« Cuban ‘epidemic’ | Main | Minutemen flap »

October 30, 2007

Opposes weapons plant

I am disappointed that your article on the proposed new nuclear weapons plant near Kansas City ignored several important issues (10/25, Business, “Weapons plant moves ahead; A federal agency OKs a plan near the old Richards-Gebaur airport site”).

If the Bannister Road facility is decommissioned, what will happen to that heavily contaminated site and who will pay for the cleanup? Why is a government agency working on something as sensitive as nuclear weapons components relying on a private business? How is this private funding scheme skirting congressional oversight? Most important, does the U.S. need to be upgrading our nuclear capabilities while insisting that other nations abandon nuclear weapons programs?

I was at the Kansas City plant last week. The program managers there were proud of their workers and their facility, which they said they could produce “anything.” Many of us in Kansas City would prefer to see this world-class facility produce almost anything but parts for nuclear weapons.

Donna Constantineau
Kansas City, Kan.


Stifled Freedom

"who will pay for the cleanup?"

You and I will pay Ms Constantineau...as we always do. And another bunch of contractors will cleanup on that job.

I worked in the hazardous waste remediation business for 6 years in the early 90s. Military bases, government research facilities, and weapons plants were the most contaminated. Much more than private industry messes...with a few exceptions like Love Canal and Times Beach. I have worked on many govt facilities like Oak Ridge, White Sands, Sunflower AAP, Lake City AAP, Weldon Spring AAP, Rocky Mountain arsenal. Some of these places are so contaminated with buried munitions they cant even dig them up for clean up. They fence them off and leave them.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright