In response to the ‘Disposal of Hazardous Waste in our area’ letter

Editor’s note: The letter to the editor ‘Disposal of Hazardous Waste in our area’ was authored by Lee Estabrook and was published Nov. 15. It can read by clicking here.

Lee Estabrook- just read your letter. First off, the purpose of the dialogue committee in the beginning was to stop the open burn.

The CAG was formed after the alternative method was chosen. As the dialogue committee formed and started trying to figure out the best way forward, they worked extremely hard. They were looking out for our community like no one else had. They did demand that clean technology be used. They ultimately decided to use ESI and the burn chamber to dispose of the M6.

ESI has done a excellent job.

The CAG was formed to watch over the disposal process and they have also done an excellent job. We have no new information to work with here. We knew at the time of the contract that we did not want this to become a permanent hazardous waste disposal site. That’s why the contract states that it is to be removed when the burning of the M6 is complete. You can act like some great discovery has been made since the beginning, but there is nothing new. It may be new to you, but it’s not new.

With all due respect, we are in the USA, and we can say whatever the hell we want to say. We the people that live here say “NOT IN OUR BACKYARD”. Your argument that if we don’t make this permanent we are not supporting our armed services, vehicle safety, firework displays, trains and ships is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard in my life.

You also keep saying that there is only a small group of opposition to this. The only small group involved in this is the one who wants it to stay. As of right now there has been over 800 people sign the petition to adhere to the original contract, and that number is growing by the day. Maybe you can tell us how many people you have gotten to join your group to advocate for the burn chamber being a permanent fixture in our backyard. From what I can tell, that number is a whopping 12 people, and I can tell you that out of that big group some of those who joined your Facebook group are there just to see what is said. They are not in favor of it staying.

The last thing I will address from your letter is this being a job creator. Camp Minden could be one of the biggest assets we have ever had in North West Louisiana. For a long time it has been one of the worst assets. I can just about guarantee you that even if you get your way and this stays, when the 16 million pounds of M6 is gone, those 30 jobs will be dramatically cut. The only way I can see the 30 jobs staying or increasing in number would be if they started bringing in very large quantities of hazardous material to be disposed of. And, as I said previously, “NOT IN OUR BACKYARD”. If you are truly interested in bringing jobs to our community, get on board with ridding our backyard of hazardous materials. Camp Minden could be the perfect location for manufacturing and other businesses to locate. It has rail lines, direct access to a major interstate highway, and Lord knows we have plenty of people who need good paying jobs. That is the kind of development we want in our backyard. Thanks!

Dustin Moseley

Comments

comments