July 10, 2003
By Kerry Sanders, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT
ANNISTON, Ala. — Under a treaty, the United States has to get rid of nearly 47 million pounds of weapons of mass destruction by 2007. To that end, the Army is expected to begin burning chemical weapons at a depot in Anniston later this much, despite residents’ fears.
ARAMETTA PORTER cannot forget that day eight years ago in her front yard in Anniston. She was short of breath, and her heart was racing — paramedics thought she was having a stroke.
But now, as her face involuntarily contorts, she and her doctors believe the unthinkable: that she was exposed to chemical weapons by her own government.
“This has taken my quality of life away,” Porter says.
Just three miles upwind of Porter’s home, a stockpile of chemical weapons had leaked for three days. The U.S. Army does not dispute that the deadly GB nerve agent was accidentally released.
But officials say it’s highly unlikely she was exposed.
Fearing a fate similar to Porter’s, a growing and vigilant group of residents is protesting the Army’s intentions to burn the chemical weapons in a specially designed $500 million incinerator.
“They need to protect us,” Porter says. “We need to be protected.”
There are 4 1/2 million pounds of nerve agents and other weapons of mass destruction stored in Anniston. Some say they should be incinerated immediately because 850 weapons are leaking.
Craig Williams of the Chemical Weapons Working Group disagrees. “Incineration is a perfect example of the way you don’t want to handle this material, which is expose it to heat, change it into a gas and have a delivery system in the form of a smokestack that can get this stuff out,” he says.
Across the country, there are eight sites where weapons are stored and destroyed. Four are incineration plants. Four others use a different process called chemical neutralization — a method critics in Anniston say is safer.
Getting rid of the nation’s 47 million pounds of chemical weapons is the responsibility of the U.S. Army’s Kevin Flamm.
“In all cases,” says Flamm, “we maximize the safety of the process, so as to ensure the protection of public and environment.”
With burning possible any day now, Porter is trying to speak out.
But when asked, she can’t talk. She shakes her head “no” and freezes. She wants to talk. She nods in agreement, smiles and then freezes.
When asked if she believes this is from exposure to chemical weapons, Porter nods.
In her silence, Porter hopes her message is heard before the government begins to burn this country’s obsolete weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937345.asp?0cv=CB10