Yesterday a bill was passed preventing disemination for a 1 year period of news on the internet of chem and toxic plant accidents in the U.S.. Hello is anybody paying attention out there. Do you live near one of these unmarked toxic plants. Our 1st ammendment rights have just been shreded. Y2k is a life and death issue. Your right to real time information to life threating hazards should never be abridged. Our govt is out of control. We the people need to enforce our consitutional rights when it comes to the life safety of our families. How dare they. Sorry about my venting but I find this absoulutely outrageous. First they pass legislation protecting all the major corporations from y2k lawsuites, then this. What about representing the legitimate interest of John Q public. If San onofre melts down and wipes my or my friends family because they didnt shut it down for y2k, I should have the right to warn others to stay away. I should have the right to sue them. What's a matter with our sentors and congresspeople dont they have families to. America is broken morally. Fix america first.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), July 23, 1999

Answers

''america is broken morally''you hit the nail on the head.PRIDE goes before the FALL.the do your own thing religion'ain,t working.check-out jerry-springer show'jessy sally show'talk about moral-decline? kids beating there parent,s threatening to kill there mom,s.hello anyone home?---i think we,re in for hard lesson in=MANNER,S 1st to GOD 2nd to each-other.---flame-on. it only proves the point.

-- very sadman. (dogs@zianet.com), July 23, 1999.

Do you happen to know the bill number or a link to a page with details? Its not that I dont believe this post - just somewhat cynical about the truthfullness or accuracy related to the internet.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Even as a non-USA citizen, I'd regard such a bill with extreme concern, especially in view of the USA's constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression.

If it exists, of course. Link or detail, please!

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), July 23, 1999.

Maybe this will help:

Hazard Disclosure Moratorium OK'd

The Associated Press

07-21-99 WASHINGTON (AP) - The House agreed Wednesday to a one-year moratorium on the Internet dissemination of information about potential hazards at some 66,000 facilities using or making toxic chemicals.

The House measure, approved without opposition, addresses law enforcement concerns that the information, aimed at helping communities prepare for worst-case accident scenarios, could be used by terrorists.

The Senate last month approved a similar bill. Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said it was likely the Senate would accept the House version so that the legislation could be sent quickly to President Clinton for his signature.

The 1990 Clean Air Act required that plants dealing with toxic chemicals provide to the Environmental Protection Agency by June 21 this year a Risk Management Plan including a worst-case scenario for accidents.

The EPA originally wanted to make much of that information public. But the FBI, the Justice Department and some members of Congress argued that detailing on the Internet possible disaster scenarios for each chemical plant or user poses a national security threat.

The legislation requires that local safety officials still have access to the information.

Brown said the administration would have a year to find ways to put the information on the Internet so that public interests are protected without giving terrorists a road map to potential targets.

Environmentalist groups opposed the moratorium, arguing that the potential danger to 85 million people living within five miles of a chemical facility outweigh the terrorist threat.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

Here's a link to the June 25th article about the Senate bill:

Sen ate passes bill to restrict access to chemical database

And a prior TB2000 thread about it: Link

And a thread about safety at chemical plants: Link

a thread about govenors being warned to prepare for y2k caused chemical disasters

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 23, 1999.

Interesting to see the howls of outrage from the above posters.

Dont you have any concern whatsoever that EXACTLY THE SAME degree of "administrative control" is being exerted over the dissemination of information IN THIS FORUM, and that you all participate willingly under that system ?

At least, with the "dont publicise information which terrorists can use against you" excuse, one could argue that there is some borderline justification for this measure in small doses, assuming that the process is independently accountable and properly overseen. (Having lived with terrorism for the whole of my life, I can see the sense in NOT publishing a newspaper article which says something like "Bomb detection security systems innefective at major public location". You may as well post a TV-ad campaign saying "Plant your bombs here . . lots of potential victims will be in the area, and they probably wont catch you".)

But if youre really worried about 1st Amendment issues, try dealing with the ones that you have closer to home, and WITHIN YOUR CONTROL. It will only take the users of this forum to make it clear that they are no longer prepared to tolerate blatant and biased "Spin control" within this forum for the situation to change. (Nobody is trying to argue that the trolls on either side should be given a free hand, just that trolling should be dealt with even-handedly without regard to the identity or opinion of the troll.)

Of course, if you're worried that your beliefs may be threatened by an open discussion of the issues, with those of differing opinions, then please disregard this point. But at the same time, dont cry about the erosion of your rights on a national scale if youre happy to endorse the same process on a local scale.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

If this does not have the teeth of a conspiracy I don't know what does !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 23, 1999.

Wolfie commented:

" I can see the sense in NOT publishing a newspaper article which says something like "Bomb detection security systems innefective at major public location".

Wolfie, could you please detail ALL of the circustances that YOU FEEL should not fall under our First Amendment Rights.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 23, 1999.

Any one know where to find info on chemical plants located in US?

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), July 23, 1999.

Good grief, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with First Amendment or freedom of speech. It's the opposite end of the spectrum - a ban on FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.

For information on larger chemical companies in your neighborhood, try EPA's database at:

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_lojs.html

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

y2k aware mike,

You apparently are as aware as you profess. If you bother to read the bill you will find that it does not prevent the disemination of news. That is still allowed. The plants and associated agencies are not allowed to share their contingency plans. So before you make assumptions get the whole story straight.

-- get it right (stop spreading@rumors.com), July 23, 1999.

Snip:

"The House agreed Wednesday to a one-year moratorium on the Internet dissemination of information about potential hazards at some 66,000 facilities using or making toxic chemicals. "

I guess I am confused here so someone please help me out !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 23, 1999.

I used to develop these risk management plans for companies as a consultant. Most of these "worst case scenarios" are very unlikely to occur. Basically, EPA said that facilities are required assume that the "worst case scenario" is a sudden failure of the largest storage tank at the facility. Such failures are extremely rare, and often the only plausible reasons for such a failure are sabotage or terrorism. Since these worst case failures are so unlikely, and since only terrorists would really find the information useful, I think it's smart not to plaster it all over the internet. I do, however, think it is a good idea for communities and concerned neighbors to talk with the plants in their area and find out about the "alternative (more likely) release scenarios" and how best to prepare for them. I'll be going back to lurk mode now.

-- KellyRae (kellyraef@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

-- KellyRae, I understand what your saying but it does not factor in y2k at all. Would not the implications of y2k have a MAJOR effect on this thought process and possibly make the "Worst Case" scenario much more of a real possibility?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 23, 1999.

Ray,

Again, I should state that as a non-US citizen, I'm rather wary, despite your kind invitation, to catalogue my opinions on the rights and wrongs of your country's constitution. Its just not my place to do so. In a specific context however, I feel that there is no harm in my commenting on the particular application of a general rule, or a decision made in legal circumstances, in broad terms. (I can also see a double standard when it smacks me between the eyebrows, hence my posting above).

If you were looking for a specific and exhaustive list of the limitations set out in law to the Ist Amendement to the US Constitution as it regards free speech and freedom of the press . . I believe this covers it . . (My emphasis where I believe that the detail in bold MAY be applied to this specific circumstance)

3. The freedom of speech:

a. The absolute freedom of engaging in or refraining from speech and non-verbal communication, and receiving or refusing to receive information, without any coercion, shall be a rebuttable presumption in any administrative or judicial proceeding, concerning any attempts to abridge them. The onus of rebutting this presumption shall rest entirely on the party seeking such abridgment, by showing that the speech or non-verbal communication sought to be restrained, or the information to be withheld, do not, by virtue of some other conflicting and overriding considerations or necessities, fall within the categories of freedoms that this section is intended to protect;

b. Any Congressional, State, or local legislation or regulation by any governmental authority, which is so imprecise, ambiguous, vague, overbroad, or excessively general in its terms that it provides a pretext for arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement, uncertainty in the minds of persons of common intelligence as to the limits of protected communication, and creating a chilling effect on the unrestrained exercise of freedoms clearly not proscribed, shall be wholly void on its face; except that insubstantial defects may enable the courts to merely sever unenforceable parts or specific applications thereof;

c. Prior restraint shall not be imposed on any communication by institutionalized or informal censorship or coercion, however subtle, unless, in each instance such restraint is sought, a fair judicial hearing, following proper notice, is held; except where the required delay may cause irreparable harm, upon which a temporary restraining order, subject to a prompt subsequent hearing, may be issued;

d. Maintaining the integrity of the judicial process may validly require in-court and out-of-court curtailments on communication and information to prevent the clear and present probability of serious interference therewith;

e. The free and uninhibited conduct of any electoral process shall not be interfered with, unless the integrity of the process itself is, or appears to be, threatened, or where its integrity is protected or enhanced thereby;

f. In order to maintain the reliability and preparedness of the armed services, restrictions on communications and information likely to reduce the effectiveness of response to command may be justified therein;

g. Inmates of penal institutions and preconviction holding facilities shall retain the freedoms granted herein to the extent that their exercise does not endanger prison security and order, and any limitation imposed, however warranted, shall be in accordance with properly defined and administered procedural safeguards;

h. Public employees or licensees may be required to take such oaths or affirmations as are necessary to obtain their commitment to the lawful performance of their functions, or to make disclosures about themselves, as a condition of their office or employment, that are crucially relevant, lawful, and not repugnant to the letter and spirit of this Constitution;

i. Fighting words that tend to incite immediate violence, offensive speech to a hostile, potentially violent audience, false statements likely to cause panic, disorder and safety hazards, advocacy aimed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to succeed shall not be protected under this section;

j. Untrue defamatory speech (slander) or other communication (libel) is not protected herein; but the baseless defamation of public officials respecting their official conduct and of public figures respecting matters related to the causes or circumstances of their fame or notoriety, or a public controversy in which they willingly participate, shall, in the absence of malice (requiring communication knowingly false or recklessly disregardful of its truth or falsity), be protected;

k. Sexual conduct described or depicted in a patently offensive manner, lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and the dominant theme of which would appeal to the abnormal, prurient sexual interest of the average normal adult person, as determined by the application of contemporary standards of a given relevant geographically circumscribed community, shall be assumed to be harmful to society, and be outweighed by the need to protect the social interest in preserving, or not blatantly offending, recognized, generally approved norms of morality; and in the application of this clause, the corruption of minors, by exposure to obscenity, or their use in its description or depiction, shall be an aggravating factor supporting the denial of the freedoms herein granted. But the foregoing notwithstanding, no law proscribing pornography in any form, except child pornography, shall be made, that invades the personal right of privacy exercised in non-public places;

l. Public property open to the public shall be available for the exercise of freedoms herein granted, subject to reasonable, non- discriminatory, content-neutral regulations serving some significant government interest not otherwise attainable, concerning the orderliness, public safety and convenience, and personal right of privacy aspects. of any such exercise, by determining, on the basis of unambiguous, non-discretionary guidelines and procedural safeguards, the time, place and acceptable manner thereof. Private property open to the public, depending on the extent and exclusivity of its use, and its relevance in the public life of a community, may, subject to judicial determination, be required to partially accommodate the exercise of freedom of communication and information, or even be considered the equivalent of public property open to the public. But in either case, where a total ban on expression is lawfully applied in any public place, or by any medium, assurance of a satisfactory alternative place or medium shall be provided to ensure that such a ban does not result in suppression of the exercise of anyone's right of expression, or a community's right to receive information intended to be conveyed; and in any limitation of or ban on the exercise of such freedoms, the burden of showing just cause will rest entirely on the party seeking to impose it; and

m. Commercial communication primarily concerned with promoting commercial transactions may, in order to serve a substantial government interest, be subjected to reasonable limitations on the grounds of confusing or deceiving the public, or to banning, if false, misleading or otherwise illegal, and the communicator may be required to carry the burden of showing cause why protection under this section should not be withheld.

4. The freedom of the press:

a. All freedoms and limitations thereof described in the previous section shall apply to all media of information as well; >/b>

b. The laws of defamation, especially those applying to private individuals, shall be construed and applied against information media defendants in such a way, that their special responsibility for fairness and the avoidance of malice, negligence, and damaging reporting due to incompetence, be given due weight;

c. The communication of obscenity through the information media may be subject to special sanctions and restraints where it involves the invasion of privacy, or ready access to minors; but distributors, sellers and other facilitators of the conveyance of information media products in any form shall not be discouraged or chilled in their freedom to contribute to the maintenance of a free market of information and ideas by burdening them with an absolute presumption of knowledge of the contents of all information that they carry;

d. The preservation of a fair criminal trial by a ban on media reporting shall require virtual certainty that such a ban is essential and would in fact safeguard the rights of the accused, and that there is no viable alternative way of affording such protection; but the right of privacy of jurors concerning non-relevant facts and circumstances may be afforded reasonable restraints on reporting; and there shall be no automatic or non-consensual right to interview the accused or a convicted prisoner in a penal institution as long as some alternative channel of requesting information from an incarcerated person remains open through which the prisoner may choose to respond;

e. News-gatherers shall not be granted any privileges or immunities, or greater protection than any other person under the freedom of communications and information provisions herein, however, their need for continuous reliance on news sources requires special consideration on the part of public officials, in order not to disrupt the availability of such sources, or to harass or inhibit their activities in any unlawful or unreasonable manner;

f. In grand jury proceedings news reporters shall be required to give evidence and reveal the sources thereof in the manner any other witness may be compelled to do, and their offices may be searched in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment herein, however, in authorizing and carrying out each such search, special care must be taken to preserve the confidentiality of information concerning, persons and matters not targeted thereby;

g. Information media conveying its information on publicly-owned property subject to physical limitations, such as the airwaves, shall be subject to governmental licensing and regulation on a fair and equitable basis, solely in the public interest. Any governmental, political or economic interest not in harmony therewith shall have access to judicial review;

h. The acceptance of political or election campaign advertising in any medium of information shall not be compelled, but editorializing on political and other controversial public issues shall be subject to regulation prescribing fairness and balance in news media otherwise subject to licensing and regulation;

i. Government regulation aimed at preventing the monopoly of available public sources of information in a given geographic area may properly be applied to any medium or combination of media of information;

j. In the absence of a compelling State interest, any tax extractable exclusively from any one medium, or all media of information, shall be presumed to be a covert attempt to censor or penalize the press, and to interfere with the public's right of access to independently and freely provided information.

Ray, if I may ask . . are you prepared to state publicly that you are against the limitations of the First Amendment as regards free speech or freedom of the press under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ? Does this extend to such difficult issues as

1) The making public of plans, movements or activities of the armed forces where such information may be used to the endangerment of the personnell of these forces, or of the country's safety as a whole.

2) The rights of the media to broadcast information which may be used to inflict improper, unlawful and unjustified harm upon any citizen of the country. (such as the identity of witnesses in trials dealing with corruption, organised crime, or terrorism).

3) The release of any commercially or militarily sensitive information, particularly without proper recourse to official confirmation or denial of such information, where the details of such information is deemed to have little benefit to the public at large, and is additionally deemed likely to be used for the endangerment of citizens.

It is and always has been an interesting debate, (especially considering that I'm sitting here in a nation which doesnt even HAVE a written Constitution or Bill of Rights). I'm sure over there, as here, there is ample room for different opinions.

Kindest Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Got I hate html.

I think some blood has crept into my caffiene stream. My apologies to all for the formatting faux-pas.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

SPIN control? Are you outta your mind? Or did living "within terrorist conditions" affect your judgement and paranoia? Try telling that line of BULL to the people in Bhopal, India or Love Canal.Since WHEN did our rights to be warned about something that could cause death/injury collide with "we might encourage a terrorist"??? Listen, if you are incapable of rational thought, remember this...The law affects A CHEMICAL ACCIDENT THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED... NO need for any terrorist to target that area, it just blew! Geeez, get RATIONAL here and come up with a better excuse. That one stinks!

-- River (riverwn@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

River

some inconsistency here. Maybe I'm not the only one who may be confused.

Towit . .

"The House agreed Wednesday to a one-year moratorium on the Internet dissemination of information about potential hazards at some 66,000 facilities using or making toxic chemicals. "

and . .

"The law affects A CHEMICAL ACCIDENT THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED"

The word "Potential", by definintion (and in this context), cannot be applied to something which has already happened.

Kind Regards

W

NB: IMHO the residents of Bhopal, India or any other location of a fatal chemical accident for that matter, would have some things to say had it later transpired that the incident occurred not because of an accident (whether caused by negligence or not), but by a deliberate act facilitated by information which had been released publicly prior to the event. Wouldn't you agree ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Facilities subject to Section 112r of the Clean Air Act (the larger chemical users which constitute the Toxic Release Inventory companies) were required to file a risk management plan with EPA by June 21, 1999. The statutory requirements were informally modified last winter to require that the risk management plan also incorporate Y2K contingency planning. Unless the bill goes beyond this scope, then it is NOT about spills that have already occurred.

Bhopal was the catalyst for federal legislation passed in 1986 known as EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act) which established a periodic reporting requirement and public access to those reports. (In a similar way, Love Canal spurred the passage of the federal Superfund program.)

Essentially, the recent bill is at odds with EPCRA. I have seen debate for some time now that public access to the risk management plans could be used for terrorist purposes and should therefore be suppressed.

Much of the information about these companies should be available through your local fire department or board of health as the local emergency management office. The EPA web site I posted above would also give you an indication of the scope of chemical use at these facilities (expressed, for instance, as tons per year of air emissions in the air reports).

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

All of the above is moot.

If a hazardous chemical plant goes down and releases toxic gas you will die if you are too close.

Try to get away from them during roll over and/or wear a gas mask for a few days.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

R

I bow to your insight into the word "moot", which you kindly demonstrated by your subsequent comment.

In response, I would add (in the spirit of mootness which you have inspired). . .

"The impact onto your superficial cranial bone structure of a house brick of sufficient mass, and falling from a height sufficient to generate penetrative damage, during or after the rollover (or at any other time in fact), will cause brain damage or even death. I advise the wearing of an industrial hard-hat at all times."

:)

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Hola,

I am a gen Xer, born in 1968. My first Presidential memory is of Watergate on the news every night. (I am not a crook---yadda yadda)

I haven't trusted gov. ever.

With that said. Everyone here must realize that certain information is a very real threat to our national security.

Now, I know it's difficult for the me, me, me, generation to understand, but sometimes the country as a whole needs to be put ahead of the enlightened individual.

Let's let the leaders lead, first we must survive as a nation.

The day may come when oh so deserving leaders are swinging by their necks from trees. But this is not yet the season.

My generation has never had a common goal, unfortunately I think ours will be thrust upon us, it will be as simple as survival, not just ours but our nation's.

I say thank you gov. for not telling every fanatic in the world with a suitcase nuke where my countries greatest vulnerabilities lie. The tax burden, burden of cleaning up boomer messes, on my generation is/will be large enough.

Everyone else stop whining, get real & get ready.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Folks, I think that two important points are being missed here:

First, this, as reported, applies only to *INTERNET* publication.

Second: I could find no reference to any restriction of Freedom of Information requests. Correct me if I am wrong.

Completely off topic: Wolverine, are you in Great Britian? If not, where are you? Just curious.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Ray-

The EPA RMP worst case scenarios don't take into account y2k either. In my opinion, y2k does increase the risk of "worst case" scenarios in two ways.

First: During y2k there is the increased risk of terrorism, which is why I think the EPA RMP information should be kept local, at least for now.

Second: If there is a power/DCS failure, it is possible that some flammable/toxic material could be vented through a safety valve/vent or other device. These releases are smaller and slower than the EPA RMP worst case scenario. A power/DCS failure alone, even if it is widespread across industry, will not, by itself cause the EPA RMP worst case scenario. Plants occasionally lose power and/or DCS, and the largest storage tanks at the facility do not explode as a result. That having been said, there is a possibility that simultaneous failures could cascade "in strange and wonderful ways", causing fires/explosions/equipment damage, which could result in the loss of an entire tank of toxic material.

In my opinion, the risk of terrorism is higher. I hope I'm right.

-- KellyRae (KellyRaeF@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

Jon

wonder no more, UK here.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Jon, thanks for reminding that it is time to go to the source. First, the engrossed House amendments of Senate bill S.880:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c106BAuoF1::

A summary of the engrossed House amendments:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00880:@@@D

The engrossed Senate version:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:3:./temp/~c106BAuoF1::

And a summary of the Senate version:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00880:@@@D

These do not necessarily represent the final version.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

KellyRae, you seem to be esposing the terrorism theme with regard to these facilities. Have you read this thread .

I believe you are unerestimating the internal y2k problems within these plants. After you have read this letter and associated materials from the US Chemical Safety Board let me know what you think.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 23, 1999.

Ray-

I saw the thread - thanks. Like I said, I hope I'm right because if I'm not the EPA RMP data could be too conservative.

Maybe I'm naive, but I would hope that if it looks like power failures are likely, many of these plants will shut down or at least curtail operations prior to rollover. I've heard some rumors to that effect. Starting up after the rollover presents a risk, but at least the failures won't be simultaneous.

The worst thing I can think of is if the power stays on for a couple of days, then for some reason I can't imagine, the grid shuts down unexpectedly. But I've never seen where this is a likely scenario, have you?

-- KellyRae (KellyRaeF@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

Kelly - The New England grid coordinator is most concerned that its major electrical customers will shutdown over the weekend. If too many come back on line in too short a time frame (for instance, on Monday, January 3rd), it will make the grid very unstable. That it is the time that I think failures are most likely to happen. Coordination between the utilities and their customers would help, but I haven't seen any sign of that yet.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Folks, get real!!!

Most of the info was available before the Internet...Someone is going to be p*ssed off about Washington's action to figure a way to post the info...perhaps via an Iranian or Iraqi, (or SERB??) internet connection.

Make no mistake about it...this is aimed at keeping the public uninformed. Think back before the "environmental reforms" of 25 years ago...Gasoline trucks were LABELED GASOLINE...as were BENZENE, ACRYLONITRILE, etc. Now they only have that STUPID PLACARD with the numbers.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), July 23, 1999.

I cannot understand how anyone can trust or believe anything coming from our government. Of course, if they say our taxes are to be increased in some area----THAT I would believe. I think our political system is corrupt from top to bottom. Those who have ideals when first elected seem to lose them quickly. The prime business seems to be STAYING in office. Nothing else seems to matter. We have a president who shamed and embarrased his country in the eyes of the entire world, shamed and cheapened the highest office in our country, humiliated his family, lied under oath and obstructed justice---and yet he is still in office. Over fifty of our senators apparently thought this was acceptable behavior for our president and let him get away with it. Also, I still don't know the exact meaning of the word, "is". With the stroke of a pen he could invoke executive orders, which he happily wrote, and basically have the power of a Hitler or Stalin. Would he DO this?? If things get very bad I am afraid he would, and we could see a situation close to civil war all over our country. Yeah, I know. I am somewhat off the thread subject. But, no matter what you read out of Washington, consider where it's coming from and THINK. Our country is in deep trouble---even aside from any Y2K troubles. When we add the dangerous problems which could result from Y2K, I get scared. Too bad more Americans aren't. KBill

-- George W Berge (gberge@kih.net), July 23, 1999.

Wolverine: Are you talking about our deleting of obscene trolls? You are a pathetic. This EPA action is meant to contain panic, not control terrorists. It's the endgame of the government's decision to not alarm the public until it now becomes too late to avoid enacting draconian measures to deal with it. The polly argument becomes weaker every day and jerks like you are accelerating it.

For the rest of your, see also

Eugene, Oregon's "Y2K Home Invasion Act"

NRC pulls information on past computer failures from their web site

-- a (a@a.a), July 23, 1999.

Government officials are creaming in their pants at the prospects of being able to impose more controls, due to Y2K problems. Their agenda is to establish all of the above provisions, in any event, eventually. Y2K gives them the opportunity to accomplish their agenda even sooner.

The exercise of the 1st Ammendment rights relies on the ability to exercise 2nd Ammendment rights.

Note that the Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, it ACKNOWLEDGES them. The so-called oath of office that politicians swear to, and routinely violate, is an oath to keep their f***ing hands off.

Politics -- voting and education -- is not a viable solution. It's an avoidance of considering more viable, but scary, alternatives.

One of the few viable solutions remaining is outlined in fictional form in the novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. (Look it up on http://www.amazon.com and/or http://www.loompanics.com)

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 23, 1999.

On http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0621/web-chem-6-25- 99.html I see this paragraph:

The measure, an amendment to the 1990 Clean Air Act, would prohibit for one year disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of any information that describes what could happen if toxic chemicals were accidentally released into the environment.

I see the word could and the word if. The last time I learned the English language these words denoted contingency, which is to say, possibility. I saw nothing in that summary of this bill which made any reference to prohibiting the disclosure of hazmat accidents which have already happened.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.