Re:The U.S. military is poisoning Okinawa
by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung on Sunday December 04, 2022 @09:30AM
(#33853987)
As a veteran, I can confirm they have the same or standards as industry, or better. However, they also waive a lot of those standards.
Re:The U.S. military is poisoning Okinawa
by tremon on Sunday December 04, 2022 @09:31AM
(#33853999)
So the problem is lack of enforcement, rather than lack of standards? What good does having a standard do if it's not consistently applied?
Re:The U.S. military is poisoning Okinawa
by dspillett on Sunday December 04, 2022 @08:56PM
(#33860456)
> So the problem is lack of enforcement, rather than lack of standards?
Essentially, yes.
> What good does having a standard do if it's not consistently applied?
They are quiet standards than the military, having the standard generally is a good thing. A military base in, local it in foreign soil, being able to exempt themselves from the standard doesn't make it a bad standard for everyone else to follow. "If captain Billy put his head in a fire, would you?" and all that.
Also if the standards are eventually applied as the exemptions stop working for one reason or another, they do their job eventually which is more often than not better than never.
If you don't give a shit about some "standards" it doesn't really make sense that you "have these standards".
Re:The U.S. military is poisoning Okinawa
by dspillett on Sunday December 04, 2022 @08:51PM
(#33860409)
I'm not saying they are right to do things that way, just that it would appear that they do do things that way.
Re:The U.S. military is poisoning Okinawa
by phs318u on Sunday December 04, 2022 @07:21PM
(#33859689)
My first job in 1987 was with the Australian Department of Defence and as I recall in this country, they are explicitly exempted from environmental laws governing everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is true in most countries.
I suspect they have the same standards as most industry. They just have a ton of exceptions and other get-out clauses in the form of national safety arguements.
These arguements will fall off steadily as new materials/techniques become commonplace, it becomes shown that the risks don't justify the supposed national safety benefits, or (in the case of bases on foreign soil) relevant treatises come into effect, so safety procedures will be seen to "catch up".
Though sometimes on top of "national security" reasons there is also the "who will know until far too late if ever" thinking to contend with…