Hazardous materials, possibly mustard gas weapons left over from World War II as well as asbestos, have been found on Horn Island in Gulf Islands National Seashore, leading the National Park Service to close part of the island to the public for the immediate future.
Park officials, who planned Monday to hold a press briefing on the matter, instituted a 1,000-foot closure around an area along the northwestern shore of the island, which is located just off the Mississippi coast, late last week. A military facility was located there during World War II, according to the Park Service.
"We received confirmation Thursday that there are asbestos materials on the ground on the northwestern shore of the island in an area that contains the remains of a military facility that was active in the 1940s," Superintendent Dan Brown said in a release. "A preliminary test also indicated the possible presence of a chemical agent known commonly as mustard gas. We are still awaiting confirmation of that."
The superintendent also announced that, "based on an initial records search that was done, we have reason to believe that some containers of mustard gas may have been deposited in the island's Big Lagoon. We are therefore closing the portion of the lagoon that we own and we are notifying the owners of those nearby privately-owned tracts of the potential hazard."
In his statement last week, the superintendent said a team of experts was being called in to help the Park Service assess the possible dangers surrounding the materials.
Although the National Park Service acquired the island in 1971, the matter of hazardous materials that might have been stored there when the military used the island during World War II didn't come up until this past June, when British Petroleum asked the Park Service to provide a list of potential chemical and biological hazards on Horn Island before the company deployed their cleanup crews team as part of the Deepwater Horizon response.
The NPS contracted with the environmental services firm Barksdale & Associates to conduct a preliminary site assessment and inspection, including tests for multiple contaminants. This led to the discovery of the contaminants.
The list of other potential contaminants came from an initial review of the site's historical records and includes: botulinum toxin, ricin, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides, polychlorina ted biphenyls (PCB), dioxins and furans, as well as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, and selenium).
Comments
My point is that contaminants such as these and others can be found almost anywhere in our environment. Many are the result of years of carelessness or perhaps just plain ignorance on the part of many industries.
The current push to roll back protections is alarming and should be fought by all of us.
Lee. Many of your so called contaminents don't contaminate a thing and I am not aware of any conservatives that believe people (corporations or individuals) should not be held responsible for their actions. The question is what is the damage caused by their actions. Your side says get rid of it all, no matter the cost, no matter the real damage. Our side says there is balance. The EPA and many other govt orgs are out of control and need to be reigned in. But then, this article had nothing to do with that. This article was about a corporation that was taking responsibility for damage it caused and found a hazard it had nothing to do with to the betterment of society and the environment.
Anonymous: The article is not about a corporation taking responsibility. It is about Hazardous materials being found on Horn Island. It is amazing how the comments morphed into a political forum.
Anon 4:59 And how we're those found? The EPA?
Lee, with respect to human failings including all the temptations that are universal those same saviors you attribute are also prone to the same temptations that any person in corporate or hold on to your hats, government! Everything good and redeeming face the same character flaws. As I've been reminded repeatedly, all that is NPS is not pure and nice nice. I learned that very early on with (not my description) pimp environmentalists. Many are just fine with their decks made with old growth Redwood. Get real is my point.
Lee,
I am a conservative. I love the outdoors, and I wouldn't want it destroyed with pollution. I have no problem with the EPA's existence. Its job is to enforce what environmental laws congress has enacted. It also gets its budget from congress (which refuses to even pass a real budget). Herein lies the problem. Every new law requires more money and staff to enforce. We talk about environmental sustainability, but our government is not sustainable the way it is going. I agree there must be a balance. I like having a job, so I can afford to enjoy my off time outdoors. If we go off the deep end and shut down everything, our economy will not be competitive with the rest of the world, and I will not have a job. Our government lawmaking and the cost to implement has gotten ahead of our private sector economy which pays for all that government does. I'm not against environmental protection or safety nets for some of the poor/elderly, but we need to keep things at a sustainable level. In my budget, I balance wants and needs. If I couldn't afford food I might borrow to buy it, but I won't borrow for a want. Government needs to learn to do this. The voters have needs and wants, and politicians think they have to satisfy all of them to be in power. That is not true. Economic security is a need just as much as military security is, and I don't feel very secure. Taking on debt to supply every voter's wants will be the death of this country.
On the original topic: I'm glad they found and plan to clean up anything dangerous on the island. I realize it will not be free. This is why the budget of the organization footing the bill should not be stressed to the limit with wasteful spending on "wants". Cleanup of dangerous manmade pollution on public lands I think should be a priority. If I'm saving for a new car, and I find mustard gas in my yard, I'd pay for the cleanup and keep saving the car. The government has no savings, so it would borrow to do the cleanup, buy the car, and set up separate offices to manage each action which cost more to run than the cleanup and car purchase and which are not dissolved when said cleanup is finished and said car is bought.
Ben Graham: Well said, Ben.