Does the Navy have any right to destroy our oceans?
 
Below is an article on the new Navy plans for nuking and toxically
contaminating the Pacific Ocean and all its creatures off the coasts of Oregon
and Washington.
 
For those who wish to "cut to the chase" right to radioactivity and the use of
Depleted Uranium weaponry on Flipper, other sea creatures, and our kids
who swim in the Pacific, go to:  http://tinyurl.com/dmyzml or
 
www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/Public%20DEIS%20files/Chapters%201-3/Resource_Section\
_3_Hazardous_Materials.pdf
 
We talk about stopping the new 81 nuclear reactors (i.e., 81,000 Megawatts of
brand new nuclear power) and military testing and training via so-called
"Depleted" Uranium munitions (such as is conducted in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada,
New Mexico, and near me in Maryland), and we discuss the outdoor, open air
explosions of Uranium at Livermore outside San Francisco and in NM and NV, too.
 
But can someone please tell me when are we all going to just start talking
about the environmental radioactivity issue in general... i.e.,
the tremendous, deliberate, radioactive contamination of America- our air,
water, soil, animals and aquatic life, plants, and people?
 
We are separated into different groups with these issues but it all boils down
to the same thing, folks. The toxic and radioactive poison gases are destroying
our environment and all forms of life in the US - including humans.
 
Only with massive outcries by outrageously large numbers of Americans can we
hope to stop these nuke-happy madmen/women intent on continously blasting
these lethal gases out into our air, water, and soil... without any regard
whatsoever to environmental and public health.
 
Cathy Garger
 
 



2/4/2009 3:11:00 PM 
Email this article • Print this article 











Photo: Howard Garrett
Ruffles, the oldest known male orca in the world, swims past Fort Casey
Lighthouse in October 2008. The U.S. Navy recently released its plans to
increase operations in its Northwest Training Range Complex and the news has
many people wondering what the impact will be to marine wildlife and the
environment.





Justin Burnett / The Whidbey Examiner
Clinton resident John Hurd speaks at a public hearing in Oak Harbor concerning
the U.S. Navy�s plans to expand activities at the Northwest Training Range
Complex.





Public comment

Mail comments about the plan to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest,
Attn: Kimberly Kler, 1101 Tautog Circle, Silverdale WA 98315-1101, or submit
comments online at the link at the bottom of this page. The deadline for
comments has been extended to March 11.



Navy training expansion draws criticism

By Justin Burnett
Examiner Staff Writer

As many as 150 orcas are known to inhabit the waters of Puget Sound and the
coast of Washington at various times of the year.

Among them is Ruffles. He belongs to a small family group called J-pod. At 57,
he is the oldest known male orca in the world, according to Howard Garrett,
president of Orca Network, a Whidbey Island based nonprofit group dedicated to
raising awareness about whales in the Northwest.

Ruffles's exact age has been confirmed through photographic evidence. The
characteristic ruffled back edge of his dorsal fin not only makes him easy to
identify but also earned him his name.

He is usually spotted traveling on the outskirts of the pod. It may be that he
is a loner or it may be that his position serves some special function within
the group. It's one of the many mysteries about orcas that scientists have yet
to discover, Garrett said.

The U.S. Navy recently released its plan to expand its training operations in
Puget Sound and off the coasts of Washington and Oregon. With everything from
missile and sonar testing to dumping depleted uranium included in the proposal,
some environmentalists are concerned that Ruffles and J-pod may have given up
the last of their secrets.

Strategic defense

The Navy's plan is to expand operations in its Northwest Training Range Complex,
an area encompassing about 122,400 nautical miles of air, surface and subsurface
space, which has been in operation since World War II.

The main purpose is to prepare for the wars of tomorrow, said Cmdr. Matt Miller,
the executive officer at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, at a public
hearing on the plan last week in Oak Harbor.

"Realistic training insures U.S. Navy personnel maintain the highest level of
readiness in capability and is the single greatest asset the military has in
preparing and protecting American service men and women to defend the nation,"
he said.

The Navy has spent the past year preparing an environmental impact statement, or
EIS, which is a requirement of the National Environment Policy Act. According to
the document, which contains more than 1,000 pages, current training exercises
in the complex include everything from anti-air, anti-surface, and
anti-submarine warfare to explosive ordnance disposal.

Besides a no-action option, the EIS outlines two main alternatives. The first
calls for an increase in current training activities as well as testing new
equipment such as new aircraft, guided missile submarines and unmanned aerial
systems.

Alternative 2, the Navy's preferred option, includes all the changes outlined in
alternative one but proposes increasing current training levels even more and
enhancing the range by using new air and sea surface targets, and developing an
underwater training minefield.

According to the EIS, Alternative 2 would allow the Navy to increase the number
of missiles it fires by 470 percent, from 10 per year to 57 per year. The number
of bombs dropped per year would increase 33 percent, from 108 to 144, and the
number of shells fired would increase 106 percent, from 25,856 to 53,343.

That includes 20 mm cannon shells made from depleted uranium. Alternative 2 also
would roughly double the number of sorties flown per year, from 2,499 to 4,998.

While most of these exercises would take place in coastal waters, some
explosives testing is currently allowed within Puget Sound. Under Alternative 2,
such activities would continue to be allowed.

Impact debated

Despite the Navy's proposals, the EIS concludes there will be no significant
effect on marine life from any of the offered alternatives.

The claim has drawn significant skepticism from a number of local residents. Of
the 30 people who attended the public hearing in Oak Harbor, not a single person
voiced support for the Navy's plans. Instead, one attendee after another said
the study's conclusions are hard to swallow - literally.

"How much depleted uranium do you want to eat in your fish?" asked Zimmer
Morris, a South Whidbey teacher.

While the study acknowledges that some species listed under the Endangered
Species Act - certain salmonid species, leatherback turtles, migratory mammals
and birds - could be affected, it would not be enough to have lasting effects.

The EIS is also proposing mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts.
With marine mammals, such as whales, the plan is to use passive sonar and keep
at least three "well-trained" lookouts on duty 24 hours a day. When the animals
are present, and they come within 200 yards, certain training exercises would be
halted until the animals move out of the area.

But several people at the hearing expressed their doubt about the effectiveness
of the mitigation measures. The Orca Network's Garrett, for example, said he has
been involved in observing and researching whales since 1981 and is aware of the
difficulties of listening for "faint acoustic signals" that would indicate the
presence of orcas.

"Recognition is highly problematic - even for experienced personnel," Garrett
said.

Another common concern among speakers was a feeling of being blindsided by the
Navy's plans. Although the EIS has been in the works for more than a year,
Clinton resident Jerry Hurd said he didn't learn about the proposal until
January, shortly after the public comment period started Dec. 29. The comment
period has been extended to March 11.

He also complained that he found it difficult to submit comments on the plan.
The document was available at the Oak Harbor library, but not at any of the
other Island libraries. And he said the Navy's Web site, where the plan could be
viewed online, wasn't working for several days during the comment period.

"I think it would be appropriate there be an extension" of the public comment
period, he said.

People from environmental organizations such as Whidbey Environmental Action
Network, Whidbey Audubon Society and People for Puget Sound reported they also
hadn't learned about the plan until January.

"We just found out about this," said Mike Sato, spokesman for People for Puget
Sound.

Garrett said he also is hoping for an extension to the public comment period.
Washington residents need more time to comment on the proposal, and a delay
could improve the chance that the Navy's plan will be noticed by Obama
administration officials in Washington D.C., he said.

"The more time we can buy, the better," he said.










Related Stories:

• Navy extends public comment period on underwater testing





Related Links:

• Comment on the Navy proposal






Reader Comments





Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by: Deborah Phelps

It just amazes me that the Navy thinks it has the right to do this testing. The
Navy does NOT own the ocean. All species have an active part in the health of
our oceans. Humanity seems to have forgotten that all species need one another
to survive and the ocean should be our most valued and precious gift of life.
Instead, I am reading that we are now going to drop bombs into it and ask our
wildlife partners and help us do this and also endure the consequences. I don't
know about anyone else but doesn't this all seem more than a little insane?

Posted: Friday, February 06, 2009
Article comment by: Alohabunny

Who is the enemy that is so threatening that the military has to endanger us all
including our land sea and air?

The biggest threat to our health and resources IS THE MILITARY...they need to be
stopped.
 
http://tinyurl.com/d6cfro or
 
www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=2186&TM=66\
263.9








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]