Sound Off for Jan. 25, 2009
Reader: Lois Henry's recent column labeled respected air quality studies "hooey." I used to think Ms. Henry was hip, courageous and bright. Now I think a better description would be, at the very best, naive, irresponsible and rather dim.
She first showed her naivete and lack of insight when she defended Mayor Harvey Hall in the firefighter/paramedic issue. Now she's quoting people on air quality who have obvious ties to polluting industries. She wants it to appear like she still cares about air quality — but she labels the environmentalists as hysterical.
Doesn't Ms. Henry understand that the reason the air is cleaner is because the air district has been forced to tighten regulations on the large polluters? It was activism and lawsuits by those Ms. Henry labels as extremists, who I know as mothers and fathers whose only vested interests are protecting their children and other vulnerable populations. Tighter regulations wouldn't have happened if it weren't for environmental activists.
Ms. Henry should be ashamed and embarrassed by her quick dismissal of credible air quality studies and by her lack of respect for those who have sacrificed so she can breathe easier.
— Linda MacKay
Reader: I read with sadness your piece on asthma and air pollution essentially trying to refute any link. That is not what the science or medical community and literature are showing.
As a former physician with the Asthma Education and Management Program (at Fresno's Community Hospital) for nearly 10 years, I didn't go looking for air pollution as a culprit. When nearly 20 percent of the schoolchildren in our Fresno community were afflicted, including my own son, I went looking for explanations. Why were so many children stricken? What could be the cause? What could I do to help? Why is the San Joaquin Valley one of the most polluted air basins in America?
While direct links to PM and ozone have become clearer in the last decade, I agree that we haven't taken 100 children, subjected them to valley air and "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt that asthma is caused totally by poor air quality. Nor can I say that it isn't possible one particular chemical (pesticide/herbicide/diesel byproduct) might not be a cause of a large part of the epidemic.
I can tell you as a scientist I am very concerned, and do embrace the precautionary principle. I can tell you having read a tremendous amount and talked to Joel Schwartz and others of the naysayers that I believe they are flawed in their denial, and sadly, rather than choose to make changes, they allow the status quo to exist — and more disease to occur.
I can also tell you personally that I chose to leave the valley several years ago, and my son's asthma vastly improved. His need for medications decreased dramatically, and he feels better, and sadly he will not consider returning to the valley under the current air pollution burden. I continue to fight for clean air — for those friends left to breathe in the valley — and hope that your family remains unaffected by respiratory or cardiovascular disease (both shown by Kaiser and other studies to be adversely affected by air pollution).
I also hope you truly look at the literature and listen to all points of view. This is not an easy problem, and one that has no easy solution — nor is "one answer" likely right. But denying any link can only lead to no change, and were it not for the changes in regulation (smog controls, cleaner car/gas/diesel) we would likely be far worse.
— David R. Pepper MD, MS
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air
Reader: It was refreshing to read "Hype clouds picture of pollution" (Jan. 18), exposing the lies and misinformation used by fear-mongering extreme environmental groups to force unnecessary regulations that strangle our economy while producing little or no real improvements to our environment.
More and more people have recognized these groups for what they are, a "conflict industry" far more vile than the "evil industry" they claim to protect us from. At least "evil industry" creates products, jobs and pays taxes. The "conflict industry" groups are often nonprofits paying little or no taxes, concerned with creating problems to justify the lawsuits they file and the huge legal fees they win.
Reminds me of when Northwest timber harvesting was shut down in the '90s to supposedly protect the spotted owl. Later studies proved the owl was happy to live in logged areas, but was threatened by the Canadian owl, not logging. Thousands of jobs had been lost and local economies needlessly devastated by that time, however the "conflict industry" generated a lot of cash from the lies.
Keep articles coming like Lois Henry's column based on factual research. Future regulations should be based on actual costs versus benefits, not fear mongering or emotion.
— Chris Horgan
Executive Director
Stewards of the Sequoia
I asked Lois Henry to respond:
We all want cleaner air.
No one, including me, is disputing the idea that less air pollution would be better for a number of reasons, including the health of sensitive groups.
But as laudable a goal is that is, it doesn't give environmental groups, and certainly not the government, license to stretch the truth. There's enough justification to work on our air without misleading the public.
The studies that have been used so far to justify ever more stringent air regulations are epidemiological, using data to look for certain effects, such as a higher death rate when certain pollutants are increased.
While a small cause/effect for mortality in relation to PM2.5 was found in some studies, other, more recent studies focusing exclusively on California have found little to no such cause and effect for PM2.5.
When you look into those first studies (Pope et al., 1995, 2002 and Krewski et al. 2000) they show a larger (though still relatively small) mortality risk in northeastern states — not California and the West. That fact has been ignored when other researchers use their findings to support their own, even more disturbing research, such as pinning the deaths of 812 people in the San Joaquin Valley every year on PM2.5.
I think that all bears a deeper look by regulators.
And according to those same regulators, our air is cleaner than it has been in 30 years for every single pollutant we measure.
If that's the case, how can our air pollution be ever more dangerous?
As for asthma and other lung diseases, those cases have been rising as our air has been getting cleaner. Not just here, but all over the developed world.
The lung specialist I spoke with said flat out that air pollution doesn't harm healthy lungs. I was taken aback when he said that, but the trends seem to bear that out.
This is a very emotional issue. But it's important for us to examine it without bias in order to make informed decisions about how to craft needed regulation with proper science.
•••
Reader: I was just very curious. Is that all you could do for George Jones, one stinking little paragraph? He's a Kennedy honoree. Geez. Give him a break. Give him a better article than that.
— Ray Brondell
Jenner: We ran a terrific appreciation of George Jones by KUZZ DJ Casey McBride in our Eye Street weekly entertainment guide several days before the country legend's concert. We splashed Casey's piece across the center spread of the section and devoted the cover to Jones.
We generally don't write live reviews on most concerts and haven't done so for years, especially when the artist plays only one show.
•••
Reader: I have been an avid reader of The Californianfor 60 years. On Jan. 11, The Daily Incredible had to use colored ink on the first page to inform us that local farmers torched over 300 acres of agriculture waste and weeds. On Jan. 13, you again used colored ink to provide a picture of a religious group burning a large wood fire and throwing rice and peanuts into the flames.
This entire week was a no-burn day situation in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. Where are the Valley Air Pollution District regulators?
What kind of a kickback allows large groups to violate burn regulations while those with nice homes and fireplaces must pay the penalty and suffer breathing these pollutants. It appears The Californian is once again in support of large groups and could care less about the little guy. I am appalled at the stand your newspaper frequently endorses.
I am researching other avenues for acquiring unbiased information.
— Phil Foster
Jenner: I'm confused by your interpretation of our coverage.
Reporter Stacey Shepard's Jan. 11 report headlined "You shiver, they burn," focused on the inconsistent standards applied by regulators, who allow massive ag burns on no-burn days while threatening to fine those who use their fireplaces.
We did run a photograph of a group of Sikhs gathered around a fire at a religious observance, but it was neither an endorsement nor a criticism of the exercise.
•••
Reader: I've been reading your paper now since 2000. In all these years I have seen pictures of injured "Palestinian" people, and usually there will be another picture close by of a city where a bomb was blown up by Israel's IDF forces.
If Israel was the "bad guy," I could understand it. Never in the history of this world has there been a place called Palestine. It is a term coined by Rome when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. In fact, it was called: "neo-Palestinae." Heaven forbid if a picture of an Israeli infant was shown bleeding to death because of these people whose religion teaches "kill the infidel."
Nor will you show pictures of Sderot, a city that has been under constant bombardment for years now.
I wonder, if Washington, D.C., was being bombed for years on end like Sderot, and Israel was telling us to "cease and desist," what would happen? Unfortunately, that will not happen. We can't preach the gospels in any Islamic country under penalty of imprisonment or death, yet here in America, mosques are growing.
We the people of this wonderful country, especially newspaper editors and major media networks should get back to the truth, come out of denial and give both sides of the story instead of having such a slanted view, and making Israel out to be the "enemy." The Israelis are merely defending themselves. But unfortunately, that too won't happen, and the reason?
The good old American dollar — there's no money in truth, and; who backs 95 percent of the media in this country? You guessed it: Arabs and Muslims. Enough said.
Was the 9/11 report really true? We are told to believe that these planes "beat" a $40 billion defense system, murdered thousands on our own soil, and then, we are told to believe that a little man hiding in a cave with a computer was responsible for all of it! It reminds me of the Kennedy assassination — will we ever know the truth about that?
Shame on our government for its sins, and shame on us for believing them. All of us need to do two things: Repent of our sins and get back to the Creator who helped get this country started in the first place, and second: Obey what He teaches. Amen!
— George A. Bieller Jr.
Jenner: Our photo coverage of the Gaza conflict depends on the photographs delivered by The Associated Press. And the photos they distribute depend on their access to news events.
And while both sides have suffered terrible losses, 1,285 Palestinians have been killed in the offensive, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, while 13 Israelis, including three civilians, were also killed during the fighting.
I'm not taking sides or saying Israel shouldn't fight back. But the attacks launched by Israel have been more numerous and devastating — and we've published more of those photos.
Our photo editors make an effort to look for balance, to provide even-handed coverage and to show both sides of any story or conflict to the extent that we can.
Your allegation that this newspaper is in the pockets of Muslim or Arab financiers is so nutty it's laughable.
You may not like our coverage or our news judgment, but this newspaper is not just 100 percent American owned, it's locally owned and operated.
There are precious few daily newspapers, radio or TV stations that can say that these days.
•••
Reader: In regard to your headline, "Is Black Angus headed for slaughter?" I would like to say "nice job."
Maybe a more fitting headline for the passing of a local legend could have been, "Buck bites it!"
Coarse, callous and irreverent, but hey, there has to be something printed on those three mini sections of news that comes with my daily ad onslaught. No reason to show any respect for a business that has been in town for over 30 years. I'm sure their employees loved it.
— Jacob Cadena
Jenner: The headline you object to appeared on a story about the Black Angus restaurant chain facing extinction.
I agree the headline was insensitive. "Slaughter" has such violent connotations it's hard to envision its use in a headline that some wouldn't find insensitive.
Beyond that, I don't think it's a good idea to use puns that play off the name of a person or a business.
I'm sorry you were offended.
