11bee Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Always knew the military was a horrible polluter but this article makes it clear how bad they really are. Focuses on the Marines at Camp Lejune but the practices there were pretty much SOP at every other base. Things today are run much tighter but you still have the problem of how to clean up decades worth of pollution. Maybe trim a few hundred F-35's from the budget and put the money towards the cleanup? http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-military-supposed-protect-countrys-citizens-and-soldiers-not-poison-them-259103.html Edited July 31, 2015 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 You cannot eliminate pollution entirely as it is a product of human industrialization, especially in the petroleum area. The military represents a relatively small footprint overall. I have heard that some of the worst polluters by are the giant cargo ships who use very low grade waste oil for their boilers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Yeah there was a lot of places at my old base, which at the time was a A/C production facility that were "dump pits" We always kept away from them. I must admit tho for the last 20 years I was in they put a huge emphasis on EPA. The USAF changed the way they recover most tactical aircraft to recover the fuel that is normally dumped from the engine during shutdown. We have only designated areas where we can was an aircraft because of the water/oil separators. Rainwater drains have to open to facilitate storm water drainage during a big storm. Also the prospect of a $10,000 fine and losing your job kept most people from short cutting the EPA regs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) You cannot eliminate pollution entirely as it is a product of human industrialization, especially in the petroleum area. The military represents a relatively small footprint overall. I have heard that some of the worst polluters by are the giant cargo ships who use very low grade waste oil for their boilers. New rules no longer allow them to burn heavy fuel oil when within 12 mi of shore. They must switch to ultra low sulfur diesel when in these regions. Military switched to ultra low sulfur diesel a few years ago for all shipboard operations so in this case the military is ahead of commercial. Edited July 31, 2015 by graves_09 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 For some reason I have this rather silly image in my head of a pilot saying "I'm sorry, I'd like to shoot down that enemy aircraft that's about to attack us but the carbon footprint of my missile shot is just too much for the environment to handle. And the chemical waste clean-up of a downed fighter jet is just really nasty stuff. I think I'll have to let them go ahead and make their bombing run." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 And the chemical waste clean-up of a downed fighter jet is just really nasty stuff. I think I'll have to let them go ahead and make their bombing run." It's funny you mention it but you are correct - a crashed jet typically requires a hazardous waste response. Not just the spilled fuel but on some jets (the F-16 comes to mind), there could potentially be a release of hydrazine, which is very nasty stuff (highly toxic and reactive). I believe the F-16 uses this chemical as part of it's emergency starting system. Typically you need to suit up in full protective equipment, respirators, etc to work anywhere close to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Always knew the military was a horrible polluter but this article makes it clear how bad they really are. Focuses on the Marines at Camp Lejune but the practices there were pretty much SOP at every other base. Things today are run much tighter but you still have the problem of how to clean up decades worth of pollution. Maybe trim a few hundred F-35's from the budget and put the money towards the cleanup? http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-military-supposed-protect-countrys-citizens-and-soldiers-not-poison-them-259103.html Maybe pull out of a few muti billion dollar wars and clean things up here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Maybe pull out of a few muti billion dollar wars and clean things up here? Nah.. why worry about the health of our own citizens? Gotta keep focused on the important stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Most of the waste was during the cold war, when either A) hazards weren't well understood or B ) the Russians were coming so it didn't really matter as long as the job got done. Much like the industrial revolution of the 1800's. Today military is trying to strike a balence between getting the job done and protecting the environment. Disposal of a system is one of the up front considerations when a new weapons system is conceived. It doesn't trump system performance, cost, etc, but most be considered. At least we consider the environmental impact and minimize whenever possible. I highly doubt the Chinese, Russians, north Koreans etc can say the same. Edited July 31, 2015 by graves_09 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) What do they do with out dated nukes? Landfill in New Jersey?---John Edited July 31, 2015 by john53 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 That's right, I'm sure we can find a way to bomb ISIS in a clean, environmentally friend manner. I mean what's the world coming to when you can't kill something without harming the mother earth? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caudleryan Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Sort of. Somewhere out west. Nevada or Arizona I believe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caudleryan Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Let them rot in the desert. More nutrients for mother earth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graves_09 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) That's right, I'm sure we can find a way to bomb ISIS in a clean, environmentally friend manner. I mean what's the world coming to when you can't kill something without harming the mother earth? :whistle:/>/> What's the point of living on earth if it's polluted? DOD policy isn't to not pollute, no rational person would claim this to be possible. Even taking a duce in the morning is a form of "pollution". It's bs to claim pilots/soldiers/sailors shouldn't do their job or have to worry about pollution. However what is rational and prudent is to minimize whenever possible. If an alternative chemical exists that is less toxic and is as effective, why wouldn't we use it? If simulation of a missile shot during training is as effective as a real shot, why not? Energy efficiency is its own benifit to the war fighter. If a tank can go 20% further on the same amount of fuel why wouldn't you want that? Energy efficiency saves money and allows the war fighter to do more with less. If it happens to help the environment too, why is that a bad thing? In regards to the original story, why shouldn't we be helping the veterans and their families that unknowingly were made sick due to government negligence? Seems like the least we could do for them? Edited July 31, 2015 by graves_09 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 That's right, I'm sure we can find a way to bomb ISIS in a clean, environmentally friend manner. I mean what's the world coming to when you can't kill something without harming the mother earth? :whistle:/> In my neck of the woods, the local National Guard base switched to tungsten bullets instead of lead ones. I think these were just used for training, tungsten was supposed to be more "environmentally friendly" than lead. The reason was that lead from the firing ranges was leaching through the sand into the groundwater and was being detected in drinking water supplies. Things seemed to be going well until they then started finding high concentrations of tungsten in the groundwater. http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20080911/NEWS/809110313 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Going green is good... ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chuck540z3 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I just saw on PBS the other night a really good documentary on the discovery and use of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Very good, with lots of rare film of test bombs and the 2 dropped on Japan if you want to catch it some time. Anyway, right after the war, the U.S. was testing a nuke at Bikini island where they placed hundreds of surplus and captured enemy ships, with fuel in them, near the blast epicentre to see how they would fare with a bomb dropped from the air. Of course many sunk right away, but many survived, so they later placed another bomb underwater to see if that would work better. Well, it did, with just about every ship sunk if I recall correctly. In this one big experiment, the U.S. sunk hundreds of ships full of fuel and totally sterilized several square miles of the ocean floor. Now THAT my friends, is military pollution! Edited July 31, 2015 by chuck540z3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 What's the point of living on earth if it's polluted? The vast majority of the human population seems incapable of grasping this concept. They'd rather crap in their own bed for the sake of short term profits than think about the consequences. At some point mother nature will win. It's just a matter of when. Homo sapiens is going to end up being a very tiny blip on the timeline of earth's history. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mumbles Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I just saw on PBS the other night a really good documentary on the discovery and use of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Very good, with lots of rare film of test bombs and the 2 dropped on Japan if you want to catch it some time. Anyway, right after the war, the U.S. was testing a nuke at Bikini island where they placed hundreds of surplus and captured enemy ships, with fuel in them, near the blast epicentre to see how they would fare with a bomb dropped from the air. Of course many sunk right away, but many survived, so they later placed another bomb underwater to see if that would work better. Well, it did, with just about every ship sunk if I recall correctly. In this one big experiment, the U.S. sunk hundreds of ships full of fuel and totally sterilized several square miles of the ocean floor. Now THAT my friends, is military pollution! So is the irradiating of hapless passers by (The Lucky Dragon) and islanders with fallout, and dispossessing some of those islanders of their homes and culture. Edited July 31, 2015 by Mumbles Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We still haven't found a planet with "intelligent life".---John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Always knew the military was a horrible polluter but this article makes it clear how bad they really are. Focuses on the Marines at Camp Lejune but the practices there were pretty much SOP at every other base. Things today are run much tighter but you still have the problem of how to clean up decades worth of pollution. Maybe trim a few hundred F-35's from the budget and put the money towards the cleanup? http://www.newsweek....hem-259103.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 The military may have been "horrible polluters" decades ago but in recent times (last 25 years at least) they are among the least. A few years ago, while stationed up at NAS Brunswick Maine, a bunch of us were out at the local bar and got talking with a couple of local teachers. One of them brought up how she couldn't wait for the base to close so that there would be no more pollution in Brunswick (maybe she was referring to Sailors?), the environment, etc. At any rate, we talked about the regulations imposed on us in regards to HAZMAT, which are substantial. The funny part came when she asked what I drive, a 4 cylinder Corolla...but that I typically ride my bicycle around town. That's when her friend chimed in "Tell him what you drive"...a friggin' Cadillac Escalate. Go buy me a beer lady... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mumbles Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Pollution and it's effects on personnel were a driver behind some of the revelations about Area 51 a while back: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/21/opinion/la-oe-turley-area-51-20130821 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) The military may have been "horrible polluters" decades ago but in recent times (last 25 years at least) they are among the least. That's the equivalent of saying "I finally stopped beating my wife". There is no question about that. The military has (begrudgingly) agreed to meet the same environmental standards as the rest of the nation. This fact means little. They still have a horrific problem from previous years. That's the interesting thing about pollution, you typically have to clean the mess up. In most cases, just ignoring it only makes the problem worse as the plumes of contaminants tends to continue moving, often well outside of the boundaries of the base. The nearest base to me is the old Otis AFB / ANGB / Camp Edwards site. They made the same mess as did all the other bases. No one cared until their contaminants started showing up in the drinking water of nearby towns and in the irrigation systems of local agricultural facilities. Even then the military stalled on the program until political pressure forced them aggressively tackle the problem. Estimated cleanup costs are in the $1 billion range and the remedial operation is expected to continue for another 20 years. All this to clean up the mess from a relatively small installation. Unfortunately, Otis is still pretty much the exception. Edited August 1, 2015 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.