Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Phil_0 on October 19, 2012 at 9:40pm

that's not the South Valley...Phil Chacon Park is on Louisiana south of Central, just next to Kirtland AFB.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by abqmom on October 22, 2012 at 8:24am

yes, the exact location is much more important than the actual issue here... #sarcasm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil_0 on October 22, 2012 at 9:54am

Well, since the "exact location" is tens of miles away from where you said it was, someone unfamiliar with Albuquerque who read your initial post would have had a completely incorrect view of where the spill occurred and which neighborhoods were potentially affected. Which is, you know, kinda important. #accuracy

I was also curious why you thought this was in the South Valley...there's nothing that would have suggested that in the original story, but maybe you just made an assumption based on the SV's poverty and previous history of polluting light industry?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by once banned twice shy on October 22, 2012 at 12:12pm

FYI, there IS a Superfund site in the South Valley.  From pollution from the GE plant (originally an AEC plant).  It might actually be fully remediated by now for all I know.  Also, there used to be a tie treatment plant in the South Valley on 2nd street.  That has contaminated groundwater and I don't believe it got declared a Superfund site, but is being remediated pursuant to an agreement between NMED and the railroad.

But none of this has to do with the base or the contamination referred to in that story.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil_0 on October 22, 2012 at 12:38pm

I don't doubt it. I was wondering if the S Valley's history of contaminated sites was maybe one of the things that made the original poster assume this was in the valley too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on October 22, 2012 at 12:49pm

I think it was more of a case of someones fingers going faster than their head. Started out to type in Southeast and got South Valley instead. It has been corrected and I think we should drop it and not have this over shadow the real issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by abqmom on October 23, 2012 at 9:54pm

thank you Chris.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by misterhinkydink on October 19, 2012 at 10:20pm

Perchloroethylene is also used as a degreaser for aircraft parts.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patrick on October 20, 2012 at 8:17pm

Pretty scary.  What will it take to have the problem addressed by KAFB with some urgency?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on October 20, 2012 at 8:48pm

This is not a KAFB problem. They did find the problem with the test wells they are drilling but the material probably came from a dry cleaners who has long been out of business.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by abqmom on October 22, 2012 at 8:21am

so we should thank KAFB for finding this leak?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on October 22, 2012 at 9:03am

I'm not sure if a thank you is in order but neither is laying blame on KAFB. Having Kirtland find this problem hopefully with enough time to work through the paperwork for Super Fund Clean Up before it hits the wells is a good thing but I think we will keep finding stuff like this for a long time. My feeling is that mankind should never have played with toys that they didn't understand. We will pay for this progress for generations.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page