VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]
Subject: Magazine?


Author:
Gwen
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 18:47:16 12/18/05 Sun
 Hey Ned, don't you work/write/edit or something, a magazine in the area? Or in Massachusetts? I thought I heard that somewhere, forgive me for I forget where, and I was wondering about it! WHat's it about, if you do indeed work at one? Where can it be found...I'm in an inquisitive mood at the moment.

That aside, anyone up for a discussion?

I was thinking...what needs to be covered in COLUMBIA COUNTY, that isn't all Hudson or something that is just way the heck out there and can not be substantiated? I thought that if I could find something via these discussions, I might just be inclined to notify publications to try and prompt coverage. I might be wasting my time, but hey...

Any takers?

And I'm not talking about discussing the war in Iraq, the ineptness or non-ineptness of the Bush administration, the defunct SLC project or anything pertaining to it or topics like political corruption. Unless there is hard, hard evidence and not just hearsay, corruption will not be seen in the papers. Especially ours because they don't have the staff to dedicate to investigative reporting like the TU and other larger papers, nor do I believe their reporters have the time even if they wanted to.

Just look at their coverage of the southern end of CC. It doesn't exist. It's Hudson, Kinderhook, Valatie, Claverack, occasionally Livingston and Taghkanic, and school boards. The Chatham Courier writes the chatham, New Lebanon, Canaan, Austerlitz stories. You never really see Clermont, Germantown, Ancram, no Gtown school, etc. I mean, for a staff of five, four at the Reg and one at the Courier, they don't do terrible.

Anyway, back to the topic. WHat are we not seeing in the paper?
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> Subject: Berkshire/Capital District HomeStyle


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 12:40:19 12/19/05 Mon
Gwen -

Yes - I am "Associate Publisher" (an unsalaried, honorary position) of B/CDHS. I'm curently on sort of semi-retirement leave while I work to get my new house in Stuyvesant livable as quickly as possible, writing only movie reviews for the December and January issues instead of my typical contribution of three to four features each month.

The magazine is distributed free throughout Columbia, Berkshire, Albany, Southern Rensselaer, Southern Saratoga and Northern Dutchess counties, at hundreds of locations. Here in Hudson you can pick it up around the first of each month (until supplies give out) at places including the Train Station, the Carrie Haddad Gallery, TSL, the soon-to-re-open Earthfoods, The Muddy Cup, and many other busineses.

You are right, there are lots of issues confronting the County.

If you'll scan the archives here you'll see some of what I and others have had to say on a variety of them - from affordable housing and the anti-diversity effects of "gentrification" - which is a County-wide problem - and coherent, County-wide land-use planning (which is becoming more and more of a necessity), to the politicization of the Sherriff's Department and the painful and expensive redundancy and bureaucratic inefficiency built into the "County Government" system.

I'm available to discuss any and all of these important issues.

Today I'm particularly fired up by a report in the Sunday Poughkeepsie Journal that lists Sharpe's Landing in Germantown as one of the places in the State suffering from the most polluted air - thanks presumably to emissions from
the Lehigh/Blue Circle and St Lawrence Cement plants just upwind in Greene County.

The article includes the fact that true to Phil Lochbrunner's threat in 1999, St Lawrence is continuing to operate their Cementon plant with "1960s technology" (his words) and released more than five times as much dangerous pollution in 2003 (according to the Company's own latest figures) as they did in 2000 - an unsettling trend.

You can find the whole article on their web-site at:
http://poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/

Then, of course, there's the ongoing problem with LaFarge's Ravena Cement Plant, where they are working hand-in-glove with a compliant - almost fawning - DEC to gain approval for a permit that will allow them to burn 5 Million dioxin-releasing tires at their plant each year. Without effective and energetic public outcry, you and yours will be inhaling your fair share of these highly-toxic agents within a year. Yet I hear few voices raised...

You wanna talk? Let's talk...
[> [> Subject: Dirty air FoH style....


Author:
Gene
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 19:58:38 12/19/05 Mon
You have to thank yourself and FoH for all the dirty air. We could have had a brand new clean, state of the art cement plant. Thanks for all the dirty air we have to breath, don't be blaming it on anything else.
[> [> [> Subject: According to Phil Lochbrunner...


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 23:15:09 12/19/05 Mon
..."the air in Greenport would probably be dirtier if the Greenport proposal were built." But you probably think he was lying.

Only you, Gene, could be so dense as to blame FoH for the fact that SLC is taking advantage of their "grandfathered" staus in Cementon to emit pollution that subjects their neighbors some of the highest concentrations of dirty, toxic air in the state.

The Greenport plant wouldn't have made things any better. In fact, it would have made them worse, and for many more people. The facts were all there - but you never paid any attention to them, and you aren't paying any attention to them now. What else is new?
[> [> [> [> Subject: The glass is half full or is it half empty???


Author:
Gene
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 07:48:41 12/20/05 Tue
Define and prove " would probably" for me which is subjective to your interpertation. The science which went into the project supports my position.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ask Phil...he said it


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:21:09 12/20/05 Tue
At any rate, Gene, he wasn't willing (at that point) to lie and tell people the air would be cleaner. But you are...aren't you?

[> Subject: Gwen - complain to Gene


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 10:22:29 12/20/05 Tue
I am waiting for your post about what you want to discuss.

Meanwhile, Gene is trying to hijack the conversation and take it back to the dead-and-buried SLC Greenport Project Proposal - just what you said you didn't want to do (and I agree).

Of course, if the SLC Cementon Plant is still causing problems in the County, we do need to talk about that, don't we? Not about what "might (or might not) have been" if SLC had had their way in Greenport - but about the fact that right now, today, Germantown's air is some of the dirtiest and most dangerous in New York State. That's a real problem, and one we need to address.

Rehashing the well-deserved defeat of the badly-designed, mis-represented, out-of-scale SLC proposal won't help - even though it seems to be what Gene obsessively wants to do. Neither will blaming FoH for the dirty air. SLC and Lehigh/Blue Circle are the ones who are producing the pollution, and they are the ones - the only ones - who can clean it up - if they are forced to.

We need to organize and to push existing organizations like FoH, Scenic Hudson, RiverKeepers, and other members of the coalition that worked together so effectively to keep our Hudson Valley clear of more pollution, to insist that DEC enforce existing regulations m0re rigorously and that the Legislature pass better, more binding laws to protect our air - which is our health.

What do you think?
[> [> Subject: Re: Gwen - complain to Gene


Author:
Gwen
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 22:09:59 12/20/05 Tue
Ned,

Yeah, that happens often...but I admit SLC is a sore button for a great many people in the "greater Greenport/Hudson area" and I think it will continue to be for years to come, no matter how many times opponents to the plant, such as FOH, Olana Partnership and Scenic Hudson said it was time to try and mend bridges with those of differing opinion.

Anyway, enough on that. I am interested in the Poughkeepsie Journal story you mentioned. Sharp'ss Landing holds not only sentimental value for some Germantown residents, but also historical value in Columbia County. I do believe, though I haven't ventured to the PoJo site yet, that the landing has some sort of historic designation.

While I do not particularly like that cement plants emit chemicals and whatnot into the air, I still firmly believe they are needed.

How old is the Lehigh plant, the Cementon plant? We know Catskill's SLC plant is quite old. Wouldn't replacing them be beneficial? Yeah, the SLC Greenport project was too big. But if they were so ready and willing to put so much money into that plant, why aren't they willing to use some of that capital to overhaul their existing plants and lower emissions? Same goes for Lehigh? While I don't know the financial status of Lehigh, I can't believe for a second that SLC couldn't revamp efficiently and environmentally safely their Catskill plant.

I'm not familiar with the Ravena situation. When you base news stories on reports, however, there is ALWAYS going to be an opposing report that gives different, if not almost completely opposite findings. Case in point...the one you provided...the Cementon lady, Toth I believe, questioned the report the PoJo journalist seemed to be referencing. Who did the reports of course weighs in on their credibility.

Bottom line for me...how much would emissions be reduced if the companies made efforts to modernize their plants? Someone has to live next to a cement plant. While we aren't thrilled it is in our back yard, and don't call me a NIMBY, but I'm not, we can't get rid of them. Nor should we. They are an important part of the economy. But I do think the public should advocate for modernization and upgrades. Not build a superplant, like SLC proposed in Greenport. Moderate upgrades, enough to reduce emissions, would be beneficial to the area and give the companies better reputations.

All right Ned, how was that for an answer...it's been a LONG day, but I wanted to reply and not keep you waiting, seeing as I began the thread!

Oh, and the Homestyle mag sounds like an interesting read. Where could I get one? I'm in the Hudson/Greenport/Claverack area...and work in Hudson.
[> [> [> Subject: I think you are on the right track...


Author:
Ned
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 23:21:13 12/20/05 Tue
Gwen -

I don't know anyone who says "cement is unnecessary" That is a red-herring, just like branding anyone who disagrees with you a NIMBY. We all know that cement is an essential building material.

Those of us who have studied the industry also know that when rigorously regulated (as they are in Switzerland, for instance) cement plants can hold down their dangerous emissions significantly, but also that in the absence of such strict controls Cement Companies will do whatever they can get aways with to reduce costs and increase profits, even if that means neglecting upgrades to pollution control technology.

That is what has happened at LaFarge's Ravena plant, at the SLC facility in Cementon, and to a lesser extent to Lehigh/Blue Circle's Greens County plant. The plants were granted "grandfather" status (a huge mistake by the legislature in my opinion) in regard to environmental regualtion, that allowed them to keep operating with the technology that was in place when the environmental laws were passed - more than thirty years ago! They have done so - rather than protect their neighbors from the dangers of their emissions, many of which were not understood when the regulations were first passed.

We need legislation that first encourages, but ultimately insists that these dirty industries continuously adopt the BACT (Best Available Control Technology) standards, in order to provide necessary products while still doing everything possible to safeguard public health.

The Companies argue that doing so is "too costly" and they prefer to move their factories to third-world countries or desperate (or corrupt) parts of the US where they can write their own regulations or avoid regulation all together, and reap bigger profits.

But that is no reason for us to let them get away with it. There is no amount of money that can compensate a family for a lifetime of asthma for their child, or the untimely death of someone with respiratory problems, aggravated and possibly even caused by exposure to pollutants. We must insist that our laws protect the public health and that enforcement agencies like the DEC do their job.

We have to write to our legislators, make our voices heard, write to the DEC, to the Governor, and organize locally and regionally, as we did to fight the Greenport Proposal, to get results.

P.S.: In my post above I gave you the names of a number of places here in Hudson where HomeStyle can be found.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I think you are on the right track...


Author:
Gwen
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 11:15:51 12/21/05 Wed
Not enough time to reply for real right now, but I can say...30 years is a long time and if they had the health of their neighbors in mind they could have raised funds in that timespan. But alas, big business is big business and many of them do not think along those lines. Same with the higher salaried population...did you see the story in the TU? Apparently the people who make $50,000 to $100,000 donate to charity a heck of a lot more than those who make more than $10 million! What do you DO with $10 million? If I write my book and make anywhere NEAR $1 million even, I have my charities mapped out already and I want to set up a number of story contests for youths complete with cash prizes. Maybe that's because I've lived at the other end of the spectrum...or rather AM living at it! Though I can't imagine every millionaire is an Olsen twin who jsut happened to grow up in money. So many of them should know the rigors of low-moderate income. Then again, many of them might just think that acting in that movie entitles them to $10 million, they did all that hard work and so they shouldn't have to share the wealth. But where would they be without the viewers?

ALl right, I could spout about that all day, so I'll stop there. And yeah, duh me I see where you mentioned the locations in your first response to my thread. Thanks.
[> [> [> Subject: asthma


Author:
Gene
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 14:23:02 12/21/05 Wed
Ned, why is the asthma rate per thousand population higher today than it was fifty years ago when we had almost everyone burning coal for heat and had five active cement plants? Then u also had all the steel mills in the rust belt sending fumes our way. Answer that one Dr. Spock.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Some facts for U


Author:
Gene
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 16:14:45 12/21/05 Wed
In 1950, less than 2% of the world's population had asthma and prior to the 1960's asthma was not generally regarded as a fatal illness. Over recent years, the number of people suffering from asthma has increased at an alarming rate. Since the 1980's the incidence of asthma has more than doubled and the American Lung Association believes it will double again by the year 2020.
Asthma Statistics Number of Asthma Suffers is on the Rise
• Over 17 million people in the US had asthma in 1998
• Incidence of asthma cases are projected to double by 2010 predicts The American Lung Association.
• 42% increase of asthma among males between 1982 and 1994.
• 81% increase of asthma among females between 1982 and 1994.
• An estimated 4.8 million U.S. children (under 18) were affected by asthma in 1994.
• The number of people with self reported asthma increased by 29% from 1990 to 1994, from 10.4 million to 14.6 million.

Medical Treatment & Death
• Asthma is the 9th leading cause of hospitalization in the US
• Deaths from asthma were up over 200% from 1979 to 1997, from 2596 deaths to 5434 deaths.
• 50% increase in doctor and hospital visits due to asthma in one decade to 14 million per year. This included 1.6 million visits to emergency rooms, the doctor-of-last-resort to many people without health insurance.
• Asthma was the first-listed diagnosis in 468,000 US hospital admissions in 1993. 3
• Asthmatic youngsters under age 15 underwent 159,000 hospitalizations in 1993, with an average length of stay of 3.4 days. 2,3
• Among 5-24 year olds, the asthma death rate nearly doubled from 1980 to 1993.
• In 1993, blacks aged 5-24 years old were 4 to 6 times more likely to die from asthma than whites.
• In 1993 males were 1.5 times at greater risk of dying from asthma than females. 6

Cost of Asthma
• $12.6 billion - the estimated direct and indirect costs of asthma the USA in 1997.
• Asthma treatment cost an estimated $6.2 billion in 1990, including direct and indirect expenditures; 43% of that total cost was associated with emergency room use, hospitalization, and death.
• Loss of school days caused decreased productivity that cost an estimated $1 billion in 1990.
Sources:
1. Adams, P.F., Benson, V; Current Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Health Statistics; 10(181), 1991.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Vital and Health Statistics, Current Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 1994 (US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics); DHHS Publication No. PHS 96-1521; December 1995.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Vital and Health Statistics, National Hospital Discharge Survey: Annual Summary, 1993 (US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics); DHHS Publication No. PHS 95-1782; August 1995.
4. Taylor, W.R., Newacheck, P.W.; Impact of Childhood Asthma on Health; Pediatrics; 90(5):657-662, 1992.
5. Evans, R.; Asthma Among Minority children: A Growing Problem; Chest; 101(6):368S-371S, 1992.
6. Centers for Disease Control; Asthma Mortality and Hospitalization Among children and Young Adults, 1980-1993 ; MMWR; 45(17):350-353, May 3, 1996.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Some facts for U


Author:
Gwen
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 23:32:51 12/21/05 Wed
Well, those statistics sure do spark some thoughts, Gene! As a matter of fact, it's an excellent question: why have asthma rates gone up so much if not for toxins in the air? I agree, there were more cement plants, more steel mills etc back in the "day" as you might call it and surely one would surmise those industries would cause respiratory problems. I have actually read letters in the newspaper were people who lived near these plants in Columbia County said they never had any problems. But the problems have to come from somewhere. Purportedly new, modern technology is supposed to help alleviate respiratory troubles from emissions. But, if these plants are newer than the ones that were around in the studies...that doesn't appear to be happening. (Or they might not be new...I don't know.)

It did occur to me perhaps the reason for the rise is more instances of reporting the problems. Now-a-days diagnosing problems and the numbers of people visiting physicians may be more than when the plants were around and that could distort the numbers. But even so, if the rates were really the same then, we have the same problem.

Bottom line on the asthma issue is what is causing it and I'm not the expert on this subject, so I can't guess. But that was a good point, Gene. SOmething to chew on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Some facts for U


Author:
Gene
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:54:35 12/22/05 Thu
Gwen, it was said some where, I think in the Dakotas where the working poor were less susceptible to asthma than the people who has an abundance of resources, say like money. Do you think life style has more to do with it than air pollution?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Some facts for U


Author:
Gwen
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:54:34 12/22/05 Thu
Gene, that rings a bell, though I don't have any idea where. Perhaps its similar in a way to being more accustomed to the area. Like when Europeans came to this country, they wiped out so many Native AMericans with European diseases because the natives had no resistance. Not that I would WANT a resistance to pollutants, that can't be good. But there might be people out there who just don't HAVE respiratory problems because they are accustomed to their surroundings. Like the people who work at the plants...how do they react?

I worked on a ship for two months once and I never had a problem with diesel fumes when we were running on diesel. (It was primarily a steamship, so that wasn't going to do much there...) But there were some people aboard who did have trouble. Now I wasn't raised on a ship, but I was in the engine room most of the time so I may have become accustomed to what was down there. The deckies on the otherhand, they might not have been. Or perhaps it's not what is going on at the source, but what comes out the stack. Could be the same for cement plants...

All right, enough of the tangent already!

Ned, yes, most definitely in agreement that people's health should be foremost. But we are back to what to do about it. And that is, in my opinion, not to build new plants but to modernize and bring these outdated facilities up to environmental codes. In essence, ungrandfather them. SLC especially, having been ready to drop so much on the table for the Greenport project, should be able to drop something into Catskill.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Gwen - they pledged to do this...


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 12:41:46 12/25/05 Sun
...after their Greenport plan bit the dust.

Have they done anything? Do they plan to do anything? call them and find out - then follow up and see if they actually keep their word. Their track record for keeping their promises around the country (and the world) isn't that good - one thing that worried "opponents" of the Greenport proposal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are both right.


Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:58:42 12/22/05 Thu
It's true that we can't pin-point any specific chemical pollutant as being the "cause" of asthma. Yet we find the sharpest increase in asthma cases in areas where the air is most heavily polluted. So there is a direct, statistical correlation on a large scale between air pollution and asthma. Yet there are anomalies - places where the air is heavily polluted, but asthma has not risen to the same degree.

But there are also some clearly established facts. For instance, we now know unequivocally that even small rises - 10% - in the concentation of the smallest particulate pollution - PM2.5 - even for short durations of an hour or so - leads to increased admissions to hospitals for respiratory distress, including acute asthma attacks. So we know that PM2.5 is a trigger for asthma.

What we can conclude, in spite of our specific ignorance, is that more pollutants in our air have a negative effect on our health - including the frequency and severity of asthma attacks. Less pollution is better for us. Its what Tom would call (I would hope) "common sense."

Therefore, whatever can be done to reduce pollution is in our best interests. Certainly there is going to be a point where benefits and costs have to be weighed - but in general I hope we would all agree that protecting the health of our friends, neighbors and family should be the foremost goal, and that reducing pollution - not increasing it at all, even slightly (let alone with some of the most toxic chemicals known to man, like Dioxins) - is essential.
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.