"Please provide the exact source for that."
===
In general we provide MANY sources -- you, never have a single source for your denial of the existence of the threat.
But here is a specific source for the chemical plant vulnerability issue --- a letter signed by a bunch of Dems at that -- but they are quoting other specific government sources as well, we are not just taking the Dems word for it.
=====
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108ltr15.htm The Honorable Tom Ridge
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
3801 Nebraska Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20528
The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Governor Ridge and Governor Whitman:
We are writing to request a meeting to discuss a pressing homeland security issue: the vulnerability of our nation’s chemical plants to terrorist attack.
As you know, there are more than 100 U.S. chemical facilities where a terrorist attack could expose more than one million people to toxic chemical gases. And there are more than 500 facilities where such an attack would threaten more than 100,000 people. The attractiveness of these facilities as terrorist targets has long been recognized, and was affirmed just weeks ago in a February 12, 2003 bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC). NIPC’s Information Bulletin 03-003 stated that: “Al Qa'ida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional attacks against the U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption, and terror. Based on information, nuclear power plants and industrial chemical plants remain viable targets.”
Sincerely,
Jon S. Corzine
United States Senator
James M. Jeffords
United States Senator
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.homeland/ Report cites chemical plants as attractive targets for terrorists
Ridge says steps being taken
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Scores of chemical plants across the country may be attractive targets for terrorists, according to a critical government report which says the federal government has not fully assessed that threat.
The report -- released Tuesday by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress -- noted that an attack on a chemical plant could result in toxic releases that could harm hundreds of thousands of nearby residents.
Asked about the report, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge Tuesday conceded the possibility that terrorists could use chemical plants as a weapon, and said it was the subject of conversations Monday night with the nation's governors.
In general we provide MANY sources -- you, never have a single source for your denial of the existence of the threat.But here is a specific source for the chemical plant vulnerability issue --- a letter signed by a bunch of Dems at that -- but they are quoting other specific government sources as well, we are not just taking the Dems word for it.
Nice creation of a strawman; I never claimed that there was absolutely no danger to people near chemical plants.
I questioned the validity of the claim that there are 123 chemical sites that would each kill 1 million people or more if they exploded, which, frankly, strikes me as beyond ridiculous.
The way exaggerations and miscommunications begin is the changing of ONE word each time; possible that the original claim was some sort of mistaken modification of the Senatorial letter claim.
There's a VAST difference between "expose" and "kill". The first Senate document(given the authors are two radical Left-wingers and a backstabbing party-switcher, what's with all the love for Leftist sources in this thread?) make a vague claim about "a terrorist attack could expose more than 1 million people to toxic gases." They never actually provide a specific source for THAT numerical claimm, but do go on to site sources that there could be a threat to chemical plants.
The second GAO document claims "could harm hundreds of thousands." Again, a VAST gulf to "over a million killed." And "harm" again, isn't "killed."
Words matter.