Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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: Re: Some facts for U Author: Gwen [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 23:32:51 12/21/05 Wed In reply to: Gene 's message, "Some facts for U" on 16:14:45 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> 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.