The "NEW" Terror Risk - Chlorine?

USA Today has broken in with this news announcement - the Department of Homeland Security is putting us on alert for domestic terrorists wielding chlorine tanks! Quick, run out and get that protective mask that you've been deliberating about! It's not a question of if, but... oh, I can't go on. Get a grip, people. First, the news:

The Chlorine Institute, a trade group that represents more than 200 companies that make and distribute chlorine, recently alerted the FBI to several thefts or attempted thefts of 150-pound chlorine tanks from water treatment plants in California.

"This is now being used as a tactic against us in another part of the world," says Robert Stephan, Homeland Security's infrastructure protection chief. "We've got to be prepared for it."
------------
The 150-pound chlorine tanks typically used in the bombs are "ubiquitous across the world," Stephan says. Homeland Security officials are working with intelligence and Defense Department officials to try to prevent similar acts in the USA, he says.

There is no intelligence indicating such an attack is imminent or that terrorists have stolen any chlorine from the nation's chemical or water treatment plants, which use chlorine to purify drinking water.

Even so, four members of the House Homeland Security Committee, including Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., on Monday sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expressing "deep concern" about chlorine thefts in California.

Funny how the headline and the DHS announcement seem to precede the point that there is absolutely no indications that any terrorist organization actually plans to copycat the Iraqi insurgent chlorine vehicle-bourne IEDs.  But they might! you say. Let them. "Bring it on," if I can quote the president. First of all, let's remember that the Iraqi trucks used ton containers of chlorine and several pounds of high explosive to pop those cans. Look at the picture - that's a 150-pound chlorine tank at a U.S. water treatment plant. Not quite the same volume, wouldn't you say?

Second, we're talking about apples and oranges in terms of security arrangements. The Iraqi insurgents grabbed the chlorine tanks from the trucks transporting the chemical to the waterplants. Our federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are better than the Iraqi security forces - one would hope - and even the water treatment plants have additional security, to include chaining the tanks together to prevent easy movement (as the picture illustrates). Could a domestic terrorist get a chlorine tank? Maybe. But it won't be easy, and how much will he really get?

Finally, I'll reiterate that in EVERY Iraqi insurgent chlorine case, it wasn't the chlorine that killed anyone, but the blast of the explosives and the vehicle in which they were transported. They didn't have enough chlorine to do much more than give people a hacking cough and make their eyes burn. So let the bastards plot, if indeed they're out there. If the FBI can't bust down on domestic terrorists storing large quantities of high explosives and stealing chlorine tanks to make vehicle-bourne IEDs, then the problem isn't the water treatment plants, it's our FBI. Anyway, aren't those wiretaps working, guys? This isn't a problem. Relax. Let the professionals do their jobs. And tell Chertoff to stop trying to scare the children.

Comments

[Robot Economist]

I guess the problem here is that there is nothing "profressional" about DHS and its directionless efforts to "protect" America.

[NVH]

No, the problem is the Media is using quotes from a DHS official out of context to inflame the story, just like J is indirectly pointing out. Let's be clear, the DEMS lead they way when they sent a "memo" to DHS and Chertoff saying they are "deeply concerned" about this issue, indicating their complete lack of understanding and CYAing in case the chlorine bombs hits a mall in their district, that way they can blame Chertoff and DHS for screwing it all up. It's not Chertoff and DHSs fault that they understand the issue, are preparing for it and looking into the thefts, DOING THEIR JOB, and that the Liberal Media has a slow news day b/c another chlorine attack DIDN'T happen in Iraq ( hey, is the surge working? Oh wait, that's right those cunning Terrorists are using Nitric Acid bombs now ).

[NVH]

Nice job leaving the idiot from Greenpeace out at the end of the article. How 'bout a couple hits on the left wing idiots who think the same thing USA today and the dems on the committee does/do about Chlorine attacks? Wait, left wing Greenpeace activists say Chlorine protective measures are inaction, USA today left wing media idiots say Chlorine a big threat, Left Wing Dems send memo "deeply concerned" about Chlorine thefts / attacks...COINCIDENCE is NOT just a word in the dicktionary folks...this is why I lean right, b/c the GOP and conservatives / independents TYPICALLY know when to keep their mouths shut...OReilly's an exception but then it's his job to talk.

[J.]

Re: the Greenpeace guy, yeah, I disagreed with him also, but it seemed to take away from the main point of the issue. I don't support using "safer" chemicals when it costs more and is less effective. I think there's a fundamental disconnect in that trade-off, especially when it's unclear if you're responding to unnecessary fear and concern or actual measured risk issues.

[Grandjester]

Yep, liberal media and the dems, yep all their fault. NVH you're getting to sound like a broken record here.

[NVH]

GJ, in this case for this matter, Yeah, that's who I'm looking at. I'm not black and white here pal. They aren't wrong all the time b/c of their liberal tendencies, but I'll be damned if it doesn't make them wrong a lot...sorry way it is, way it is, way it is, way it is....

[Grandjester]

Pssst. nvh. c'mere. gotta secret for ya. listenin? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. LIBERAL. MEDIA.

[Closets]

Im's not sure who is worse now... the pervasive yellow journalists or the gun-ho right-wing security nuts?

[Grandjester]

Um Closets?

"yellow journalists"

I do not think that means what you think it means.

[IndispensableDestiny]

Greenpeace hates chlorine. They want to ban chlorine. In fact, they will tell you that the chlorine in table salt is somehow different than the chlorine in PVC or saran wrap.

[CBH]

I don't believe in Liberal Media - I believe in Profiteering Pandering Take Whichever Side Will Pay Media. There are few exceptions to this rule. They towed the NeoConservative line in '02-'03 just as well as they generally tow the God Hating Secularist line.

One of the better reasons I've heard for the massive Left lean among the media is that to actually work at these places often requires a sacrifice of traditional family life that conservative folks generally aren't willing to do. Night club bouncers are usually thick-necks because the job works out better for thick-necks. Media jobs that tend to require crazy hours, travel, and an overwhelming interest in fleeting things (like the gossip of the day, events of the day, movies, songs etc...) tend to retain people who aren't rooted in spending time with spouse and children, church duties etc... I just read an article about it a few weeks ago - I'll post a link when I remember where I read it.

[Grandjester]

CBH,

Wake up son, ther ain't no such thing as "Liberal Media".

Are there Liberal journalists, commentators and media executives? Sure.

But the "Media" are corporations and they are without exeception conservative by design and definition.

[NVH]

Then why is it that the media will report every shred of anti war anti Bush rhetoric coming out of ANYONE's mouth while plenty of extreme right groups (Swift Boat, Falwell) can't get any media time? B/c the CORPS that own them are financed by left wing hippies (George Soros, et al). It's as close to a conspiracy as you can get without being able to prove it.
The only good thing Jester about your stance is it makes people, at least on this blog, HOPEFULLY, wake up and find out what's really true.
No argument Corporations are conservative by nature, that's how capitalism / business works. But what they do with the profit from that is what's key here and what fuels the LIBERAL Media bias. Shit, even Fox News won't put the right wingers on b/c of how false most of their arguments are. But at least they don't pander to the same false arguments on the left that the rest of the news channels do.

[Grandjester]

NVH,

FOX doesn't put wingers on? Pass whatcher smokin this way...

Kristol? Krauthammer? Cal Thomas? Hannity? O'really?

Even the sunday talking head shows come out about two to one against Democrats/Progressives.

Talk radio is pwnd by the right: Limbo, Beck, Morgan et al. Air America is a joke.

Look at the ownership - Murdoch - FOX, Disney/ABC (Chairman George Mithchell), NBC/Universal -GE, Time/Warner, Clear Channel radio. CBS/Viacom. Just a handful and all conservative to one extent or another.

Bud, let me let you in on ANOTHER secret, there is very little "left" left in the "left", since Clinton the Demos are really a centrist party.

[NVH]

GJ, look the CORPS ARE conservative by nature, that's business ( do you see the shit NBC, Fox, Disney put on Television? The schlock is way over the top and non-conservative, I love every minute of it). Just b/c the right has radio covered doesn't mean the MEDIA isn't biased. MOST people still read the PAPERs ( and who owns those?) and as you said Lefty Journalists dominate the big ones ( who get pandered to by the Soros crowd ). FOX won't do the EXTREME right wingers, say what you want about Krauthammer the guy is right and NOT espousing EXTREME stuff.
As for very little left left, look have you seen pics of Hillary from the 70's I don't know how much more UN attractive you can get, no wonder she had to go left wing, none of the GOP financed escort services on the Hill would take her...She's moving right to win the election PAL, she'll snap right back afterward. Just like McCain will when he wins.

[NVH]

GJ, look the CORPS ARE conservative by nature, that's business ( do you see the shit NBC, Fox, Disney put on Television? The schlock is way over the top and non-conservative, I love every minute of it). Just b/c the right has radio covered doesn't mean the MEDIA isn't biased. MOST people still read the PAPERs ( and who owns those?) and as you said Lefty Journalists dominate the big ones ( who get pandered to by the Soros crowd ). FOX won't do the EXTREME right wingers, say what you want about Krauthammer the guy is right and NOT espousing EXTREME stuff.
As for very little left left, look have you seen pics of Hillary from the 70's I don't know how much more UN attractive you can get, no wonder she had to go left wing, none of the GOP financed escort services on the Hill would take her...She's moving right to win the election PAL, she'll snap right back afterward. Just like McCain will when he wins.

[Grandjester]

Actually, if you look at the numbers, hardly anyone reads papers anymore and only McClatchy could be considered in the "old" school.

Hillary was also a Goldwater girl in the 60's, so people do change points of view.

No one is talking fully socialized medicine (Hill's plan is more modest than Edwards), no one is talking about nationalizing oil, no return to the welfare state, no "maximum" wage and actual re-distribution of wealth. Wearing a Che t-shirt from Hot Topix doesn't make one a revolutionary.

[NVH]

But they are still reading them, and hardly anyone votes anyway, so the hardly anyones don't matter, the ones that do matter ARE reading newspapers ( liberal newspapers) and are voting.
Hillary is a chameleon, the documented ACCENT stuff is just ridiculous to me that she's stupid enough to pander to these people, and what's worse is that the supporters are buying it.
Look, I have no doubt national health care is a possibility but I lean towards Romney's ideas rather than ANY dem who would spend way too much of MY money to support a failed system, obvious from European efforts. Plus my wife is a Type 1 Diabetic, we probably pay a good portion more and use the healthcare system we have more than most b/c of that, and there is NO chance I risk a wholesale change of direction with the HINT of decreased availability of services, lowest bidder efforts, etc...
I DO have a "Jack Bauer for President" t-shirt, does that make me a NEOCON?

[Grandjester]

Well it depends on whether or not you know he's a fictional character.

[NVH]

WHAT?!