Cancer

[Double L]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4480337.html

[VicMan]

I have several classmates who live near the ship channel. I should show this to them.

By the way, I wonder if new housing could be established near the ship channel for Working-Class families. Are large sections of it deemed as "flood plains" and "drainage ditches."

Edited January 19, 2007 by VicMan

[Guest danax]

Children absorb "parts per million" much more intensely and their growing bodies are much more vulnerable to pollutants. Look at how lead affects children, it's the same thing. I have a 28 year old friend who grew up in that area and now is fighting leukemia.

I've heard State Senator Gallegos and a few others are working long and hard to get some real legislation passed to reduce the emissions from the plants. I've also heard that there are heavy hitters trying to stop them, again.

[VicMan]

What I would like to do is reduce the emissions so that more people can move to the area.

[ricco67]

perhaps if they move to a better area, this wouldn't happen.

[VicMan]

I wonder how many of the people who live in the Northshore area (including parts of east Houston, unincorporated Harris County, and the cities of Jacinto City and Galena Park) can afford to live elsewhere?

I would also like to reduce emissions in the Pasadena/South Belt area plants too.

Edited January 19, 2007 by VicMan

[Double L]

I like what the city did which was establish a contract with a specific company to reduce emmissions across the region. Very efficient and consensual with the company. Also, monitoring the levels of pollutants in the air and keeping us updated with the data is a really good thing. How many cities do it in the way the article cited? The city is still encouraging higher standards though, both from the EPA and the state of Texas and that has to happen too if we're going to fix this problem.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Double L

[VicMan]

I know that, in the South Belt area, several homebuilders offer new construction homes in Houston ISD and Pasadena ISD.

Once we clean up the air, we should ask some builders to build new homes in the industrial areas around the Ship Channel.

[TheNiche]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4480337.html

This preliminary epidemiologic investigation, which was funded by Houston's health department and the Centers for Disease Control, found an "association" but was not detailed enough to prove pollutants actually caused these illnesses, said Ann Coker, one of the primary investigators.

The image provided in the Chronicle is extremely relevant to the findings. You'll note that in the lower left hand corner, it reads "The study found an 'association' but was not detailed enough to prove that pollutants actually caused these illnesses."

If you look at the areas covered by the 2-mile radius from the ship channel, you'll note that they tend to be areas with disproportionate concentrations of poor Hispanics. In fact, except for Central Park, Magnolia Park, Pecan Park, Harrisburg, Manchester, Galena Park, and portions of north Pasadena and Baytown, the vast majority of these areas are almost completely unpopulated. Furthermore, much of the East End that was included is only within 2 miles of the upper reaches of the ship channel, which don't have many chemical plants around them and thus aren't as representative as those areas closer to polluting industry. Since such areas encompass a large share of a small population, they undoubtedly create uncertainty or bias in the findings. In stark contrast, the areas used for comparison, which were beyond the 10-mile radius within Harris County, fail to encompass a disproportionate number of Houston's poorest neighborhoods. Granted, southwest Houston is included, but all those areas in the arc from west Houston around to Kingwood as well as much of Clear Lake were included. So, to me, the comparison is not scientifically meaningful. And apparently, the researchers concur.

Ricco's suggestion is a very good one. It isn't as though these neighborhoods are the only slums in town. What is the justification for spending gobs and gobs of money to clean up air that not many people have to breathe? Better to just concentrate all of our polluting industries in one place and write the area off, educating people of the potential hazards, of course.

Think of Sim City. What do you do with dirty industry? It is an inescapable and necessary evil, and has to go somewhere. So you put it at the edge of the map, buffered from residential uses. There, it affects nobody.

Edited January 19, 2007 by TheNiche

[west20th]

Think of Sim City. What do you do with dirty industry? It is an inescapable and necessary evil, and has to go somewhere. So you put it at the edge of the map, buffered from residential uses. There, it affects nobody.

Yes that worked great in Cleveland. Aaaaaah the childhood memories of roasting weenies at the flaming Cuyahoga river and the sweet smell of rotten eggs in the air. The industry in Cleveland was concentrated in the "flats" area, however beaches on Lake Erie, roughly 50 miles east and west of Cleveland, were so fouled they had to be closed from roughly the 1950's to the mid '80's. The trouble is pollutants spread. Concentrating industry has it's merits but that does not dismiss their responsibility to clean their emissions as the law demands and as much as it is technology feasible. If they are not spending "gobs and gobs of money to clean the air" (and water) they are doing so at all of our expense. Why should they be allowed to foul our air to benifit their bottom line?

Edited January 19, 2007 by west20th

[TheNiche]

Yes that worked great in Cleveland. Aaaaaah the childhood memories of roasting weenies at the flaming Cuyahoga river and the sweet smell of rotten eggs in the air. The industry in Cleveland was concentrated in the "flats" area, however beaches on Lake Erie, roughly 50 miles east and west of Cleveland, were so fouled they had to be closed from roughly the 1950's to the mid '80's. The trouble is pollutants spread. Concentrating industry has it's merits but that does not dismiss their responsibility to clean their emissions as the law demands and as much as it is technology feasible. If they are not spending "gobs and gobs of money to clean the air" (and water) they are doing so at all of our expense. Why should they be allowed to foul our air to benifit their bottom line?

There is an optimum level of pollution, just as there is an optimum level of just about every form of externality, whether it is pollution, traffic congestion, visual blight, etc. Some environmental regulations make sense; others do not. The environment is protected for the benefit of people, not for it's own sake. There are a lot of ways to correct the problems, either by banning certain practices outright (which is an extreme measure, sometimes useful, oftentimes not) or by internalizing the social costs as private costs borne by the polluter (which then get passed on to the consumer, and ultimately result in a decline in the quantity demanded of the good that required an output of pollution; with less production required, less pollution is created).

But the critical matter is estimating the cost of the pollution to society. And certainly, by clustering polluting industry in unpopulated areas, that cost to society can be minimized. That was in fact the original intent of and justification for zoning, although in Houston's experience, the polluting industry clustered naturally around the waterway and households clustered naturally in areas somewhat removed from that industrty. That probably has a lot to do with us being a newer city than those in the northeast and the rust belt, but it worked for us. And the result of our spatial arrangement of industry and households is that the impacts of industry are relatively limited. Yes, there are some pollutants that are highly stable and that can travel on the wind for many miles before losing their effect, but even then, they dissipate with distance. And for toxicologists, dose is everything. And yes, there are water-borne pollutants that make it into Galveston Bay and the food chain, and yes, that is a problem that should be addressed (on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis).

But we've made it this far without disaster. The world isn't going to end if we spend a little bit more time studying the problem so that it can be addressed in the least disruptive and most reasonable way, then educate the public about the matter so that they can make informed and rational decisions.

Edited January 19, 2007 by TheNiche

[TheNiche]

Per the City of Houston's website explaining the nature of the study:

A more detailed assessment of the statistical power of the analysis would need to be conducted to ascertain if there was enough data to reject the hypothesis of increased cancer with increased exposure to HAPs.

There are many confounding factors which may not be completely controlled with this assessment. A confounding factor is a particular circumstance that could influence the outcome of the study. The statistics must include control or correction for the impact of confounding factors so that there is a clear path between the chemical and response.

From the official report:

In conclusion, the primary limitation of this study lies in the

Edited January 19, 2007 by TheNiche

[Pumapayam]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4480337.html

Wow, I bet everyone's property value "increases" exponentially now with the report being release.

I feel bad for anyone who invested in a home there . . .

Think of Sim City. What do you do with dirty industry? It is an inescapable and necessary evil, and has to go somewhere. So you put it at the edge of the map, buffered from residential uses. There, it affects nobody.

And I live just outside the 10 mile mark.

[TJones]

I will not refute any evidence showing a larger probability of people getting ANY kind of disease living that close a proximity to the ship channel. You have foriegn cargo moving in and out all day long loaded with germs, and sailors hacking and coughing off the bow of the ship all the time. I am sure the chemical plants in the area are a huge help to all of this also. I lived literally across the street from Exxon in Baytown, my whole childhood through highschool life. I will undoubtedly get some horrible disease from all the fumes I have breathed in and unknowingly absorbed through my skin, and these bad things are just lying in wait for a catalyst to put them into motion.

I am sure a slew of lawsuits are going to be coming much like the tobacco companies 10 year court battles. Unlike the tobacco companies getting screwed even after they had warnings and no one bothered to listen, I believe the chemical companies have been releasing "Lord knows what" into the air without warnings for years on end, never thinking that there might be some sort of way to prove that they would or could possibly ever held accountable. It is finally catching up with them

Edited January 19, 2007 by TJones

[VicMan]

See, it is true that pollution cannot be completely eliminated. Therefore we have to work to minimize it as much as possible within reasonable limits.

By the way, is the Oates Prairie a flood plain? I wonder why the prairie has not seen much development.

[TJones]

See, it is true that pollution cannot be completely eliminated. Therefore we have to work to minimize it as much as possible within reasonable limits.

By the way, is the Oates Prairie a flood plain? I wonder why the prairie has not seen much development.

It's mostly Industrial around there, so I think you won't see much of a neighborhood forming around there.

[gto250us]

As if this is news. Anyone who has ever been to that part of town would tell you this. DAH. ... It is one of the most polluted areas of the country.

[VicMan]

It's mostly Industrial around there, so I think you won't see much of a neighborhood forming around there.

I noticed this: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/suprnbhd...use/sn53lu.html

What type of industries are in the area?

[TheNiche]

I noticed this: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/suprnbhd...use/sn53lu.html

What type of industries are in the area?

Primarily manufacturing and distribution. No chemical plants, though, of which I'm aware.

[VicMan]

Primarily manufacturing and distribution. No chemical plants, though, of which I'm aware.

How does that impede KB Homes/Ryland Homes/Some other company from establishing groups of 100K houses now seen in the South Belt area?

EDIT: In fact, if that new section of Highway 90 is completed, then this will only increase the chances of seeing new housing, right?

EDIT 2: Name

EDIT 3: http://dept.houstonisd.org/ab/schoolboundarymaps/FurrHS.pdf shows the route of the Proposed Highway 90 cutting through the area

Edited January 19, 2007 by VicMan

[TheNiche]

How does that impede KB Homes/Ryland Homes/Some other company from establishing groups of 100K houses now seen in the South Belt area?

EDIT: In fact, if that new freeway is completed, then this will only increase the chances of seeing new housing, right?

It doesn't impede home construction, except by way of visual blight. The freeway will likely bring new construction to the area, much as is occurring inside the Beltway off of 288. Further out, toward Crosby, it'll look like Pearland in a decade or two. Just watch.

[TJones]

How does that impede KB Homes/Ryland Homes/Some other company from establishing groups of 100K houses now seen in the South Belt area?

EDIT: In fact, if that new section of Highway 90 is completed, then this will only increase the chances of seeing new housing, right?

EDIT 2: Name

EDIT 3: http://dept.houstonisd.org/ab/schoolboundarymaps/FurrHS.pdf shows the route of the Proposed Highway 90 cutting through the area

DOesn't impede anything, but the real estate would most likely be considered "PRIME" by it's current owner, and it is all a matter of who he or she is willing to sell to, and for how much.

Edited January 20, 2007 by TJones

[VicMan]

DOesn't impede anything, but the real estate would most likely be considered "PRIME" by it's current owner, and it is all a matter of who he or she is willing to sell to, and for how much.

So, when do you think the owners will sell the undeveloped land?

[TJones]

So, when do you think the owners will sell the undeveloped land?

When the price is right, and I'm not Nostradamus, so I couldn't tell ya what day next week that is gonna be.

[Guest danax]

Per the City of Houston's website explaining the nature of the study:

From the official report:

^^^From this statement, the final paragraph of the report, it seems to me that the author of this study is simply stating that the methodology utilized was fundamentally inadequate and that this study should have no bearing on public policy, but that further study is warranted in order to arrive at those conclusions.

I'm interested in the portion of the study where the adult cancer risk was studied according to proximity to the Channel, since I'm in the 0-2 mile zone I believe. It looks, strangely, like being that close is one of the safest areas according to the charts (pages 14-15) with the worst being between 4-8 miles away, with the Acute Myeloid Leukemia rate being over 10 times that in men living 6-8 miles away compared to 0-2 miles. The lady who originally lived in my house from 1908 until she died in 1983 was 92.

I couldn't find any explanation as to why that might be and why children closer seem most effected.

[musicman]

I couldn't find any explanation as to why that might be and why children closer seem most effected.

on the news, one of the researchers said that the children are "growing" and generating lots of cells, etc hence they are more affected by contaminants. I guess the new cells could be mutated during the growth process.

[Guest danax]

on the news, one of the researchers said that the children are "growing" and generating lots of cells, etc hence they are more affected by contaminants. I guess the new cells could be mutated during the growth process.

Right, but why is 0-2 bad news for children but 6-8 is bad for adults?

[musicman]

Right, but why is 0-2 bad news for children but 6-8 is bad for adults?

Can't even speculate. i have a hard time believing their numbers for adults because of weather conditions alone.

[Double L]

Cancer Study Spurs Two Bills

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4484621.html

[Subdude]

Rather than have dozens of lawsuits, I wonder if it would be possible to have a solution in which the polluters contribute to a health fund for local residents to help cover medical costs for diseases linked to pollutants. Not a perfect solution from many viewpoints, but this is a poor area and I would assume a lot of residents do not have health insurance.

Perhaps a "Love Canal" solution might be appropriate, in which the govenment buys out houses in especially dangerous areas and prevents any more residential development. Either idea could be at least in part funded by a "pollution tax" which is something we should have in any event.