What you don't see in the news


Of interest:

Worlds largest polluter: The US military

You take all your news from DN Kultur, don’t you? :)

Nah, I read the entire newspaper. I just like the culture pages best. And It’s not just because that’s where you find the comic strips! ;)

Of course, I found out yesterday that my current philosophy professor writes music reviews for DN, as well as occasional essays , so I might be considered partial on the matter. Or maybe not.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I do the same, after all.
The chaps and ladies at my institution aren’t entirely unknown to the paper in question, either. Though they get quoted everywhere, since it has to do with crime.

I find it hard to believe that the worlds largest polluter isn’t soviet.

Additionally Ironic:

The website “Project Censored” is essentially a bibliography of published works.

Feel free to dig up some information to support your theory. I’m not saying you are wrong, but I also don’t find it implausible that the US military is the worlds greatest polluter.

Well, for starters, the US has an EPA. The USSR did not.

There’s the national geographic story,


A geocities pages with a rather detailed listing,


and other such reports


that detail a trend of intentional pollution on a scale that dwarfs anything you see the the US military do.

Taking an hour long walk on Karachai Lake will give you a lethal dose of radiation. Taking an hour long walk through Hanaford won’t.

[size=1]When will url tags work again?[/size]

The military is exempt from a lot of EPA regulations.

Quoted from “Project Censored”

In a rare defeat, the Pentagon failed in 2002 to win concessions from Congress for exemptions from the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental laws.

Again, you’re comparing to a country that had “dump it in the river” as a standard way of treating nuclear waste.

The rest of that article is rather laughable. The amazing discovery that “bombs blow stuff up and set things on fire” was a real eye opener for me.

This is kind of vague. Can you be specific? Provide links maybe?

I see. The USSR is dead though. Not to ignore the sheer scale of environmental destruction in the former soviet union, but I think the article is concerned with top polluters today, not the top polluters of the 1980’s.

As a sidenote, you could have embedded all those url tags. All the adresses started with “www”, which means they work even if you remove the “http://” from the adresses as we have to do now if we want to embed links.

Most of the “war on earth” reports that I’ve seen seem to stem from whether or not you believe spent uranium in shells used in combat constitute a a dire ecological threat.

As for the USSR, if anything, they’re even worse on the environment now that they no longer exist, and their military has essentially abandoned hundreds of military sites where metal containers with everything from chemical weapons to fuel slowly leak their contents into the surrounding earth.

I can only speak from personal anecdotal evidence, of course, but most bases that I’ve trained on have pretty strict rules about the use of the surrounding land for training, to the point where breaking off some branches to put in your kevlar helmet for camo is enough to get you into severe trouble. If anything, since 98% of the land is used for non-live-fire excercises and no access is given to the civilian hunters, loggers or other individuals, it’s one of the safest locations for several species.

The US military is also moving away from DU.

Some quotes are amusing though.

Television footage of the war last month showed Iraqi armored vehicles burning as US columns drove by, a common sign of a strike by DU, which burns through armor on impact, and often ignites the ammunition carried by the targeted vehicle.

“We were buttoned up when we drove by that - all our hatches were closed,” the US sergeant says. “If we saw anything on fire, we wouldn’t stop anywhere near it. We would just keep on driving.”

Tanks explode when hit by DU shells… as opposed to regular shells, which just smell nice? Not to mention that I suspect that crews drive by burning vehicles buttoned up for fear of secondary explosions sending shrapnel into their noggins.

But so much of that article is… "there was unexploded ordnance around… including DU rounds which can cause cancer! (as opposed to explosive which can blow people up).

The guy at the end has the right point.

“DU munitions are neither the benign wonder weapons promoted by Pentagon propagandists nor the instruments of genocide decried by hyperbolic anti-DU activists,” Mr. Fahey writes in a March report, called “Science or Science Fiction: Facts, Myth and Propaganda in the Debate Over DU Weapons.”

Kalle, are you saying this is not in the US media, or your media?

url tags were broken for quite some time, and I don’t trust them yet…

Don’t trust that preview button neither. Has a shifty look about him he does.

US media mainly, I’ve seen a couple of the stories feature in major news outlets over here but even so that’s still a minority of the stories.

DU, the whole Vieques thing, and stuff like the HF sonar have all been in mainstream US papers.

I am curious Kalle, are you visiting the USA now? Working here?

That page doesn’t even mention depleted uranium, but I guess that’s what they mean with toxic waste?

The world’s largest polluter, the U.S. military, generates 750,000 tons of toxic waste material annually, more than the five largest chemical companies in the U.S. combined. This pollution occurs globally as the U.S. maintains bases in dozens countries. In the U.S. there are 27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 military properties inside Washington’s Fairchild Air Force Base is the number one producer of hazardous waste, generating over 13 million pounds of waste in 1997. Not only is the military emitting toxic material directly into the air and water, it’s poisoning the land of nearby communities resulting in increased rates of cancer, kidney disease, increasing birth defects, low birth weight, and miscarriage.

The military currently manages 25 million acres of land providing habitat for some 300 threatened or endangered species. Groups such as Defenders of Wildlife have sued the military for damage done to endangered animal populations by bomb tests. The testing of Low-Frequency Sonar technology is accused of having played a role in the stranding death of whales around the world.

Rather than working to remedy these problems, the pentagon claims that the burden of regulations is undercutting troop readiness. The Pentagon already operates military bases in and outside of the U.S. as “federal reservations” which fall outside of normal regulation. Yet the DOD is seeking further exemptions in congress from the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.