It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Area 51 Toxic?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Hi all,

I just got a new video on Area 51 and the base at Groom Lake. First was all the usual stuff about base history, secret project of the past, UFO's, the Lazar story, etc.

How ever at the end was an intresting but frightening segment, that touched on the Lawsuit that several Groom Lake workers filed against the government some time back. The case surrounds the burning of 55 gallon drums containing unknown sustances that were created as part of on-base research. Workers who were exposed to the smoke and the area where the burning took place are getting very sick (some have even died). The illnesses are very strange and are said to involve extreemly painful, blisters follower by skin and flesh Litterly falling off of people's bodies, as well as sever respratory problems. One of the workers who died, Robert Frost, was found to have Dioxin, an extreemely toxic compound, in his body in high concentration.

Here are some other Sources on the issue:
Hazardous Waste Lawsuit

Groom Lake worker dies of Cancer

Toxic burning at Area 51

If this base is becoming this toxic, how do we know that whatever they are working with is contained out there? Could the civilians living nearby in Rachial be in danger? If so, how much danger do they face?


After all, the smoke from whatever they are burning out there drifts far beyond the bundries of Area 51 and the military complex in the desert!

Tim




posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
The toxic materials were burned in trenches at the old "Crash Pit" fire training area.

Following the lawsuits, the trench area was remediated (i.e. cleaned up) and covered with clean soil. This activity is clearly visible in the satellite images of the base.

There is also a new landfill at the extreme southern end of the base, near the jet engine test cells. It doesn't look as if anything is burned there, just buried.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Hell yeah I totally watched UFO files for 5 hours today on the history channel, they covered all that stuff. I wholly believe that parts of Area 51 are very toxic. I mean, if these people are helping manufacture the future of air and space craft, then they will be definitely dealing with hazardous materials.
I found the 'scaling' cases to be pretty interesting... how that one guy's skin just kept peeling off like a fish. I can't think of many, if any, illnesses that will cause that. And of course the military said they had no idea what was going on with the guy and refused to help him!
Whatever, when they start to not care about the people that work for them and ignore the value of a human (citizen) life, then they are out of control in my book and that is absolutely intolerable.

Oh and what was additionally interesting was that the federal government has excused Area 51 and the property it encompasses of violating any federal laws. WHAT THE HELL??? So what they are saying is that Area 51 is a separate country and can do whatever the hell they want, when they want to do it? They can kill people, perform inhumane tests on people, and blatently do whatever they feel like.

That is not how a democracy works, sorry. See ya later gov't.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by The Nacum]



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
After stonewalling those poor guys and refusing to help with their medical problems, and legislating the continued legal exemption of the Groom Lake test site from oversight, they quietly cleaned up the burn/burial area.

They also cleaned up a number of other toxic sites on the base, most notably by digging up and replacing parking ramps that were undoubtedly the sites of numerous fuel spills over the years.

The main POL area (fuel depot) underwent extensive changes as well. Old fuel storgae tanks were replaced and the area was probably cleaned up as much as possible.

This is scant comfort to the victims, but at least current and future workers will have less to worry about.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Good thread Ghost.




Originally posted by Shadowhawk
... but at least current and future workers will have less to worry about.



Can you prove that?

Links? Test results? Anything?

Oh yeah - and can you prove government credibility too? Like convince me, somehow, that they're actually telling the truth this time?





posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The government isn't lying about cleaning up the Groom Lake facility because they aren't telling us anything.

They have everything to gain by saying they are cleaning up the site, but they still won't talk about it. Maybe by admitting they are cleaning it up, they would have to admit there was a problem in the first place.

We can verify the clean-up activities ourselves by studying satellite images of the base taken over a period of several years. Pictures taken in 1988 and 1991 show the burn/burial trenches. By 1998, it appears the site has undergone some remediation.

In the satellite image taken in 2000, the burn/burial area has been completeley excavated and refilled. Additional measures have been taken to prevent soil erosion from storm runoff. This same image shows that the 737 parking ramp has been dug up in preparation for placement of new concrete. In a shot from 2001 the new concrete has been poured.

By 2003, the Southend Ramp has been excavated. In the 2005 image, the new concrete has been poured. Also look at changes to the POL Area. Old fuel tanks have been removed and replaced.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The government isn't lying about cleaning up the Groom Lake facility because they aren't telling us anything. ... by admitting they are cleaning it up, they would have to admit there was a problem in the first place.

We can verify the clean-up activities ourselves by studying satellite images of the base taken over a period of several years.



So you are making assumptions? And are presuming the physical changes are evidence of clean-up?

[sic]

I know you know better...




posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I'm unsure of your point, soficrow.

Since we can't get any soil samples to analyze, I'm not making any judgement about the ultimate quality fo the clean-up project. I am merely pointing out that we can see some effort has been made to remediate contaminated sites on the base.

Any improvement is better than none and implicitly benefits those who work at the site.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
I'm unsure of your point, soficrow.

...I am merely pointing out that we can see some effort has been made to remediate contaminated sites on the base.




Why do you assume that the physical changes you see are evidence of "remediation"?

Also, why are you promoting your assumptions to benefit the administration?





posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The big question in my mind is How Extensive is the Contamination of Groom Lake?

Folks, remember we are talking about people BURNING Toxic Waste. The smoke from that can blow almost anywhere depending on the wind direction. Keeping that in mind, how far beyond the burn trenches might the contamination have spread?

Tim



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'm curious to know about the long term effects of fallout on Area 51. The Groom Lake area was downwind of many atmospheric nuclear tests from 1951 to 1962. There was even a radiological monitoring station to collect data. After the Watertown Airstrip was built, workers had to evacuate every time there was a shot scheduled.

www.dreamlandresort.com...

It would also be interesting to know whether the Project 57 alpha contaminated area (Area 13) was ever cleaned up. The Watertown monitoring station detected alpha radiation following the shot. Since alpha particles can only travel a few inches through the air, it means plutonium dust was carried as far as the monitoring station. There were plans to clean up Area 13, but it has never been confirmed.

www.dreamlandresort.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
We can verify the clean-up activities ourselves by studying satellite images of the base taken over a period of several years. Pictures taken in 1988 and 1991 show the burn/burial trenches. By 1998, it appears the site has undergone some remediation.

In the satellite image taken in 2000, the burn/burial area has been completeley excavated and refilled. Additional measures have been taken to prevent soil erosion from storm runoff. This same image shows that the 737 parking ramp has been dug up in preparation for placement of new concrete. In a shot from 2001 the new concrete has been poured.

By 2003, the Southend Ramp has been excavated. In the 2005 image, the new concrete has been poured. Also look at changes to the POL Area. Old fuel tanks have been removed and replaced.


Clean up, or Cover up, Shadowhawk?


Have they really changed their ways, or did they just get sneakier about it?

I don't doubt what you are saying has happened. My question is how do we know the area is any safer and that they haven't just found a better way to hide the problems? Sorry if I'm a bit short on trust after stumbling onto this. I trust your observations, but I don't trust the DoD to play fair and not try to fool people with a really elabrate deception scam!

Tim



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I'm just saying we can see there are no longer burn/burial trenches in the old site next to the cantonment area.

The new landfill is located as far from the base population as practical, and it doesn't look as if they are burning anything there.

The old fuel-soaked parking ramps were replaced with new concrete.

They may be legally exempt from oversight, but the Air Force appears to be taking measures to improve conditions.

There is still no justice for the victims in the lawsuit, but maybe it will prevent the need for future lawsuits.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

..remember we are talking about people BURNING Toxic Waste. The smoke from that can blow almost anywhere depending on the wind direction. Keeping that in mind, how far beyond the burn trenches might the contamination have spread?

...After all, the smoke from whatever they are burning out there drifts far beyond the bundries of Area 51 and the military complex in the desert!




Into Canada obviously, on the prevailing winds. Specifically, into Alberta.

The resultant brain damage explains Harper's election as the new PM.




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I don't know what I've been told but the cemichals they've burned were the special kind of paint they cover the Stealth fighters and bombers with, this kind of radar-repellant paint.
I have no idea what it is made of, and I guess that will stay secret for some time since they can't even ship that stuff off the base, instead they just burn it on site.

My question though is; why the hell did they not tell the personell involved in this procedure that "maybe this will affect your health so wear some protective outfits or something". What's the point of putting your own staff in harms way when you are sure these substances are apparently toxic as hell? Did they just want to know what happened if someone inhaled the fumes? They must have know it was dangerous. According to the persons affected by this careless handeling they did not wear face-masks or any type of protective clothing.

Why this? Why? Ok if it was in the Soviet union but it was not.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
We will probably never know for sure what substances were burned. The radar absorbent material (RAM) coatings on the stealth aircraft are plastic and rubber compounds, impregnated with ferrites. RAM in sheet form has to be glued on to the aircraft's surface. Spray-on RAM is liquified using various solvents. Many parts of the aircraft are made of graphite-epoxy thermoplastic composites. All of these things produce deadly toxins when burned.

It was irresponsible to burn them close to the main cantonment area where it was close to the base population. It was probably done because "it's always been done this way." That methodology plagues government agencies and contractors alike. It would have been better to simply bury the material without burning it.

The workers who sued for damages should have received some sort of settlement.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
We will probably never know for sure what substances were burned. The radar absorbent material (RAM) coatings on the stealth aircraft are plastic and rubber compounds, impregnated with ferrites. RAM in sheet form has to be glued on to the aircraft's surface. Spray-on RAM is liquified using various solvents. Many parts of the aircraft are made of graphite-epoxy thermoplastic composites. All of these things produce deadly toxins when burned.

It was irresponsible to burn them close to the main cantonment area where it was close to the base population.


Not to metion that it was foolishy stupid to dig the burn trenches UP Wind of the base! Groom Lake is surrounded by mountains, which have a channeling effect on the wind that blows into the facility. Generally the wind always blows through the base from the same direction.

For some weird reason, the people who dug these trenches put them up-wind of the base.


Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
We will probably never know for sure what substances were burned. The radar absorbent material (RAM) coatings on the stealth aircraft are plastic and rubber compounds, impregnated with ferrites. RAM in sheet form has to be glued on to the aircraft's surface. Spray-on RAM is liquified using various solvents. Many parts of the aircraft are made of graphite-epoxy thermoplastic composites. All of these things produce deadly toxins when burned.


I understand that the F-117A was originally coated using the spray method but production switched to glueing on sheets of the RAM due to the potential risks of breathing in toxic materials.

I think its a disgrace that no settlement was ever reach, the people were just forgotten about and the base was pardoned from ever having to obey laws ever again!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
All Unites States Air Force bases are TOXIC!! Most folks do not realize the amount of toxic chemicals that are routinely mishandled on Air Force Bases. I takes some nasty stuff to keep the airplanes flying and clean them up with after they come home and lots of it seeps into the ground. My dad was in the Air Force and I grew up wandering in the woods and wastelands of Military bases. I can say from personal observation that every base we have lived at had several pits where chemicals were carlessly dumped to fester. I can only imagine that the chemicals at Area 51 would be more exotic and toxic.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
A few comments in response ot the last three posts:

The burn trenches were somewhat centrally located on the site of the former "Crash Pit" fire training area. It was just off the southwest corner of the dormitories. The prevailing winds would have carried most of the smoke south-southeast across the Lockheed hangars at the Southend ramp, the Pistol Range and Boneyard complex, and the POL storage area. A reversal of airflow would take the smoke into the manin contonment area. The only worse location would have been a mile north of the Crash Pit.

RAM for the F-117A was originally applied as glue-on sheets. The adhesive was a liquid that had to be brushed onto the surface. Later, a spray-on coating was developed. It could be applied to the desired thickness using a robotic spray system while roataing the airplane on a spit like a turkey. This substantially reduced the weight of the coatings. Another type of RAM sheet with a peel-and-stick adhesive backing was tried, as well. The adhesive wasn't very strong, however. I know of at least one test flight where a substantial amount peeled off in flight.

It's true that all military bases have some amount of toxic waste. This is especially true of older facilities where paints, solvents, fuels and lubricants, rocket propellants, photographic chemicals, weapon residues, asbestos, radioactive materials and other toxins were dumped or buried without regard to environmental concerns. Only in very recent times has there been any effort to reduce output of toxic waste and dispose of it properly. Environmental surveys of military bases have resulted in massive clean-up efforts, but it is a herculean task.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join