The idea that a government is actively poisoning its citizens may sound like the perfect propaganda plot to send the mainstream media into a feeding frenzy, and to make American neoconservatives beg for the invasion of a sovereign nation—unless it is happening in the United States.
The Department of Defense and its contractors are currently using at least 61 active military sites across the country to “burn and detonate unused munitions and raw explosives in the open air with no environmental emissions controls,” according to a series of bombshell reports from ProPublica that give insight into the largest source of pollution in the country: The Pentagon.
One of those sites is located at an army ammunition plant in Radford, Virginia. The town consists of around 17,000 people, and it is home to an elementary school that “has been ranked by researchers as facing some of the most dangerous air-quality hazards in the country.”
The rate of thyroid diseases in three of the surrounding counties is among the highest in the state, provoking town residents to worry that emissions from the Radford plant could be to blame. Government authorities have never studied whether Radford’s air pollution could be making people sick, but some of their hypothetical models estimate that the local population faces health risks exponentially greater than people in the rest of the region.
Congress banned American industries from using “open burns” to dispose of hazardous waste in 1984, with the land disposal restrictions program for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency was instructed to specify “either concentration levels or methods of treatment for hazardous constituents to meet before land disposal.”
However, ProPublica noted that lawmakers granted the Pentagon and its contractors “a temporary reprieve from those rules to give engineers time to address the unique aspects of destroying explosive military waste. That exemption has remained in place ever since.”
In the United States, outdoor burning and detonation is still the military’s leading method for dealing with munitions and the associated hazardous waste. It has remained so despite a U.S. Senate resolution a quarter of a century ago that ordered the Department of Defense to halt the practice ‘as soon as possible.’ It has continued in the face of a growing consensus among Pentagon officials and scientists that similar burn pits at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan sickened soldiers.
As The Free Thought Project reported in February 2016, a former U.S. Marine and Army sergeant detailed the horrific conditions U.S. soldiers faced in Iraq and Afghanistan in a book titled, The Burn Pits: The Poisoning of America’s Soldiers. The book highlighted the constant streams of toxic smoke from the burning of waste, which created lifelong health issues for both soldiers and local civilians.
While the current number of active military sites using operations similar to “burn pits” stands at 61, there are records of nearly 200 sites in the U.S. that have a history of burning hazardous explosives in the open air.
ProPublica noted that facilities such as the one in Radford—which burns raw explosives in bonfire-like piles—operate using special government permits “that are supposed to keep the process safe, limiting the release of toxins to levels well below what the government thinks can make people sick.” However, even the EPA officials who govern the process “acknowledge that the permits provide scant protection.”
In addition to directly affecting the health of residents by polluting the air, the explosive residue from these burn sites is also affecting local residents by poisoning their drinking water.
In Huntsville, Alabama, officials began monitoring the drinking water after they found that the level of perchlorate in the soil was 7,000 times higher than safety limits, and in Grand Island, Nebraska, underground drinking water supplies were affected after explosive residues spread more than 20 miles from the site at the ammunition plant.
The important thing to remember is that according to the United States government, everything they are doing is legal—they have just found loopholes in order to justify any actions that would be considered “illegal” if they were committed by anyone else.
This is another reminder that just because something is “legal,” does not mean it is right, and that—as hundreds of thousands of Americans are experiencing firsthand—the U.S. government does not have the best interest of its citizens in mind, and it is not above poisoning them, in order to fuel the fire that sustains the U.S. war machine.
Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.
Renegade Editor’s Note: I do not agree with the author that the flood of Arabic and African “refugees” into Western nations is largely an overhyped threat, as it is part of a genocidal agenda orchestrated by jews. However, I do understand how the threat of “Islamic terror” is being largely manufactured through false flags and hoaxes to further the goals of Greater Israel. If we just stopped waging wars for psychopathic jewish interests, we would not be in this mess to begin with. Anyway, this article definitely brings up some interesting points regarding who is being banned, and perhaps even more importantly, who is not.
According to Reuters, Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order that would include a temporary refugee ban on and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries.
The list is expected to include Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. If those countries are starting to sound familiar, there’s a reason for that.
According to four-star General Wesley Clark, shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the Pentagon adopted a plan to topple the governments of seven countries; Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
Although such a refugee ban is welcomed by many frightened Americans due to the overplayed hype that the media has reported on the threat of refugees sweeping into western nations, these Americans cannot turn their attention away from the hand America has had in creating these refugees in the first place.
Clark’s list of countries is not an irrelevant conspiracy theory. These countries have seen heavy interference from the United States in the last decade or so. In 2016, the country Obama bombed the most was Syria. The United States was spending approximately $1 billion a year assisting rebels who have known ties to al-Qaeda, the majority of whom share ISIS’ core belief system. The U.S. air war against ISIS has now cost American taxpayers over $11 billion. Iran is bound to Syria by a mutual defense agreement and has lost significant personnel in the battle. Iran has also taken full advantage of poor Afghans, recruiting them to fight in Syria.
Libya was destroyed in 2011 by NATO powers, an offensive in which the U.S. played the most integral role. The U.S. was backing jihadists who fought against the U.S. in Iraq to topple the Libyan regime (these fighters were later rebranded as ISIS). Even up until his last day in office, Obama was still bombing Libya (from Missouri, believe it or not.)
Obama bombed Somalia throughout his presidency. He not only relentlessly bombed Yemen, but he also supported the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal assault on Yemen’s civilian population. It could be argued that Trump is set to discontinue these practices, but so far, he is well on his track to rapidly pursuing them. In his first weekend since inauguration, his administration conducted a number of drone strikes in Yemen with no hint at a reversal of Obama’s policies, though his approval was not required for those particular strikes.
Further, is the American public even aware that American troops are stationed in Sudan? American troops can go there, but refugees fleeing a brutal conflict can’t come to the United States?
It’s not really clear why Iran is on the list, other than the fact that Trump opposes the Iranian nuclear deal and has a love affair with Israel, Iran’s number one nemesis. Internally, Iran is not embroiled in any significant military conflict (for the time being), something Trump may look to change.
Notable omissions from the refugee ban list include Saudi Arabia, a country that admitted aiding terrorists as a tool of foreign policy and that has exported its radical Wahhabism ideology (incidentally, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis); the United Arab Emirates (where the majority of the funding for 9/11 passed through); Turkey, which has been shown to aid ISIS fighters as they travel to and from Syria; Qatar, which has spent an immense amount of its vast wealth arming fanatical jihadists to fight in Syria; and Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was born.
In essence, the countries kept off the list are the ones that arguably create the problem, yet the countries onthe list are the ones that have to deal with the problem. Sound fair?
It’s one thing to want to keep your country safe from infiltrating terrorists; it’s another thing to stay silent about the atrocities your military is committing abroad and to ignore the numerous suspicious countries that have escaped such a ban. If your military can go somewhere to wreak havoc, that nation’s civilians should be allowed to come to you.
Additionally, keep in mind that Trump’s proposal may also be illegal.
This article (The U.S. Had a Plan to Topple All 7 Countries on Trump’s Refugee Ban List) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org.