Contaminated gravel a good thing?

I would like to ask Geoff Baker and John Thompson what kind of “common sense” is used in a decision to take contaminated gravel from one spot where it is known to exist, and spread that gravel all over town? Using it on the roads and under buildings widens the problem and puts everyone at risk.

Is it wise to put the poisoned gravel where children play, ride their bikes and where dust is blowing most of the time? When the snow melts and rushes over this gravel all around town, where does it go, folks? Into the bay — where it contaminates the fish and wildlife. So how much sense does it make to keep on doing this?

Since the U.S. Air Force made the mess, they should clean it up. There is nothing Americans understand more than the value of litigation. Now that Nunavut is growing its own lawyers, put them to work on getting funds to clean up the site.

If the contaminated gravel continues to be used, it is only a matter of time before the lawyers will be busy on behalf of local people made ill by exposure, and we will all see the sorry result of current day “common sense.”

If that happens, I hope the people making these decisions today are put on the witness stand to explain their wisdom. The town will continue to grow, gravel will be needed, so let’s figure out a real solution instead of using what they call the same “management plan.”

Sherry Shorthouse
Iqaluit