved

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.

Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.

E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind115.htm

It's Time For The Madness To Stop

By Sheila Samples

March 03, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- Sometimes it's hard to come to grips with the truth -- especially if that truth is about our own country, and is in direct opposition to everything we've been taught since childhood. Patriotism is in our genes, and through the years it has been a national conviction that, if our country needed us, serving in the military to protect our freedom was not only the right thing to do, but the only thing to do. We still believe that. We still leap to our feet at the first beat of a drum at a military parade, clutch our hearts at the sight of the Stars and Stripes, weep at the refrain of the National Anthem. However, far too many of us succumb to the pomp and pageantry of war -- of mission accomplished -- with little concern for the human beings who made that possible -- what they went through, what they're still going through -- so we can maintain our arrogant national pride.

From the beginning, those in the military have served their country with unswerving loyalty. They continued to march even after Henry Kissinger belched out the truth that Duty--Honor--Country is a one-way street because "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. And, it has long been a dead-end street for those captured or left behind on foreign soil -- for those who return from battlefields maimed both mentally and physically, and for those who are innocent victims of malicious life-destroying experiments who have no chance of the extent of their injuries being recognized and are refused the necessary health care.

The most ghastly experiment the military ever conducted was Operation Crossroads, a series of "Manhattan Project" tests requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1946 to study the effects of nuclear weapons on ships and equipment. After bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the year before, US officials knew the effect of massive radiation on human beings and animals. They had to know. So what else were the thousands of navy personnel positioned on ships from five to eight miles from the Bikini Atoll bomb site in the central Pacific if not guinea pigs?

One young sailor stationed at the Bikini Atoll in 1946 was Anthony Guarisco who, like thousands of others, has suffered horribly for the last 63 years as a result of radiation poisoning and like those others, has been denied the proper health care. Guarisco is the founder of both the National and International Alliance of Atomic Veterans. In 1994, Academy Award-winning team Vivienne Verdon-Roe and Michael Porter produced a documentary, "Experimental Animals," featuring Guarisco who, very calmly, describes the horrors of that 1946 July. (Note: Ecological Options Network has just re-released "Experimental Animals" on-line and as a DVD, because EON filmmaker/activist Jim Heddle says, "we think it's as relevant today as it was when it was produced.")

The first bomb -- Able -- was dropped from a B-29 on July 1. As a health precaution, military personnel in the area were told to "cover their eyes." Guarisco said it was awesome. He said it immediately "came home to me what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I could see how 55-65 thousand people could die in one-and-a-half seconds."

But the second one -- Baker -- was beyond awesome. Guarisco said it was detonated beneath the ocean from a depth of 90 feet, and "sucked a target array of approximately 100 ships into the air like little toys. I saw the U.S. Arkansas soar into the air about 200 feet and come down in two pieces. I saw aircraft carriers just flinging around as if they were toys."

According to the Navy's historical report, "The inability to complete inspections on much of the target fleet threatened the success of the operation after BAKER. A program of target vessel decontamination was begun in earnest about 1 August. This involved washing the ships' exteriors using work crews drawn from the target ships' companies under radiological supervision of monitors equipped with radiation detection and measurement devices. Initially, decontamination was slow as the safe time aboard the target ships was measured only in minutes. As time progressed, the support fleet itself had become contaminated by the low-level radioactivity in marine growth on the ships' hulls and seawater piping systems."

Ironically, although the ships were towed out of the area just 10 days after the blast where the work could be done in uncontaminated water, no warning was given to the human experimental animals, who were allowed to swim in contaminated water, walk barefoot on beaches and breathe poisonous air.

Guarisco said, "We went back into the ground zero area immediately after each of the detonations, and I spent a total of 67 days in the Bikini lagoon within one mile of the epicenter. And I became ill after the second detonation, approximately four or five days after that...I had symptoms similar to having a bad case of influenza. I had welts on my body -- I broke out with welts -- and it was scary for me. I was urinating blood, I was very sick."

And Guarisco wasn't the only one who became ill. In a 1998 National Radio Project interview with Michael O'Rourke, who monitors veterans health issues for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Guarisco said, "Other people on my ship were also feeling very sick. And for many, many years I thought that, well, certainly if there was anything wrong surely they would let me know. But," he said, "I found out many years later that’s not how it is. You know, the government and the U.S. military are not about to say anything about anybody who’s exposed to high levels or low levels of radiation. It was hard for me to come out of denial, to understand that I was dealing with people who really were not interested in anything else but waiting for me to die."

Guarisco says that, in one -- two -- blinding flashes, "we saw what World War III will look like. We have seen the firestorm, we have been witness to the sacrilegious devastation that nuclear weapons put forth, and we have seen our brother and our sister veterans die from being exposed to this terribleness." He says the bottom line of nuclear weapons is the bottom line of the profit margin -- that "deterrent" or "first strike" are fear code words used to keep the population at bay and to pave the way for the nuclear industry to keep building more expensive (profitable) weapons.

In his March 2008 tribute to both of his parents, Guarisco's son, Vincent, goes into greater detail about his father's lifelong battle, not only with the effects of radiation but with the nuclear industry and government itself. For more than 60 years, both Anthony and Mary Guarisco were out there, militant activists armed with the truth, relentlessly attempting to derail the nuclear train before it goes over the cliff, taking human survival with it.

The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other nation. Although we have avoided the instant, negative repercussions of another Nagasaki or Hiroshima, we have nevertheless managed to contaminate most of the world with Depleted Uranium.

In 2006, Japanese professor Dr. K. Yagasaki, by using the known amount of uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb -- about the size of a two-litre milk container -- calculated that a ton of DU used on the battlefield results in the equivalent of 100 Hiroshima bombs worth of radiation released into the atmosphere. So, when it was reported that 2,000 tons of DU were dropped on Iraq from 2003 to 2006, we need to understand that what was released in the Iraqi atmosphere, and then spreading worldwide, was the equivalent of 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

The total amount of DU the US has used since 1991 is approximately 4,600 tons (1,000 in the first Gulf War, 800 in Kosovo, 800 in Afghanistan and a further 2,000 tons in the second Iraq war.) This amounts to approximately 460,000 Hiroshima bombs, ten times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from all previous nuclear testing worldwide. And, it's important to note this calculation was three years ago. Since that time, we've had three more years of non-stop DU bombing...

Throughout the '60s, the US conducted numerous toxic and chemical weapons tests on its military personnel. In July 2008, Nic Maclellan, journalist, researcher and development worker in the Pacific, wrote...

"Under Project SHAD, the US Navy conducted six tests in the Marshall Islands and off the coast of Hawai’i between 1964-68. Pentagon documents released in 2002 show the US Defense Department sprayed live nerve and biological agents on ships and sailors, and sprayed a germ toxin on Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

"These Cold War-era experiments to test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare involved about 4,300 US military personnel, mostly from the Navy. Most were never informed that the tests were being conducted, breaching all ethical principles about informed consent for test subjects."

It's time that we, as a nation, not only face the truth -- but come to grips with it. Those who serve with such trust and loyalty cannot imagine that they are, at best, "experimental animals" to be used and cast aside by ruthless corporate thugs.

How many generations of Anthony Guariscos must we lose before we realize that "support the troops" means protect the troops? Like Guarisco said, we must stand up, stand together and demand the abolition of all nuclear weapons if human beings on this planet are to survive.

It's time for the madness to stop. Before we are all atomic veterans.

Sheila Samples http://sheilastuff.blogspot.com/  is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at rsamples@wichitaonline.net

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22133.htm

US Navy/DOD to use 4 NW States & ALL Inhabitants for Weapons Testing!!

US NAVY, DOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR 4 STATE WEAPONS TESTING RANGE

US Navy and DOD wants to use the State of Washington, all of the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, Northern California, and the Pacific Ocean from California to Washington State as a weapons training range!!!  

They've  decided, without the public's consent, to use public lands, the Pacific Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for warfare testing in four states.

 

By Rosalind Peterson
February 21, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The United States Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation will include all of the State of Washington, all of the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. This area will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from California to Washington. (The map designating this program area also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay Area under a “warning area” designation.)

The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with a final public comment deadline extended to March 11, 2009, this document is approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments. In addition to a short comment time the Navy limited public hearings to five, with only one held in Oregon, one in California and no hearings in Idaho. The Navy has allegedly failed to place information about this EIS in major newspapers or inform our elected representatives about this program.

Thus, citizens in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are asking for a realistic extension of time to read, study, and comment on this decision by the Navy and the Department of Defense, past the March 11, 2009, deadline. It should be noted that most elected representatives in California and Oregon were not aware of this EIS or the consequences of this action by the Navy.

The Navy has declared that this draft was distributed to our elected representatives. If so, then why haven’t our elected officials spoken up to defend our rights to be heard, required more public meetings and hearings in California, Washington, Idaho (where not one was held), and Oregon?

The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet have decided, without our consent, that that are going to use the Pacific Ocean off the Coast of California, Oregon and Washington and the land over four states to test weapons of war. They did not contact Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to obtain permission to use the Nevada Test Site for these warfare experiments. Instead they decided to use public lands, the Pacific Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for warfare testing in four states.

The Navy also has decided to contaminate our air, water, and soils with the chemicals used in these programs. They fail to list many of the chemicals that are to be used in these programs. Thus, under the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a complete listing of all chemicals that will be used during these testing programs. It is easy for the Navy EIS to state that they can mitigate for such toxic usage but fail to disclose a complete listing of said chemicals. Also copies of contamination studies conducted at other military test sites where contamination problems were found and at bases (like Fallon Air Force Base).

The draft EIS does not fully address the potential environmental impacts on multiple resources, like air quality, water resources, airborne acoustic environment (on land and in the ocean), biological resources, marine and terrestrial impacts and human health and safety. Without a complete understanding of their programs it is impossible to determine any impacts…thus, their EIS states that “…there are no significant impacts…” This statement is made throughout the entire document even though many of the chemicals used are highly toxic.

With the failure of the EIS to identify all of the air quality, water quality, and soils impacts of their programs this EIS appears to be a whitewash designed to stampede this program through as fast as the Navy can implement it. And in listing only a few of the EPA list of toxic chemicals that will be released by military aircraft (like jet fuel emissions), the Navy has avoided any discussion of negative impacts on air and water quality. It is not sufficient to state that our air is already polluted and that additional pollutants will make no difference in air quality.

There is a short listing of hazardous materials, air pollutants, and pollutants from munitions, expended materials, and radioactive materials to be used in this project. I am requesting a complete listing of all chemicals that will be used by the Navy, Air Force, and any other branch of the Department of Defense in this project. Inshore and offshore detonations may or may not be considered hazardous – however, until a complete listing of these chemicals is provided to the public there can be no public discussion of their hazard to public health, marine life, wildlife, public drinking water sources or our oceans. The avoidance of making this specific list public leads one to believe that these hazardous materials and chemicals are toxic and do pose environmental hazards.

It is interesting that Table ES-5 Summary of Effects (Page ES-16) – Hazardous Material does not list the name of any hazardous materials but tells the public that there is no problem with their use. How is it possible to have a summary table and list none of the chemicals to be used during the Navy program? They do note petroleum products, heavy metals, and combustion products but fail to list all of them along with the number of pounds to be used each year.

The public and marine life in the ocean will be subjected to various sonar and aviation noise, target noise, surface ship noise, weapons and target noise, EOD (no definition found), and underwater explosions. The Navy does admit that marine life will be harmed but harming our food supply, (fish like salmon), or the whales is not deemed important by the Navy, as they are expendable according to the EIS.

The Navy and the Department of Defense have decided that massive warfare expenditures for testing war products and weapons using marine life and the public as guinea pigs is in our best interest. And since a lot of the equipment and other items to be tested are experimental this leads one to believe that they are testing them on us for the first time to see how they work and if the public is harmed by their usage.

Just when did the citizens of the United States agree to be warfare test subjects when the Nevada Test Site and/or Area 51 which could be used for these tests? And why use the Pacific Ocean which is a migratory haven for our food supply and valuable marine life – including those that migrate along the Pacific Coast? And if this Navy project is approved and the health of the citizens, marine, or wildlife is threatened who will be held responsible for this action and its negative consequences?

The EIS does not give the public standing to say no to this project or the consequences of being used as guinea pigs during the testing. In addition, the EIS does not state how long the testing process will last – providing us with the information that once implemented testing could be conducted forever in these areas.

I am requesting, under the freedom of information act, answers to the above questions, listings of the chemicals used and their exact harm to the public, animals, marine life, water supplies, trees, agriculture, and soils. This includes information on whether or not depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, weather modification and mitigation chemicals will be used, whether or not atmospheric testing will occur along with aviation over-flights and bombing runs. Will sonic booms rattle our homes and low flights of planes shake our houses and wake us up at night? I am also requesting complete documentation and information on Electronic Combat Training and how it will impact human health. Noise and electronic levels should also be made public.

My freedom of information act request also includes the following questions:

1 - Will aluminum coated fiberglass be used (CHAFF) and how many pounds will be released each year?

2 - What are the health effects of Chaff particulates on humans, wildlife, soil and water? Please provide a study on these human and wildlife health effects.

3 - Will weather modification or mitigation programs be initiated during the Navy program? If so, what chemicals will be used in this program?

4 - Will jets be allowed to fly at heights that leave persistent jet contrails that exacerbate global warming and change our climate (NASA Studies)?

5 - A complete listing of jet fuels to be used (+ additives), and the components of said jet fuel with information on the number of chemicals released and their impact on human health, agriculture, soils, water supplies, and wildlife. (Include JP-8, JP-10, and other new experimental jet fuels.

The Jet Emissions report is available online at the EPA Website.

6 - A complete study of depleted uranium showing human health and animal health effects.

7 - A complete study of the health effects of the compounds listed in Table 3.3-5 Page 3.3-11 and definitions of RDX and HMX (use and toxicity).

8 - Toxicity of Red and White Phosphorus – humans, wildlife, soils, water supplies, marine life.

9 - A complete listing of the propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical and riot agents, and smoke canisters (type of smoke and toxicity) is requested. And a complete listing of obscurants which will be used in these programs and their toxicity.

10 - How much money will Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho be reimbursed for hazardous waste disposal and other toxic site clean-up from the Navy and the Department of Defense? It is requested that the reimbursement be 100%.

11 - A complete listing and studies of the synergistic effects of all chemicals used in the Navy program with associated health effects. This includes cumulative and synergistic effects as well.

12 - Studies of the synergistic effects of project chemicals on bioaccumulation in fish and other marine food supplies.

13 - Will Maxwell MOAs (1, 2 & 3,) be used in this Navy Project? If yes, what will be the actions taken over this area by all branches of the military?

A rough study of the EIS leads one to believe that the Navy and the Department of Defense intends to leave behind a toxic pea soup of chemicals and other toxins in their wake along with the human health effects and dead marine life. Many areas of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho would be contaminated from these experiments through airborne and water migration across these regions.

It also appears that nothing would be spared in testing weapons of war on the public (with the Nevada Test Site and Area 51 available for much of this testing and the Atlantic Ocean also available near Washington, D.C.); it appears that these Western States will be sacrificed for building and testing more weapons of mass destruction. Remember that sacrificing California, Washington, Oregon and Idaho is just the beginning…your state will be next.

I am requesting that the State of California be excluded from this Navy project. Citizens in all four states should say “no” to this proposed project and others like it.

Contact your elected representatives today and let them know how you feel about this project.

We are appealing to Congressman Mike Thompson, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to delay this project, allow more time for public comment, hold hearings in Mendocino County, CA, and to eventually oppose allowing California to become part of this costly, toxic warfare project.

For more information and copy of the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Comment Form.

© 2009 - Rosalind Peterson - All Rights Reserved

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.

Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.

E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind114.htm