[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: P2 and National Security
- Subject: RE: P2 and National Security
- From: "David Herb" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:28:20 -0500
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Name: p2tech
- Reply-To: "David Herb" <email@example.com>
Part of the Community Right-to-Know premise was that if the community was clearly made aware of the risks, then the community or the individuals within the community can decide whether to accept the risks. With the rather rapid removal of information on the location of "extremely" hazardous substances from the readily accessible public domain of Community Right-to-Know, it could be argued that even more lives are being placed in danger over the long run. If worded appropriately, this could be a subtle reason for further P2 as it may no longer be argued that the community has fully accepted the risks.
>>> "Shupe, Kevin" <KSHU461@ECY.WA.GOV> 12/10/01 02:58PM >>>
Hey Burt, I agree that reducing toxics and other hazardous materials is
probably one of the biggest advantages to reconcile P2 with security issues.
Along with reducing the materials is knowing what you have. Maintaining an
inventory of your hazardous materials is another way of being proactive in
maintaining good security. The Anarchists Cookbook provides a checklist for
raids on high school labs; one of the reasons this is suggested, is that
school labs don't know what they have. An active inventory can provide some
advance that something may be amiss.
From: Burton Hamner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:06 PM
To: p2tech; ECDM; AP CP List
Subject: P2 and National Security
Hello all. I am doing some thinking about Pollution Prevention and national
security at request of a colleague and also for a workshop in March. Is
there an obvious connection? Or some more subtle ones? Here are some of my
- Toxics reduction: P2 can mean fewer toxic chemicals around for people to
make trouble with.
- Minimum requirements for resources: P2 can reduce the amount of water and
energy that people need to get by, so they are less vulnerable perhaps in
event of disruption of supply. Reducing use also makes distributed
generation of power and clean water more feasible so systems have fewer
- Carbohydrate chemistry and chemical substitutions and reduction can reduce
the need for imported oil (tho this is hardly likely to make any
Does anyone have other ideas to share? It may be that this is all just
reaching a little too far for relevance to national security. But that's
what listservs are for - reaching way far!