Published Aug. 4, 1990|Updated Oct. 17, 2005
Editor: These comments are provided in response to recent letters published in your July 24, 1990, edition of the Hernando Times. Mark Bolton's Letter
Mr. Bolton continues to be confused about Florida Mining's plan to use waste fuels in its cement kilns.
1. We have no plan to build a toxic waste disposal factory and are not seeking permits to build one. We merely wish to substitute one type fuel for another in our existing cement kilns.
2. Destruction removal efficiencies of more than 99.99 percent are well documented for cement kilns in the United States, Canada and Europe. The EPA has substantial data confirming these numbers. Florida Mining will be able to document the same high rates after we begin using these fuels.
3. EPA testing has consistently proven that cement kilns using waste fuels provide for the complete destruction of even the most stable waste compounds, and that "kilns equipped with fabric filters showed no change in emissions." (Mournighan, EPA)
4. The health and safety of our employees and this community are uppermost in our minds. Mr. Bolton is in no position to suggest anything else.
5. Mr. Bolton has no knowledge of cement-making and obviously no understanding of the sophisticated combustion process of a cement kiln. His comments regarding cement kilns are, therefore, without credence.
6. Mr. Bolton is in no position to judge the integrity of our company. He writes with the perspective of a very bitter man, who offers no solutions and hurls senseless insults at an issue he won't attempt to understand.
Herb Shapiro's Letter
Mr. Shapiro continues to comment on subjects that are extremely technical and beyond his knowledge (industrial haze, cement kiln fuels, emission testing, toxic emissions, non-attainment areas, etc.). He has no formal training in engineering, science or environment and his written statements clearly reflect his deficiencies in those areas. Frankly, he is not qualified to critique the operation of an industrial facility, or the subject of industrial haze, or the use of industrial fuels such as coal, hazardous waste, tires or oil in cement kilns. My suggestion to him is that he comment on issues he understands, and leave these complex, technical matters to those who understand them.
Conclusion
Since both Bolton and Shapiro have chosen not to visit our plant, I conclude that they are unwilling to learn about our process or our company. It is impossible to work with people like this.
Summary
In closing, let me say that Florida Mining is committed to its waste fuels project. We continue to host tour groups at our plant and speak to community/civic organizations. We are gaining public acceptance from many in the Hernando County community who are open-minded and interested in learning. Henry Ledbetter's recent statement that "not everybody feels we should be opposing hazardous waste" is valid, not only in Hernando County, but also in other parts of America. Southdown cement plants in Ohio and Kentucky are fully permitted to use waste fuels and are currently doing so. Our Knoxville, Tenn., plant received full regulatory approval in early July and will begin using waste fuels sometime in August. We at Florida Mining expect the Brooksville plant to be the next fully permitted Southdown cement plant to employ this unique fuels technology.
C.M. Coleman Jr.
Vice President and General Manager,
Florida Mining
Favors protecting flag
Editor: It is unfortunate that some members of the media and letter writers continue to spew derision and contempt upon those who favor a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to desecrate our flag.
That this highly emotional issue would sorely divide the American people was to be expected. There are those who sincerely believe that such an amendment would infringe on a person's right of free speech. There are others who just as sincerely believe that wanton desecration of our flag is not exercising one's right to free speech but is a reprehensible act that should be punishable by law. I am astounded, however, by the manner in which those who zealously defend desecration of our flag as part and parcel of one's right of free speech in turn so vehemently condemn those who seek through legal means to protect our flag from such profane treatment.
We who support an amendment have been disdainfully referred to as pretentious blowhards bent on depriving others of their right of free speech; mockingly labeled as "super patriots"; accused of being incapable of comprehending the "true" meaning of the First Amendment; admonished that enactment of such an amendment would lead to the destruction of our Bill of Rights; and accused of being one-issue oriented and unmindful of the many serious problems plaguing our nation today.
Granted that excluding that fringe element sporting Palestine Liberation Organization kerchiefs and Mao Tse-tung buttons, their fellow travelers and some malcontents who relish anarchistic rabble-rousing, no thinking American would intentionally desecrate our flag or knowingly treat it with disrespect.
It also is true, however, that from the very first 13-star flag, each succeeding Stars and Stripes has played a prominent role in the history of our country and in our personal lives. Never before in history has such a bond evolved between a people and their country's flag. Mindful of this seemingly inherent relationship, Mahatma Gandhi on an occasion noted: "Americans have developed a special affinity toward their flag."
Likewise mindful of and in complement of this special affinity, it has become tradition for the government of the United States to ceremoniously present an American flag to a grieving mother or wife of a serviceman killed in the line of duty, in recognition of his honorable service and her great loss. Is it not, therefore, the highest form of hypocrisy for that very same government to hold that profanely desecrating that very same flag is a permissible form of free speech? I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the American people do not condone nor consider such offensive conduct as the exercising of one's right to freedom of speech.
That cardinal principle of free speech for every American, which we treasure so highly, is powerfully expressed by E. Beatrice Hall's famous words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it," and by Norbert Guterman's equally explicit, "I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
How far have we strayed from this historical conception of one's right to freedom of speech to so distort the meaning of those simple words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press" as to consider desecration of our flag as an inclusion in one's right to freedom of speech? Desecration of such national landmarks as the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and, ironically, the Supreme Court Building itself already is prohibited by law. Is not our country's flag worthy of the same protection from desecration?
Since all attempts to legislate such protection for our flag have been declared unconstitutional, the only alternative is to seek the enactment of a constitutional amendment. This procedure would then allow the American people to decide the question, "Is wanton desecration of our flag a protected form of one's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, or is it reprehensible conduct that should be punishable by law?"
Mario Battista
Americanism Committee
American Legion Post 79
New Port Richey
