Contaminated sand from Gulf War bound for a disposal site in Grand View, Idaho,

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/04/15/area_news/doc48044bd6e597d443239356.txt

Contaminated sand from Gulf War to pass through Longview
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:44 AM PDT
By Erik Olson





A ship carrying 6,700 tons of sand contaminated with low levels of hazardous waste at a U.S. Army base in Kuwait during the first Gulf War will be unloaded at the Port of Longview on April 22.



The vessel BBC Alabama is delivering 306 containers of the sand, which contains low levels of uranium, to the port, which will then be loaded onto trains bound for a disposal site in Grand View, Idaho, said Doug Averett, the port’s director of operations.



A cleanup contractor packaged the contaminated sand in bags designed to hold hazardous waste and then placed them in a container, said Chad Hyslop, project manager for Idaho-based American Ecology, the company responsible for disposing of the material.



Longshoremen will not directly handle contaminated material — only the containers holding it, according to the port.



The shipment is safe, Hyslop said, because the concentration of uranium in the sand is so low — about 10 parts per trillion. That concentration — about 0.00000000001 percent — is about five to 10 times higher than the concentration of uranium found in concrete or wall board, he said.



"We’re talking about levels that you see in nature," Hyslop said.



American Ecology was required to get permission to dispose of the sand from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The sand contains "unimportant quantities of source material," according to a Sept. 13 letter from the agency to the U.S. Army that The Daily News obtained from the port.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. ...

:wtf:

[Demeter]

2. This Is More Suited for Deep Sea Burial

Why the F***bring it here?


It's stupid things like this press release that make us wonder what they are REALLY up to? What's actually in those bags? Radioactive, genetically damaged children born of depleted uranium exposure?

I suppose such "bodies of evidence" are what actually get deep-sixed.

[juajen]

4. NO. No more contamination and polluting of the oceans.

NT

[Demeter]

8. The Oceans Will Not Be Contaminated or Polluted By Sand

The oceans contain within them all the minerals of the earth dissolved already, including uranium.

[juajen]

3. If it's just low levels of contamination, why the Hell can't they

bury it in the desert over there. Didn't we fight that war to free Kuwait? Now we are contaminating Idaho. This administration is the pits. I know. Why don't we unload these barrels of contamination on the Bush property in Paraguay?

[Indenturedebtor]

5. Why if it's so low levels are they handling it like this?

What in the hell is this about? And can't they dig a hole in Iraq? What in the hell...

[izquierdista]

6. Burying sand

Come on people, can't you read through the widely spaced lines here? Why are they burying sand from half way around the globe in Idaho? Come on, think about it. How much do you think it will cost? Who will be paying that bill and who will be getting paid to do it?

Yes! :think: It's all for the contractors.

This is not rocket science, it's very simple engineering. And with the uranium level so low, they could just as easily have planted a crop of Jimson weed on the land in question, harvested it, and buried it locally with about 40-60 feet of cover to solve the "problem".

However this does give me an idea to sell to the Bush Administration to combat the rise in sea levels expected from global warming: We load large tankers of water in Florida, where sea level rise is a problem and we haul them to Saudi Arabia and build a huge wave tank outside of Riyadh so the king's sons can all take up surfing. If you have any experience in hauling buckets of water, I'll keep your resume on file.

[jmowreader]

7. Why bury it in IDAHO?

Is there any reason at all we can't bury that sand on the pig farm?

It's Bush's fucking mess, let HIM store it.