Utah’s chemical weapons incinerator to be demolished

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DEW Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Why take it down? What if we put in Nuclear Power for electricity for this ttate and where would we dump this nuke waist? Does Energy Solution does that?

  • Utah Observer West Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Job well done by great people!

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    AS Mattmo stated it is part of the reason. the main reason is to do a 100% clean up to make sure zero contamination is around.

  • mattmo Gallatin, MO
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:30 a.m.

    The reason for demolition would be that this society is a sue happy society that given the opportunity an individual could maybe work in this facility and one day become ill then blame it on the government or the State for his or her illness because they did not get rid of every little speck of contaminant so they choose to totally demolish said bldg. to avoid that very thing.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 6:08 p.m.

    Given the government's seeming obsession with wasting money, I suppose it would be silly to ask why these buildings, if not the incinerators themselves, could not be used for other purposes?

    If the reply is, "They were constructed for such a specific purpose there is nothing else they could be used for.", then that begs the followup question. Why not build them, purposefully, to be useful for something beyond chemical weapons incineration?

    As someone who studied to become and architect, I realize it would require a little more planning and perhaps even a slightly greater cost. But, when compared with the time and cost of first building and then completely demolishing these multi-Billion dollar facilities, all within a couple decades, I'm pretty sure a more efficient use of both that time and money was possible.

    But, as mentioned previously, when talking about government run projects, quibbling about greater efficiency and/or the savings of a few measly **Billion** dollars is probably a fruitless argument.