This page was updated 9/10/2016

Before I get into any definitions or articles,  I will explain the reason for this web site.  I am fighting the dumping of River Dredge and Fly Ash on the  Hazleton City Landfill.  Through this web site you will come to see the reasons why.  Hopefully! This is the reason why many articles pertain to landfills in general. Let me add to this statement, in no way do the comments on this web site reflect the opinions of Citizen Advocates United to Save the Environment (CAUSE), they are strictly my opinion.


This is the best news so far.  The Environmental Integrity Project and Pennsylvania Waste Industries Association have made their comments against the renewal of the WMGR097D011.  It was really a surprise to see the waste industry make comments against the renewal, after all they are waste people.  After all the comments were made Rinaldi decided to withdraw the application for the permit.  I guess he was surprised at the waste industry also.


Speaking of Rinaldi, he was going to have Chuck Rogers disciplined for making what he called derogative statements against the site and for citing violations that Rinaldi said were not true.  I got one step ahead of him and wrote to Secretary Abruzzo and several others informing them if Chuck saw a violation it was there as we have documented many items on the site that shouldn't have been there.  Chuck is a good inspector and he tells it like it is.  Here are a few of what Chuck saw.


Erosion Channnel to the big pit. Embrel Injector Bicycle Tires


Phil Kauffman is back to making his famous fliers about how we're all going to die, being poisoned by all of the toxic chemicals being dumped on the landfill.  The problem is we have no scientific data that the material that is coming in is toxic.  We know material left on the landfill was toxic and that it had existed there for years, and most of it carcinogenic or cancer causing, but it's all under ground and unless it finds it's way through the underground mines and surfaces near someone's property, it's not affecting anyone.


Something new to add after all this time.  We are now getting drill cuttings from Marcellus Shale waste.  We know it contains several harmful chemicals as well as radioactive material. How much of these remain after being processed by Clean Earth of Williamsport is not really known. 

Settlement Reached

A settlement was finally reached between Hazleton Creek Properties and SUFFER.  The agreement calls for more stricter rules and another monitoring well. Hazleton Creek is supposed to supply the well reports every 6 months along with the regular reports. Good Luck to SUFFER, I hope they get their reports faster than CAUSE did.  Now that the agreement was reached between the both parties,  DEP will have no excuse not to release the Enhanced Groundwater Monitoring Data, but I highly doubt anyone will see it.  They will find another excuse.



Well I guess the DEP  went to sleep again.  The DEP has granted the WMGR125 several months ago.  Now we get Flue Gas Desulfurization Material (FGD).  That's the crap they clean out of the stacks after the scrubbers go through them.   They are going to mix that with the fly ash and pour it into the big hole behind Kowalski's.   Speaking of mixing, they applied to Susquehanna River Basin Commission for 65,000 gallons of water a day to mix with the stuff.  "To make it cementitous".  Susquehanna gave them the permit, despite letters from a retired DEP Geologist and a resident. They don't care if the material contains Hexavalent Chromium.  (Verified by Earthjustice and Environmental Integrity in an article on Feb. 1, 2011) The chemical that Erin Brockovich was fighting in Hinkley, CA.  Then it gets better, now they are increasing that petition to 200,000 gallons.


FGD being dumped by Pug Mill FGD being dumped in pit behind Kowalski's


Someone Finally Awake At DEP

The DEP has put a hold on General Permit WMGR125.  They have found 18 discrepancies in the application for the new permit and have sent it back to Hazleton Creek Properties to straighten out.  One important part was the Enhanced Groundwater Monitoring Plan.  Let's face it, they never monitored the wells in the way the plan suggests.  They have never monitored GW7B, GW7, GW8 and SW1 as the plan called for.  Looking through the discrepancies, there are some serious things that need attention.  They have until December 30, 2010 to respond with all of the corrections.  Do I think they'll make it....could be...maybe..who knows with McClellan at the helm.  At least this time someone was awake in Harrisburg.


PCB Soil disappears

The soil from the PCB-laden capacitors finally left after being stockpiled on the Municipal Landfill for over 2 years.  Invoices from January 6th and 7th show the soil went to Model City Landfill in New York.  It sat 3 years and 3 months after the EPA told them to dispose of it.  I can't imagine how much PCB leachate flowed across the landfill in that period of time.


McClellan Up To It Again

Mark McClellan and his henchmen are up to it again.  This time it's FGD Scrubber Material.  That's the stuff they scrape from inside of the towers in coal fired generation plants.  It is the result of reducing the sulfur dioxide emissions in a wet scrubber flue gas desulfurization systems.  Now when this stuff is scraped, it's a wet solid residue generated from the treatment of these emissions.  It appears solid, but when agitated or vibrated becomes liquefied.  So it must be stabilized and/or dewatered.  One of the ways of stabilizing it is to add coal ash or commonly called fly ash.  Then it can be disposed of into a landfill.  One of the problems is that the flue gas material is more concentrated than coal ash. The content of toxic materials is far greater.  This placement has never been performed before.  Again another experimental program that we will have to live with forever.  Do I believe that DEP will slide this one through - what do you think?  Did you ever wonder how McClellan or any of those people sleep at night?  Or for that matter DEP.  I guess money is the answer to it all.  Or all of the sleeping pills they can buy with the money.  So friends get prepared.  The meeting is tonight (8/31/10) at the High School.  Good Luck to us all.


Update On The Meeting From November

Sorry I have been real busy with other projects and haven't had the time to write anything.  As you know by now the meeting at the Hazleton Administration Building was a real farce.  At least 200 men wearing Hazleton Creek shirts and caps attended the meeting.  We all know they were paid to be there.  One of my friends asked one of the men if they were paid to come and he replied "Yes".  He then asked him why he was there and his reply was "He didn't know", must be nice to have money!  As usual, Mark McClellan came up with a few of his stories to push their effort.  He told everyone there that there was already a death at the site when a person was pushed into a hole and died.  Let me straighten out this story.  On July 22, 2008, while my husband and I were at the site, a young girl jumped into the big pit behind Kowalski's, in an attempt to commit suicide.  After calling 911, he boyfriend tired to get down and get her.  The both became trapped.  They were brought up by emergency responders and treated at the hospital for scrapes and bruises.  NO ONE HAS DIED ON THAT SITE.  McClellan is trying to justify the reason for filling in the pits.  The period for responding to the appeal was extended to Jan. 11, 2010.  At this point we have no word as to whether the permit was accepted or denied.  Will keep you posted.


Hazleton Creek Properties is looking at another permit.

 The WMGR097 which is used for Research and Development activities to support the beneficial use or processing prior to beneficial use of residual and/or municipal waste.   More material they want to dump in unlined pits at the landfill.  After reading Mr. Gadinski's report I don't think anything more should be dumped on there.  There is a public meeting concerning this permit application being held on Nov. 16, from 7:00 to 9:00 at the Hazleton High Administration Building.  Everyone should try and attend.  It's very important.  Also letters of comment should be submitted to the DEP before Nov. 23.  The address is Mr. Ronald C. Hassinger Chief, General Permits/Beneficial Use Section, Division of  Municipal & Residual Waste, Bureau of Waste Management, P.O. Box 8472, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472.  Remember the deadline is Nov 23.

Retired DEP Geologist Finds Problems In Landfill Groundwater Monitoring System.

Retired DEP geologist Robert Gadinski, viewed the monitoring well reports for the Hazleton City Landfill and came to the conclusion, the groundwater monitoring system is deficient, because the system contains only one downgradient well  for 3200 linear feet which is the measurement across the affected coal measures.  Evidence of contamination exists in the area of the Buck Mountain Mine Pool and in the water quality data for wells, MW-9, MW-10 and MW-13.  It is quite possible that the contamination of residential wells along SR 309 has its origin on the HCP site.  Is the contamination historical or as a result of site activities including disposal that occurred prior to the development of these monitoring points?   Based on Act II any contamination not disclosed and discovered subsequent to disposal is the liability of the owner of record.  Gadinski said " I can say with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the monitoring system approved by the DEP at this site is technically deficient as many other coal combustion waste (CCW)/"Beneficial Use" sites in Pennsylvania."

What does that do to the health and safety of the citizens of Hazleton?



Army Corps Will Dredge Without A Permit.

Army Corps of Engineers is planning to dredge the Delaware River to a depth of 45 feet whether New Jersey or Delaware wants it or not.  The following state was released October 25th from Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Secretary Collin O'Mara concerning the dredging.  "The Army Corps of Engineers notified DNREC last night that they intend to proceed with their proposal to dredge the Delaware River to 45 feet without first securing the required permits from the State of Delaware."  "DNREC recently denied the Corps' first permit application, in part, because the proposed project had changed significantly since the originally submitted for consideration and many of the potential environmental impacts of the changed project were unknown or based upon outdated information.  DNREC remains committed to considering a new application through an efficient, science-based, and transparent permitting process.  It is therefore especially troubling that the Corps now seeks to proceed without a current environmental assessment and without any public consideration of the project as currently proposed."

It amazes me how any form of the Federal Government can get away with anything they want, but let one of us try to do the same.


HCP Web Site

A friend of mine happened to click on this web site by accident, and saw some fantastic pictures of the site.  Everything looked really, really fine.  Not to mention the job they are doing with permitted materials.  It really aggravates me to see how they are disillusioning the public.  Let me show you some real pictures of the site.


Rinaldi wrote the DEP on Aug. 25th and said he sent back 5 rail cars with non-permitted material.  Why then were these materials found on the site  Sept 24th?



What about this contaminated material supposed to be from where the capacitors were stored?  It's been there for several months now.  One would think DEP wouldn't allow that.  The strange thing about that was when the DEP was questioned by an individual as to what the material was, the comment was that it was the contaminated soil from the capacitor site.  I couldn't believe they would allow that laying there, PCB's are PCB's and the soil should have been removed to a disposal site, long before that part of the site was flooded on March of 2008, spreading the PCB's over a wider area.

Area including contaminated soil 3/5/08 Water remained on contaminated soil 3/13/08


Hazleton people should know the truth about what's going on out there.



The Redevelopment is selling  the Landfill to Hazleton Creek Properties.  The agreement was already signed.  The first payment of $600,000 is due on December 15th of this year, with 4 more payments due the 15th of December of the next 4 years.  The Redevelopment claims they need the money for the city's debt, but if you ask me they want to be removed from any possible problems that occur with the site, and I'm sure they know there will be.  Still, the property remains in their name until the final payment is made.

Update!   I have recently came upon some documents verifying that the first payment was made.  In fact a down payment of $150,000 was made when the amendments were made to the Lease Purchase option on Aug 11, 2008 and the remaining $450,000 on Dec. 15, 2008.


Something strange is going on at the site.  The empty train cars have remained on the site for the last couple of months and not a piece of equipment has moved.  It seems strange, because they worked through last winter.  Word has it the DEP is also a little concerned over the non activity.


This recent sign has been posted on the 309 side of the property.  Note that it says visitors please call 570-501-5050.  That's a joke!  People can't even stand on the other side of 309 by the little strip mall and take pictures without getting screamed at. Patrons of the Beltway Diner walked up the access road to see how the site was coming along and they were also told to leave.  Guess that's why they put the fence up. What so secret about that place, what is going on that no one should see?  If everything is on the up and up on the site, they should want people to see the great job they're doing and not chase people away.  Makes you wonder!


One interesting point concerning the toxicity of the Hazleton City Landfill.  Every garbage hauler who had dealings with the landfill and had dumped there repeatedly, has pasted away with CANCER.  Some of those from the past are Johnny Machinas and Harold Jacoby who were haulers and had constant contact with the landfill and Joe DiSabella, who ran the landfill for the city of Hazleton. There were several other people who were mentioned to me, but the names past away with the person who informed me.  Only one landfill worker still remains alive, Ron Kripp, but he also has CANCER.
 Isn't this telling us something?


Pay very special attention to the following picture!

This is a picture of a section of the site formerly known as Crystal Ridge Landfill. This site has been sinking over the course of the last several years.  It is due to the 55 gallon barrels and the skids they were placed on when they were buried, are degrading.  An engineered cap was placed on the site in 1982, but the cap is not going to stop it from sinking.  This area is where Hazleton Creek Properties and the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority had rezoned  to an Industrial site, to make a parking lot.  There is no doubt in my mind,  sometime in the future someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed there.


Well the rezone passed council by a 4 - 1 vote, on Sept. 2, 2008.  Naturally Bob Niles held out because he knows the situation.  Now they can do anything they want out there.  Still don't know what they're going to do with the old Crystal Ridge Landfill, because it's going to keep sinking.  Just hope no one is on it when it does.


CAUSE is still waiting for the results of the water samples that were drawn on August 13th.  My guess is one turned bad and they don't know what to do.


Sorry to be so late with an update, I was real busy for awhile.  Well the 6 wells are in at the Landfill and they were tested on August 13th.  So far CAUSE hasn't received the results of any of the tests.  I don't know if that's bad or good.  It makes me wonder if they are looking for a way to change any of the tests.  Only my opinion only!  I will post here as soon as I hear something.



No one, but no one knows what's under the Hazleton City Landfill, because it was never properly monitored.  The existing wells in the area of the Landfill were insufficient to monitor anything.  The only way to find out what is or is not going into the groundwater is to dig wells and test.  I am convinced that at least one of those wells will turn up toxic waste.  The only way it couldn't, is if the well is placed in the wrong place.  The expert Geologist is satisfied with the location of the well placements.  First of all to have the dredge material removed from the site it must be proven toxic.  Without the proper testing, nothing can be proved.  Right now no one can prove anything.  DEP nor Hazleton has ever provided any financial compensation to any of the residents who lived near the Landfill for the last 48 years.   ATSDR and EPA knew of the site for years and never did anything about it. 

Local Project May Use Dredge

Hazleton Creek Properties LLC, who leases the land from the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority may use river dredge to reclaim the adjoining Cranberry Creek Property.  The DEP granted permission for the use if HCP takes over the state contract between the DEP and #1 Contracting.  The DEP cancelled the contract last year after the work bogged down.



C.A.U.S.E. Claims Partial Victory.

The environmental group C.A.U.S.E. (Citizen Advocates United to Safeguard the Environment) claimed partial victory over Hazleton Creek Properties in their fight to keep the river dredge from the old Hazleton City Landfill.  The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board's decision on November 2, 2007 found in favor of the group when it disapproved the groundwater monitoring plan for the site.   The Board ordered that HCP may not operate under its DEP permit to introduce dredge, coal ash and kiln dust at the site until a new groundwater monitoring plan was submitted and excepted by the DEP and implemented on the site.  The Board stated: "It will involve the unprecedented placement of 10 million cubic yards of a residual waste mixture in unlined, abandoned mine workings that are partially filled with unpermitted landfills known to have been used for midnight dumping of hazardous waste.  It would have been one thing if the Department approved a small beneficial use project at a site without complications located in an isolated area.  Here, the Project will be carried out on a massive scale on a complicated  site in very close proximity to densely populated  residential and commercial areas.  If the people of Hazleton are to have this project in their midst, they deserve some assurance that the Project will perform as expected and not harm them or their environment. " November 2, 2007 Board Decision, p. 60-61.

Mayor Lou Barletta responded by saying, they won in every other instance of this case and the decision doesn't affect the permit already in place, so he doesn't anticipate any delay in the project moving forward.


August 17, 2007

We recently read an article that some leaders of the Republican Party are courting Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta to run for the U.S. Congress or Governor of Pennsylvania. The story indicated that some leaders thought that the immigration issue and his success as mayor make him an unusually attractive candidate. Letís take a closer look at his record.

First, letís look at Lou Barlettaís success as mayor. Our immediate reaction was to ask whether these leaders have ever been to Hazleton. The city is a mess. The crime rate is out of sight. In the past few weeks, there were two additional murders and several random shootings. Police are seldom seen on foot patrol and itís not safe to walk the streets. The city is replete with empty stores and buildings. Contaminated river sludge is being dumped in the city and the streets are in a state of disrepair. In short, this once proud city is now decaying and badly in need of help.

How does the deterioration of Hazleton qualify its mayor to run for higher office? We donít know. In all fairness, we cannot hold the mayor responsible for all of Hazletonís problems but he has done little, if anything, to stop or slow down the cityís continuing decay during his term in office. In fact, we believe that the deterioration has accelerated during his term.

Now, letís look at the immigration issue. We should first note that Lou Barletta was a major proponent of bringing immigrants to Hazleton. A few years ago, he was on television bragging that while many cities in Pennsylvania were losing population, Hazleton was one of the fastest growing cities in the state. He credited this growth to the influx of immigrants.

Then, Lou changed his tune. He discovered that the people of Hazleton were opposed to this influx of immigrants so he blamed all of the cityís problems on illegal immigrants. He promoted an anti-illegal immigration ordinance that got him national attention. From the beginning, the ordinance had a snowballís chance in hell of being declared constitutional in a federal court. Thus, it came as no surprise to anyone with a minimal knowledge of the law when the ordinance was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Does the mayor have any legal advisors?

It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to enact laws that regulate immigration. What a responsible mayor would have done was to pressure the members of Pennsylvaniaís congressional delegation to better protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws.

The city is now burdened with major legal fees for its frivolous ordinance. In spite of this, the mayor has indicated that the city will appeal the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. The ordinance will continue to be declared unconstitutional by the appellate courts and the legal fees will continue to mount. As a result, the residents of Hazleton will probably see an increase in their property taxes to pay the legal fees. However, Lou Barletta will still have the soapbox and the national attention that goes with it and his political career will be advanced at the cost of the City of Hazleton.


Courtesy of Dante Piccione -



Yes it looks like we got a little reprieve the last week of February.  It seems that Mallinckrodt Baker decided to send their demolition debris to a landfill in Morgantown, PA instead of here. This is the material that I spoke about earlier that could contain Beryllium.  We could use many, many more like this.


On the subject of the Dredge.  I was under the impression that the Dredge was supposed to be mixed with Fly Ash and some other junk to make it more cement-like.  It's strange that they went ahead and are working without the Fly Ash. Not that I want the Fly Ash also, but that would throw their ground hardness out, wouldn't you think.


Dredge Trucks Are Causing Trouble.

The trucks that are hauling Dredge are causing trouble for the people of Cranberry.  Not only are they throwing dirt all over everything, but they are endangering the lives of the children who must wait for the school bus weekday mornings along Old 924 through Cranberry.  Witnesses say trucks have come very close to a school bus and that terrified the residents.  Hazle Township Supervisors threaten to close the 924 entrance to the landfill.  According to initial plans the Dredge was supposed to arrive on trains, but Norfolk & Southern are involved in another project, so the alternative was to ship by truck.  The route for the fly ash was to enter the site on the 309 side, which now the trucks are using for the Dredge.  This is also presenting a problem, as the trucks must stop traffic to turn onto the road that leads to the site.  The larger of the trucks aren't able to make the swing from the road onto 309 without turning into the oncoming lane, also presenting a great problem. Numerous businesses are concerned, not only of the increase in truck traffic, but the problem of the dirt and dust, as they haven't erected the washer as of yet to clean these trucks off as they leave the site.

Anyone who's had a close call or problem with these trucks, please call the Pennsylvania State Police at Valmont and voice your concern. (570) 459-3890


Not Beryllium Again!

Hazleton Creek Properties LLC announced this week it would import demolition material from Mallinckrodt Baker,  a chemical plant in Phillipsburg, NJ.  Mallinckrodt Baker produces imaging equipment, pharmaceuticals and respiratory equipment, along with an amazing amount of various chemicals including Methyl Ethyl Ketone.  Of the three buildings razed last fall, one of them contained Beryllium.  As it is stated in the Saturday January 20th edition of the Standard-Speaker, Hazleton Creek consultants didn't know what would happen to the material containing the Beryllium, but we are going to receive 200 cubic yards from the walls and foundation of that building.  As far as I'm concerned 1 cubic yard is too much.  We don't this reappearing again.

Also note, by Saturday's Standard-Speaker, analysts disqualified one batch of Dredge because it contained too much Boron, a substance used as a cleanser and pesticide.  It will irritate the nose, throat and eyes and reduce the sperm count in males who breathe it over a period of time. They had to make us believe they were on the job.  I think I would rather have had the Boron, than have the Beryllium.



Dredge arrives under DEP watch, was the headline in the Standard-Speaker, December 19, 2006.  The trucks began arriving Thursday the 14th.  Mark Carmon from DEP said the agency is continually monitoring the  material for the project.  The dredge is being brought in from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Confined Disposal Facility in southeast Philadelphia.  The material is placed in one of several impoundments and dried over a period of time.  The material being shipped to Hazleton is tested for contaminants before being excavated at Fort Mifflin and loaded onto trucks.  The trucks from at least six hauling companies including Bonner  are logging in several round trips a day between here and Philadelphia.  The material at first had the appearance of black top soil, now it's more of a brown color.  I was under the impression that it would be mixed with construction and demolition material, but this is being spread by itself.  Although it has no smell at this point, (that I attribute to the cold, dry weather), I say, "let it rain some and we should definitely got some smell."  It is also creating a mess on the old Main Street in Cranberry.  Trucks coming from the dump site are depositing clumps of the mess all over the roadway.  Clumps of dredge, that I'm not sure they're testing and material from a toxic landfill at least.  The dust from the trucks make it almost impossible for the people in Cranberry and surrounding area to keep their cars clean and hang clothes outside on clothes lines.  I travel through there quite often visiting my grandchildren, and see the conditions that exist.

People, let the DEP, HCP, HRA, the Hazle Township Supervisors, Penn Dot and possible the Pennsylvania State Police what's going on there.  You have to live there!


There was a meeting in the home of Maryann Fisher, in Cranberry.  The residents were complaining about the dust the trucks are throwing off as they go in and out of "the Site".  Todd Eachus and one or two of the Hazle Township supervisors attended.  I was wondering when the people in Cranberry were going to get mad.  Maybe we can't stop them at this point, but we can sure enough made it hard for them.  No one has to put up with all of this dust and no one has to submit their children to all of these health hazards.  Remember they don't care about any of us, just the money they can stuff in their pockets.  Todd Eachus is for the other project, but the other project is not Dredge and Fly Ash, it is clean fill.  This is Dredge and Fly Ash, and it's going to harm us all. 

Keep up the good work Maryann, none of us needs it!



In the June 7th issue of the Standard-Speaker Mayor Barletta said without the dredge and fly ash he is unable to hire anymore police officers.  My question then is,  how did he hire the officers that were just hired in the last couple months?  I think it's a very low tactic for him to tell the people, especially the elderly people that without the dredge, they have no police protection.  That's about as low as you can go!  He speaks about being in Philadelphia, at Fort Mifflin and seeing the grass grow on the dredge and the deer running in it.  I was at Fort Mifflin on the 3rd of November, but didn't see any deer. In fact we weren't allowed to go where the dredge was because of the recent rain. We were told we would sink about 2Ĺ feet and it was very dangerous. I have borrowed some pictures of the Fort Mifflin Disposal site from my friends at McAdoo Info, you decide if he saw what he said he did.  They are posted at the top of my pictures page.


On April 26, 2006, Governor Rendell visited Coaldale Fire Company to celebrate their 100th anniversary. Pictures of Gov. Rendell's visit to Coaldale at


Pertaining to the news articles from DEP, the Governor gave out all that money in 2 days, and all we get is river dredge and fly ash.  What are we, chopped liver over here? Don't we want to eliminate danger and be more attractive for economic development?  This is crazy!


If you didn't attend the Jan. 18 meeting at the Hometown Firehouse in Hometown, PA, you missed a good show.  Pennsylvania's Department of Health was there to give the status of a study which was conducted concerning the local health problems.  The DOH blamed illnesses, such as cancer, Polycythemia Vera, to lifestyles.  Colorectal cancer was blamed on our dietary habits and lung cancer to smoking.  The total story can be found at


On my links page is a link to "Hometown Hazards", written by a very exciting lady, who is originally from Hometown, PA.  Take a look at her page, I think you will find some very interesting subjects.


More than 500 General Electric Co. employees have sued Monsanto Co, along with two related companies, claiming they were exposed to toxic chemicals manufactured for decades by Monsanto.


Governor Rendell wants Philadelphia in competition with New York City for the river traffic.  That's fine with us, but dump your dredge somewhere else.


Speaking of Governor Rendell.  He's trying to force the states of New Jersey and Delaware into agreeing to the dredging of the Delaware River.  He is holding up the 2006 budget for the Delaware River Port Authority in an effort to do so.  This could mean the closing of PATCO, a high speed rail that runs from South Jersey to center city Philadelphia which receives tolls from the Delaware River Port Authority's four bridges.  The rail line transports 35,000 commuters into the Philadelphia.  So far the leaders of New Jersey and Delaware are holding their ground. UPDATE: I see PATCO is still running without the 2006 budget and Governor Rendell still didn't get his dredging.  Hang in there New Jersey and Delaware, don't give in to him!


The Delaware Riverkeeper doesn't want the Delaware River dredged as much as we don't want the dredge from it. They say it won't benefit their economy or their people.  Deepening the Delaware River will not bring in the big container ships as Rendell says, because the port is too far from the ocean and not equipped for those kind of ships. The only ones who will benefit for the deepening are the oil companies. Read the whole story at htttp://


For those who do not know the definitions of river dredge and fly ash.

River Dredge - Material pulled from the bottom of the  river to deepen it.

Fly Ash -Fine solid particles of ash that are carried into the air when fuel is combusted.

More to worry about!  I just obtained some information from a friend  about a USGS web site saying that off the coast of Boston Harbor, New York Harbor and New Jersey harbor they've found Unexploded Ordinance (UXO) left over from World War II and peacetime military exercises.   Isn't this just wonderful!  If this is contacted during dredging operations we could have another Nagasaki right here in the US.  Funny the Army Corps of Engineers didn't know that. 

Additional concerns which are not likely to be routinely tested would be the potential for nasty microorganisms in the dredged sediments. Are the nasty creatures in the sediment?  Various abstracts from the American Society for Microbiology   indicates that microorganisms can exist and lay dormant in these marine environments. The abstracts indicate fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, clostridum perfringens, hepatitis A, Pasteurella piscicida,  Vibrio vulnificus, and some new bugs (Desulfocapsa sulfoexigens) in the neighborhood. There was no indication that the bacteria and/or viruses would become dormant and revive in (lets say) a freshwater drainage area.   However, one abstract does appear to suggest that P. piscicida strains could be starved and revived, and still retain the original pathogenic potential.

The above two articles courtesy of

Boy this is really great, bombs and bugs in the stuff too.


In 1987 I had the opportunity to venture into the Hazleton City Landfill with a acquaintance of mine and saw with my own eyes the barrels sticking out of the ground.  As a matter of fact we walked over some of them.  I don't think they just jumped up and ran away.   


Below is a list that was supplied to me of the chemicals that "do not exist" that were dumped at the Hazleton City Landfill:

All-Steel Waste - 690 Tons Hydrochloric Acid - 14,000 Barrels
Auto Lite Waste - 940,000 Tons Insulation - 940,000 Tons
Beryllium - 450,000 Tons Latex & Oil based paint - 800 Barrels
Chromatex Waste - 650 Tons Liquid Sludge - 9,000 Gallons
Dyes - 35,000 Gallons Liquid Sludge per year - 2,530,000 Gallons
Dyed Materials - 980 Tons Medical Waste - 250,00 Tons
Ethylene Glycol - 900 Barrels Methyl Ethyl Ketone - 30,000 Barrels
Epoxy Resin - 5,000 Barrels Paint Sludge - 350,00 Tons
Fiberglass Insulation - 52,000 Tons Paint Solvents - 8,000 Barrels
Foam Waste - 530,000 Tons PCB's - 1,300 Tons
General Foam Waste - 1,000,000 Tons Plastics - 958,000 Tons
Hazleton Bleach & Dye Waste - 3,000 Barrels Solvents from plastic plants - 430,000 Tons
Heavy Metals (Radioactive) - 2,400 Barrels Sulfuric Acid - 300 Barrels

All of these are said to be gone by now. Right!  All of these barrels have rotted and eroded, that's why the capacitors and some of the barrels were still on the site.  I've heard estimates up to 65,000 barrels.  The only way you will get rid of all these barrels is to get the Anthracite King to dig out the hole, and then you might hit a barrel the wrong way.  At that point, it's all over, you could kiss this town, at least half of it, goodbye. 



In a new study, researchers at Texas A&M University have compared leachate from municipal landfills with leachate from hazardous waste landfills and they report, "...There is ample evidence that the municipal waste landfill leachates contain toxic chemicals in sufficient concentration to be potentially as harmful as leachate from industrial waste landfills." Specifically, the Texas researchers compared leachate from several municipal landfills with leachate from the notorious Love Canal landfill (and other hazardous waste landfills, such as Kin-Buc in Edison, NJ) and they found the leachates similar in their cancer-causing potential.

Leachate is the liquid that is produced when rain falls on a landfill, sinks into the wastes, and picks up chemicals as it seeps downward. Industries creating "hazardous wastes" (as legally defined under federal law) may not send those wastes to municipal landfills, but must instead send them to special hazardous waste landfills.

When a new municipal landfill is proposed, advocates of the project always emphasize that "no hazardous wastes will enter this landfill." The Texas study shows that even though municipal landfills may not legally receive "hazardous" wastes, the leachate they produce is as dangerous as the leachate from hazardous waste landfills.

Dr. Kirk Brown and Dr. K.C. Donnelly at Texas A&M, authors of the new study, examined data on the composition of leachate from 58 landfills. The data they reviewed showed 113 different toxic chemicals in leachate from municipal landfills and 72 toxic chemicals in leachate from hazardous waste landfills. The abundance of toxics in municipal landfills probably occurs because the entire spectrum of consumer products ends up in municipal landfills, whereas hazardous waste landfills serve a limited number of industries within a region.

The actual source of the toxic chemicals in municipal landfills is not known precisely. Under federal law (RCRA Subtitle C) each "small quantity generator" can send up to 2640 pounds per year of legally-hazardous chemicals to municipal landfills. In 1980, the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] estimated that 600,000 tons per year of legally-hazardous wastes were going to municipal dumps from 695,000 "small quantity generators."

Illegal dumping may be another source; illegal dumping is impossible to prevent entirely because someone bringing in a truckload of wastes may hide a few gallons, or a few barrels, of hazardous chemicals in the middle of the truckload. The higher the price of legal disposal, the more incentive people have to dump illegally. However, the most likely source of most of the toxic materials in municipal landfills is legally-disposed household products like paint solvents, oils, cleaning compounds, degreasing compounds, and pesticides. "In addition, the final depository of most of the products of our modern industrial society is the municipal waste landfill where the paints, plastics, and pharmaceuticals dissolve and degrade in the acidic anaerobic [oxygen-free] environment, thereby, releasing degradation products which may be even more toxic than the products from which they originated," say Brown and Donnelly.

The findings of Brown and Donnelly will come as no surprise to many researchers who have known for years that municipal leachate is as toxic as the leachate from industrial landfills. For example, in an article entitled, "APPLICATION OF HYDROGEOLOGY TO THE SELECTION OF REFUSE DISPOSAL SITES," Ronald A. Landon reported in 1969 in the JOURNAL OF GROUND WATER, Vol. 7 (Nov.-Dec., 1969), pgs. 9-13, that "Leachate at its source, that is within the landfill, has concentrations and characteristics of many industrial wastes; and in many instances would be better treated as such a waste."

What Brown and Donnelly have contributed is a quantitative analysis of the toxicity and the carcinogenic potential of leachates from the two types of landfills.

Brown and Donnelly conclude, "The risk calculations based on suspect carcinogens... indicate that the estimated carcinogenic potency for the leachate from some municipal landfills may be similar to the carcinogenic potency of the leachate from the Love Canal landfill."

In industrial landfill leachate, 32 chemicals cause cancer; 10 cause birth defects, and 21 cause genetic damage; in municipal landfill leachate, 32 chemicals cause cancer, 13 cause birth defects, and 22 cause genetic damage.



A careful study of 50 landfills in 1977 concluded that 43 out of 50 (86%) had contaminated underground water supplies beyond the boundaries of the landfill. At the other 7 sites, off-site contamination was measured but could not be attributed to the landfills by the strict criteria used in the study. In other words, the study of 50 landfills found groundwater pollution at all 50 sites, but the contamination could be definitely traced to the landfills in only 43 cases (86%).

The study was conducted by Geraghty & Miller of Port Washington, NY, one of the nation's leading hydrology consulting firms, under contract to EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). They looked at 122 sites in 15 states and finally selected 50 sites in 11 states for careful evaluation. They studied 7 in Wisconsin, 6 in Illinois, 5 in Indiana, 5 in Michigan, 2 in Pennsylvania, 5 in New York, 9 in New Jersey, 3 in Connecticut, 5 in Massachusetts, 2 in New Hampshire, and 1 in Florida.

Criteria for selecting sites were strict: no site was selected if it was already known to be contaminated or if there were reports of bad taste or bad odors from drinking water near the site already; sites were selected to include various geologic settings (various rock and soil types) and various climatic conditions; sites were selected to include different kinds of dumping (landfills and lagoons), and different kinds of wastes. Some of the wastes would be termed "hazardous" today, but many of the wastes involved were not "hazardous" by today's legal definitions and are still allowed in municipal landfills today. Sites had to be at least 3 years old.

The criteria for determining whether a site was contaminating groundwater were strict. (1) Contaminants had to be measured in groundwater beyond the perimeter of the site; (2) the concentration of contaminants downstream of the site had to be greater than the concentration of the same contaminants measured in an uncontaminated background well; (3) all wells used had to be tapping the same aquifer; (4) geologic interpretation of the data by hydrologists had to convince them that the landfills was the source of the contamination.

In 43 out of 50 cases, the landfill was confirmed as the source of contamination. In four other cases, contamination was confirmed, but the area of contamination was so great that sources besides the landfill were also suspected; at three more sites, contamination was found but data could not be gathered from uncontaminated background wells. So contamination was confirmed at all 50 sites, but in 7 cases, the project's criteria could not be met for deciding that the landfill was the culprit.

The term "landfill" was used to mean a dumping ground that accepted garbage, demolition debris, municipal and industrial solid wastes, sludges or liquids. The investigation "concentrated on those landfills with a major component of industrial waste."

Some of the landfills had liners, others did not. Since publishing this study, the EPA has published its opinion several times, that all landfill liners will eventually leak. (See HWN #37.) Thus this study provides important evidence that all landfills, lined or not, all eventually contaminate groundwater. Lined landfills will contaminate groundwater more slowly than unlined landfills, but the long-term effects will be the same: someone's groundwater will become contaminated whenever municipal solid waste or industrial waste or legally hazardous wastes are placed in the ground.

The study makes some interesting points worth remembering about landfills: "The intermixing of inorganic and organic wastes, wastes of high and low pH, and wastes having different physical properties in a common disposal area, may lead to influences on the environment not anticipated from any single waste material." (pg. 7) This is important because landfill liners are selected to be compatible with the wastes that will be placed in a landfill. However, as this statement says, the mixing of wastes in a landfill will produced unanticipated chemical combinations with unpredictable results. A landfill liner selected to withstand attack from chemicals X, Y and Z may not withstand attack from chemicals X and Z in combination, or Y and Z in combination. The more chemicals involved, the greater the number of possible combinations, the more complex the interactions will be, and the less predictable the results become.

The study makes another valuable point: "The wastes that are deposited continue to weather and leach for years." (pg. 8) The chemical interactions within a landfill do not cease when the dumping stops. In the case of inorganic materials (arsenic, lead, chromium and so forth) the duration of the hazard is essentially infinite--toxic metals will never change into anything besides toxic metals. (The Geraghty & Miller study found toxic heavy metals at 49 of the 50 sites and found they contaminated groundwater off-site at 40 of the 50 sites.)

When anyone proposes a new landfill and says that liners are being selected to prevent contamination of the environment, you should ask, (a) How can they possibly predict all the possible combinations of chemicals that will be created inside the landfill, producing new combinations of chemicals that will attack the liners?; and (b) What is the expected duration of the hazard inside the landfill vs. the expected duration of the liners that have been selected?

If the proponents of a landfill project are honest, these questions will force them to admit that they are not able to predict the chemicals that will come in contact with the liner (especially since the chemicals used by industry change from year to year, and an average of 1000 new chemicals go into commercial use each year); and they will be forced to admit that the duration of the hazard (in the case of metals at least) is very great (thousands of years or longer) whereas the expected lifetime of any human-created material (including packed clay liners and all FMLs [flexible membrane liners]) is much shorter than the expected hazard. Leakage is inevitable.

Common sense and available data combine to force a single conclusion: all landfills will eventually leak. Landfill liners may SLOW the release of contaminants into groundwater but they cannot PREVENT it. There is no such thing as a secure landfill.



A recent report [1] from California state government takes a fresh look at a problem that has been ignored for years: toxic gases released from landfills. Solid waste landfills and hazardous waste landfills both emit toxic gases into the surrounding air. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) published its opinion back in 1982 that air pollution from landfills is a significant problem but said it would have to ignore the problem because no one knew how to get a handle on it.[2] So far as we know, EPA has never said another word on the subject. University researchers reported almost a decade ago that landfills emit airborne toxins into the local environment, but until now no one has defined the extent of the problem.

Under California state law (Health and Safety Code Section 41805.5) all solid and hazardous waste landfills must be tested for toxic gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) selected 10 toxic gases for measurement; they selected these particular gases because they are known to have ill effects (particularly cancer) on humans who are exposed for extended periods. The ten toxic gases they tested for are: vinyl chloride, benzene, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), trichloroethylene, and chloroform. In addition, landfill gas samples were also analyzed for oxygen, nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide.

The CARB summarized their findings this way:

1) One or more of the 10 toxic chemicals could be measured in gases emitted from 240 out of 356 landfills tested; in other words, 67% of the tested landfills emitted one or more of the toxic gases.

2) Hazardous waste landfills and municipal solid waste landfills appeared to be similar in their ability to produce toxic gases.

3) In many cases, but not all, toxic gases escaping from landfills could be measured at the property line, the legal boundary of the landfill.

4) Methane at concentrations greater than the regulatory limit of 5% was found to be migrating offsite underground at approximately 20% of the landfills. Methane is a naturally-occurring gas created by the decay of organic matter inside a landfill. As methane is formed, it builds up pressure and then begins to move through the soil, following the path of least resistance; often it moves sideways for a time before breaking through to the surface of the ground. Methane is lighter than air and is flammable. If it enters a closed building and the concentration builds up to about 15% in the air, a spark or a flame is likely to cause a serious explosion. For this reason, landfill designers sometimes install a set of pipes full of holes like a swiss cheese to provide a known pathway for the methane to escape through; such systems are sometimes successful and sometimes not.


I had the opportunity to attend Mayor Barletta's presentation on his proposed reclamation area.  I listened to the so-called "experts" and was almost in tears.  After I did a lot of investigation on the 2 materials.  I came up with an article from the August 21, 1997 Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly. It is rather lengthy.  It's title is: A NEW US WASTE STRATEGY EMERGES.  It goes on to say a new strategy for disposal of hazardous materials is emerging in the US.  After years of unsuccessful efforts to gain public acceptance of waste materials in the oceans, in landfills, and incinerators, frustrated environmental officials at the federal and state levels now advocate spreading hazardous materials onto and into land, essentially dispersing dangerous toxins into the environment, leaving no fingerprints.  In Pennsylvania, the state environmental officials are promoting the "beneficial use" of coal ash and incinerator ash as a soil amendment, to rehabilitate coal mines and strip-mined lands.  A private firm, Beneficial Ash Management, in Morrisdale, PA., reportedly supplies the ash, which it gets from "power plants, mid-sized industries, and paper manufacturers.  Professor Barry Sheetz of Pennsylvania State University, funded by U.S. EPA, is providing the engineering know-how to harden the toxic ash into cement-like material, which is then placed in mines and onto strip-mined land.  The cement-like material is then covered with "synthetic soil" and left.  Professor Sheetz says he hopes this provides a permanent solution to the problem of acid mine drainage.  More likely, it promises to provide a cheap, permanent solution for toxic wastes generated by coal-burning power plants and incinerators as far flung as the American Ref-Fuel incinerator in Essex County, N.J.: International Paper Company's plants in Erie, and Lock Haven, PA and the Tobyhanna (PA) Army Depot, saving each of these facilities the large sums of money that would otherwise be spent on toxic waste disposal, and absolving them of liability because their wastes will never again be identifiable or traceable.  The address for the article is


In the FEDERAL REGISTER Feb. 5, 1981, the EPA first stated its opinion that all landfills will eventually leak:

"There is good theoretical and empirical evidence that the hazardous constituents that are placed in land disposal facilities very likely will migrate from the facility into the broader environment. This may occur several years, even many decades, after placement of the waste in the facility, but data and scientific prediction indicate that, in most cases, even with the application of best available land disposal technology, it will occur eventually." [pg. 11128]



Starting in the 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] funded research which showed that burying household garbage in the ground poisons the groundwater. On several occasions, EPA spelled out in detail the reasons why all landfills leak. (For example, see RHWN #37, #71, and #116)

Then in late 1991, after several years of deliberation, EPA chief William Reilly issued final landfill regulations that allow the continued burial of raw garbage in landfills. (See RHWN #268.) EPA's 1991 regulations require an expensive landfill design: two liners in the ground and an impervious plastic cover over the landfill after it has been filled with garbage. This is "state of the art" technology, the very best that modern engineers can build. However, EPA officials still expect such landfills to fail and eventually poison groundwater.

As early as 1978, EPA knew why all landfills eventually leak. The main culprit is water. Once water gets into a landfill, it mixes with the garbage, producing a toxic leachate ("garbage juice"), which is then pulled downward by gravity until it reaches the groundwater. Therefore, the goal of landfill designers (and regulators) is to keep landfills dry for the length of time that the garbage is dangerous, which is forever.



With 80% of the nation's garbage still being buried in landfills (see RHWN #176), we must ask whether our landfills are as well-designed as can be. One important and overlooked source of landfill failures is lightning from thunderstorms.

As most of our readers know, a landfill is a bathtub in the ground. The bathtub can leak through its bottom, or it can fill up with fluids and leak over its sides. To prevent this from happening, landfills are now "capped" with clay or plastic when they are retired from service. The cap is supposed to act as an umbrella, preventing rain from filling up the bathtub and preventing the formation of toxic leachate that might pour out the bottom if the bottom leaked. The cap is the essential element in a landfill's safety design: it keeps liquids out. When the cap is destroyed, nature will begin to distribute the contents of the landfill into the local environment, using water as the vehicle for distribution. Damage ensues.

Lightning packs a tremendous wallop when it strikes the ground. Lightning bolts last only a few millionths of a second, but they typically involve five million volts and anywhere from 2,500 to 220,000 amperes of current. Lightning can bore large holes in the ground where it strikes. Geologists have a name for holes made by lightning: fulgarites (after the Latin name for lightning, fulgar). Fulgarites are created when lightning strikes sandy soil; a hole is bored into the sand and the sides of the hole get so hot (estimated to be 3200 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1800 degrees Celsius) that the sand melts and forms a glass tube. A large hole bored by lightning can be eight inches in diameter and can reach to a depth of 15 feet.

Since lightning can burn a hole eight inches in diameter up to 15 feet deep, it must be obvious that no plastic liner (1/10 of an inch thick) will deter lightning in any way whatsoever. The only cap that could work would be a 20-footthick layer of clay. An alternative would be lightning protection.

The National Fire Protection Code requires lightning protection for all structures containing flammable liquids or gases. The explosive methane gas generated within a landfill probably meets this specification. To fulfill their objectives of protecting the environment, landfill caps should be fitted with lightning protection, just the way military ammunition dumps are protected. Tall towers with heavy cables strung between them, solidly grounded, are one option. A 10-acre landfill could be protected by four 250' towers spaced 900 ft. apart. Such towers would have to meet Federal Aviation Administration regulations for obstruction lights and standby power supplies, to minimize hazards to aircraft.

Large landfills could not be protected by towers because the towers themselves would penetrate the cap, destroying its integrity. Such large fills will need to be entirely covered with heavy, well-grounded steel cages (called Faraday cages).

Lightning protection is a well-developed field of engineering. If the designers, owners and regulators of landfills are serious about protecting the environment, they will address the hazards of lightning and take the necessary steps to see that public health is protected from landfill failures caused by lightning.


I just copied this article from the Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. After it told of the beneficial uses of FLY ASH, this part of the article appeared at the bottom. 


Producers of fly ash contend that it is harmless and has much the same properties as soil. However, according to the EPA, fly ash can also contain heavy metals, including nickel, vanadium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, lead and selenium. Fly ash disposed at Chisman Creek, near Norfolk, Virginia, created surface and groundwater contamination and it was declared a Superfund site in 1983. The waste has now been stabilized. Fly ash producers blame situations like Chisman Creek on improper disposal. While improper disposal is part of the problem, if fly ash was harmless, it wouldn't be an issue.

In the past fly ash produced from coal combustion was simply taken up by flue gases and dispersed into the atmosphere. This created significant environmental concerns and health risks. These days most power plants are required by law to reduce their fly ash emissions to less than 1% of ash produced. The remainder is collected using electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. This collected ash is either sold for use in the cement/construction industry or disposed of in ash ponds or land fill. In recent times the more and more fly ash is used beneficially - still though, more than 65% of fly ash produced from coal power stations is still disposed of. This amounts to approximately 7 million tonnes (Mt) disposed of annually in Australia, 40Mt in the United States and 100s of millions in India and China. As a result the disposal of fly ash is a growing concern for many countries world wide. The address for the article is:


Prof. Barry Sheetz, one of the "experts" for this project, was or is funded by the US EPA, isn't that saying they also know the ASH is bad and a better way to get rid of it?


Speaking of the EPA, I happened to wonder onto their website looking for more interesting reading material.  I came upon this 226 page document for the remediation of waterways in the US.  I read a few pages and found it very interesting.  After all we are being told River Dredge is safe.  Parts of the document reads as follows:  Sediment is the mixture of assorted material that settles in the bottom of a waterbody.  It includes the shells and coverings of mollusks and other animals, transported soil particles from surface erosion, organic matter from dead and rotting vegetation and other animals, sewage, industrial wastes, other organic and inorganic materials, and chemicals. Surface waters in the US receive discharges of various liquid and solid wastes from three main sources. 1. Point sources such as municipal and industrial effluents.  2. Non-point sources such as agricultural runoff, soil entrainment and airborne particles.  3. Other sources such as spills, contaminated groundwater infiltration and intentional aquatic dumping.  Many of these discharges contain toxic/hazardous materials that settle  and persist in the environment because of their physciochemical properties.  The contaminated sediment affects human health and the environment and causes losses of resources such as drinking water. Contaminants typically found in sediment can be classified as follows: Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), Pesticides, Chlorinated hydrocarbons, Mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene and its derivatives), Phthalate esters, Metals, Nutrients, and Miscellaneous, such as cyanides and organo-metals. (


I believe we were told the sediment was harmless!  And My, My, this is right from EPA's site.


From the EPA's site another interesting article.  Apparently they had some success on increased vegetation growth on a PA Superfund site with the use of Sewage/Fly Ash, but it was unknown as to the long term results, especially as to the mobility of the metals in the contaminated soil.  They used as a study site  an old abandoned lead tailings pile in Desloge, Missouri.  Although the fly ash changed the availability of the metals, primarily to unavailable forms, it increased the ph of the leachate from the fly ash to 12, in adversed to a ph of 7 in the control where only the tailings were used.  Lead is forming a hydroxide complex and is actually more soluble.  With the increase of the ph the use of sludge/fly ash would not seem appropriate on a lead tailings site and growing crops in the mixture was not pursued. (


According to the Army Corp of Engineers' own study, brackish and marine dredge material or sludge from the Delaware River contains at least 128 different contaminants, including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium and thallium.  More than 100 organic toxins, including dioxins, PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) and other toxic organic chemicals, were also found in samples taken for the study. (Dante Picciano - Army For A Clean Environment - in speech to Hazleton residents - April 12, 2005)



If none of these things bother you, then let them bring this Dredge and Fly Ash in, but if it does, then it's time to do something.  Don't let all these so-called experts baffle you.  This is what they want, they want people who don't understand, or believe them because they are "EXPERTS".  Do some investigating for yourself.  Those of you who have access to the internet, look up RIVER DREDGE or FLY ASH and see what you find, just like I did.  It makes interesting reading.  Either a lot of people on the internet lie or your "EXPERTS" do,  Then again there are people who don't want to fight, because their businesses are in Hazleton and they are afraid of the repercussions, or because they believe the people in power will win anyway.  That's also want they want, they are waiting for us to give up, it's for easier them that way.


I apologize for the length of these articles, but I am showing facts, not fantasy, and if it takes a whole web site to do that I will.  We are not trying to scare our neighbors, but give them the facts.  This is why I included the web addresses for the articles so they can read them for themselves and make a decision.


As events turn up I will post them here, but PLEASE THINK, and investigate, before we end up with something more that we will never be rid of.


If you have any comments or facts that would benefit this board, please email me at


The comments on this board are strictly my opinion, not the opinion of any group.


Please don't let this one get away from you, PLEASE.


Take a look at my other pages.


PCMall Coupon Codes



2001 - 20208




2005 - 2020