Newark High School is in the 8th percentile for toxicity in the air among 127,800 schools nationwide. Only 9,296 have worse air.
Carson Elementary is in the 3rd percentile, with only 3,210 having worse air, which is an improvement over the former Conrad Elementary, in the 2nd percentile with only 1,103 out of 127,800 having more dangerous air to breathe.
These facts are from a report by USA Today, a summary of which was published by Editor & Publisher.
Polluters most responsible, according to the report, are Owens Corning, Modern Welding Co. of Ohio Inc., Safety-Kleen Systems Inc. of Hebron, Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Llc of Heath, and American Electric Power of Conesville.
Chemicals most responsible, the report said, are formaldehyde, 33%; chromium and chromium compounds, 31%; lead and lead compounds, 10%; ammonia, 9%; and cholorine, 5%.
This is ironic in the extreme, after so much was made over second-hand smoke that smoke-haters pushed through a statewide law to clean up their restaurants' air.
That Newark's air is crappy has never been a secret, something everyone can see and smell, but nobody has the guts to square off with the polluters. Nor will they until citizens get up and make it happen.
There was never a more urgent or important service we could provide for our kids than to give them good air to breathe.
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
EPA jerks Newark residents, follow-up
Yesterday I wrote here about EPA and Fiberglas
Three comments to that essay should be addressed for clarification:
Rhonda4thWard wrote:
Rhonda4thWard, your research is appreciated, but not something I haven't done many times over the years. When you call EPA you get the official line, which always says things are fine with Owens pollution. No doubt it's EPA-approved, but you can't look at that photo and not know some run-off from Dump Hill isn't heading for the river. Nor can you believe those bits of Fiberglas blowing off Dump Hill on windy days and onto the grass below are being contained. Nor can you drive on Manning Street where Dump Hill trucks labor constantly, dropping stuff along the way, and not know some is heading for the river. You can't remember the little house across the street from Dump Hill - here one day, gone the next - replaced by a ground-water test hole and believe Dump Hill pollution not responsible. Nor can you be downwind from the factory and not smell air pollution. That's why I don't care what the official EPA/Owens line is.
You also asked why I don't tell the EPA about Owens pollution. My answer is I've been telling EPA about this on a career-long basis - news coverage, pictures, features, columns, all of it. I've done my part, friend, without making so much as a dent in any of it because I am virtually alone in challenging the corporation and the government on the truth of their claims.
Madclaw wrote:
Thanks for your comment, madclaw. I don't argue with any of that, except maybe your inference that Columbus problems relate to ours, and the assumption of "twice the cost, etc." But you miss my point. EPA is virtually unsupervised by taxpayers, and so is the city utilities department 1) because it covers expenses by setting rates and nobody argues, probably 2) because this is highly technical stuff and nobody except the utilities employees - least of all me - understands how it works.
I never meant any of this to be a criticism of Roger Loomis, who seems to be running a tight ship and having the knowledge and skill to do it correctly.
ohiovonda wrote:
To ohiovonda, I don't envy your position. If I were you, I'd learn everything there is to know about what's in Dump Hill that can harm you, and have my own water tests run. I always suspected that there was more to the closing of that once-lovely roadside spring on Cedar Run than bacteria, as claimed by the health department (if I remember correctly). I always suspected Dump Hill above all else.
Three comments to that essay should be addressed for clarification:
Rhonda4thWard wrote:
"I made some calls and found that the EPA and the City are heavily involved in the Owens landfill, they have a complete containment system there, all the leachate (I am not sure I spelled that right) is captured and pumped directly to the the collection system and to the WWTP. There is also a containment pond to catch rainwater...they have spent millions to maintain this and Ohio EPA inspects it on the regular basis. the last time OEPA did a study on the macro-invertabrates in the Licking River at that location they found no impact. This system has been in place for at least 24 years."
Rhonda4thWard, your research is appreciated, but not something I haven't done many times over the years. When you call EPA you get the official line, which always says things are fine with Owens pollution. No doubt it's EPA-approved, but you can't look at that photo and not know some run-off from Dump Hill isn't heading for the river. Nor can you believe those bits of Fiberglas blowing off Dump Hill on windy days and onto the grass below are being contained. Nor can you drive on Manning Street where Dump Hill trucks labor constantly, dropping stuff along the way, and not know some is heading for the river. You can't remember the little house across the street from Dump Hill - here one day, gone the next - replaced by a ground-water test hole and believe Dump Hill pollution not responsible. Nor can you be downwind from the factory and not smell air pollution. That's why I don't care what the official EPA/Owens line is.
You also asked why I don't tell the EPA about Owens pollution. My answer is I've been telling EPA about this on a career-long basis - news coverage, pictures, features, columns, all of it. I've done my part, friend, without making so much as a dent in any of it because I am virtually alone in challenging the corporation and the government on the truth of their claims.
Madclaw wrote:
"A high-rate treatment plant has nothing to do with issues from Owens and everything to do with the waste that follows from ever resident of Newark, raw sewage. Newark's waste water treatment plants (WWTP) are reaching the extents of their capacity and expected life span (est. thirty years). Newark and the surrounding serviced areas has also grown beyond the expect capacity of when the WWTP were designed. Add in that there are also combined sewers that feed into the system that push rain water through the WWTP, which again compromises the capacity and effectiveness the WWTP.
Ultimately a new plant will help with little things like sewage back-ups. I would wager that no one wants to find six inches of raw sewage in their basement, but no one worries about it until it happens. If the city waits until it becomes a problem, it is too late. We do not what to end up in the mess that Columbus’ west side was about ten years ago. Every time it rained sewage backed up and boil alters were issued. They did not plan for the growth and had heavy EPA fines and engineering bills to pay. Now the City of Columbus is trying to stay a head of problems like that and still struggles with issues. We do not want to get behind the ball on this. It will be cheaper to do it right now, instead twice the cost to fix it in the future."
Thanks for your comment, madclaw. I don't argue with any of that, except maybe your inference that Columbus problems relate to ours, and the assumption of "twice the cost, etc." But you miss my point. EPA is virtually unsupervised by taxpayers, and so is the city utilities department 1) because it covers expenses by setting rates and nobody argues, probably 2) because this is highly technical stuff and nobody except the utilities employees - least of all me - understands how it works.
I never meant any of this to be a criticism of Roger Loomis, who seems to be running a tight ship and having the knowledge and skill to do it correctly.
ohiovonda wrote:
"This is a personal topic to me. I always said Iwould never live near the plant or landfill. Well, I have lived to eat those words. The landfill is literally in my backyard almost. Coi9ncidentally, one of the engineers responsible for designing the landfill is now my daughter's father-in-law. When he visited my home recently for a familt gathering, he still was reassuring of the safety of the ground water system, etc. I am still nervous. I have a very lovely home, that was originally built by an accou ntant that worked for OC as well. I would literally likie to see current EPA stats. On air and water. Call me Nervous Nellie, but just show me the numbers."
To ohiovonda, I don't envy your position. If I were you, I'd learn everything there is to know about what's in Dump Hill that can harm you, and have my own water tests run. I always suspected that there was more to the closing of that once-lovely roadside spring on Cedar Run than bacteria, as claimed by the health department (if I remember correctly). I always suspected Dump Hill above all else.
Monday, August 18, 2008
EPA jerks Newark residents, but not Fiberglas
Regularly raising the cost of living in Newark is what appears to be unrestrained power of the EPA and the city water/sewer department to hike rates. Though we're scarcely into the latest fee hike to build a sewer system for rainwater, here comes Roger Loomis, utilities superintendent, with another "mandate" to jam us again, this time for "a new high-rate treatment plant to process the wastewater," as reported recently in the Advocate.
Nobody ever questions this, not any of it. Nor does anyone ask who controls this agency that controls the city's - and its citizens' - purse. Same song. Yes, Roger. Yes, EPA.
But there's a strange twist to the EPA's ability to put the brakes on pollutants going into our rivers. That has to do with Fiberglas Dump Hill, that ever-growing monstrosity in our back yard which is not just ugly but about which you don't need the expertise of Roger Loomis nor the EPA to know that thing is leeching bad stuff into that same river being so closely guarded from grains of poop.
Does the EPA not know about this? And if it doesn't, why doesn't Roger tell them?
While city officials so gladly lie down for EPA, they ought to ask if this Fiberglas thing is not someday going to require yet another increase in our cost of living to contain the run-off and/or perhaps take the whole ugly hill down to the flat field it once was and haul it away?
For a view from Griffith Road on 7/3/08, go look at a picture of it here.
Nobody ever questions this, not any of it. Nor does anyone ask who controls this agency that controls the city's - and its citizens' - purse. Same song. Yes, Roger. Yes, EPA.
But there's a strange twist to the EPA's ability to put the brakes on pollutants going into our rivers. That has to do with Fiberglas Dump Hill, that ever-growing monstrosity in our back yard which is not just ugly but about which you don't need the expertise of Roger Loomis nor the EPA to know that thing is leeching bad stuff into that same river being so closely guarded from grains of poop.
Does the EPA not know about this? And if it doesn't, why doesn't Roger tell them?
While city officials so gladly lie down for EPA, they ought to ask if this Fiberglas thing is not someday going to require yet another increase in our cost of living to contain the run-off and/or perhaps take the whole ugly hill down to the flat field it once was and haul it away?
For a view from Griffith Road on 7/3/08, go look at a picture of it here.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
AEP executives show their magnificent balls
Earlier this week it was reported here that American Electric Power teamed with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and others to boost Ohio to Number One in the nation for toxic air emissions. (Also see Ohio ranks No. 1 in air pollution, thanks to Ohio legislators
This least-reported-of-all-major-news-stories last week mentioned that AEP will pay a $4.6 billion settlement to eight neighboring states, plus $15 million in civil penalties and another $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs.
Then, guess what I get in the mail a day or so later? I get AEP's electric bill.
On the outside of the envelope it says: "Help protect the environment. Recycle." Further down: "Go paperless: Get your bill online."
Inside: "You can support renewable energy ... The new Green Pricing Option program helps customers make a difference in the environment by supporting the Company's purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates ..."
It tells how customers can spend a minimum of $1.40 a month to support things like wind-power generators.
God, what magnificent balls are required of AEP executives.
This least-reported-of-all-major-news-stories last week mentioned that AEP will pay a $4.6 billion settlement to eight neighboring states, plus $15 million in civil penalties and another $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs.
Then, guess what I get in the mail a day or so later? I get AEP's electric bill.
On the outside of the envelope it says: "Help protect the environment. Recycle." Further down: "Go paperless: Get your bill online."
Inside: "You can support renewable energy ... The new Green Pricing Option program helps customers make a difference in the environment by supporting the Company's purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates ..."
It tells how customers can spend a minimum of $1.40 a month to support things like wind-power generators.
God, what magnificent balls are required of AEP executives.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Ohio ranks No. 1 in air pollution, thanks to Ohio legislators
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is merely a disguise for Ohio polluters and it's time for the state legislature to step in and give it a new purpose: protecting the environment rather than protecting the polluters.
The shake-out of AEP's recent loss of a lawsuit over the company's air-pollution practices, filed in 1999, revealed that OEPA never got involved because it was supposedly too busy with other matters. Eight other states brought - and recently won - the suit against the nation's Number One polluting state, namely ours.
The astonishing facts were reported a few days ago by the Cincinnati Post. However, the article is no longer available at the Post web site, so I have archived it here.
Business as usual in Ohio, and so far there has been no major reaction, no demands to clean up the OEPA, no grandstanding politicians jumping all over this incredible breakdown in government fulfilling its purpose for being.
Apparently, AEP and other polluters are major shareholders in Ohio government. Until state legislators get off the "take" there will be no challenge by OEPA to our Number One rank for toxic air emissions.
The shake-out of AEP's recent loss of a lawsuit over the company's air-pollution practices, filed in 1999, revealed that OEPA never got involved because it was supposedly too busy with other matters. Eight other states brought - and recently won - the suit against the nation's Number One polluting state, namely ours.
The astonishing facts were reported a few days ago by the Cincinnati Post. However, the article is no longer available at the Post web site, so I have archived it here.
Business as usual in Ohio, and so far there has been no major reaction, no demands to clean up the OEPA, no grandstanding politicians jumping all over this incredible breakdown in government fulfilling its purpose for being.
Apparently, AEP and other polluters are major shareholders in Ohio government. Until state legislators get off the "take" there will be no challenge by OEPA to our Number One rank for toxic air emissions.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
So long, E85
News that E85 is no longer interested in building an ethanol plant in Newark is cause for citizen celebration.
Today's Advocate report did not give the reason for the company's disinterest. It merely quoted a company official's notification to Newark government - which was by e-mail. Here's the Advocate's quote from that communication: "I sincerely regret to inform you that E85, due to business reasons and in consideration of its due diligence, has decided not to exercise the option on the Newark property."
... leaving open the question of "consideration of its due diligence" means exactly what?
Whatever it means, the most significant quote in the Advocate's report is this: "The decision to abandon the west Newark location of the ethanol refinery is a great victory for residents who were concerned about our health and the cumulative air pollution," said Bruce Frey, a West End resident of Newark. "It's a defeat for uninformed politicians ready to pander to polluting companies with no track record of operations or safety."
Nobody could say it better.
Today's Advocate report did not give the reason for the company's disinterest. It merely quoted a company official's notification to Newark government - which was by e-mail. Here's the Advocate's quote from that communication: "I sincerely regret to inform you that E85, due to business reasons and in consideration of its due diligence, has decided not to exercise the option on the Newark property."
... leaving open the question of "consideration of its due diligence" means exactly what?
Whatever it means, the most significant quote in the Advocate's report is this: "The decision to abandon the west Newark location of the ethanol refinery is a great victory for residents who were concerned about our health and the cumulative air pollution," said Bruce Frey, a West End resident of Newark. "It's a defeat for uninformed politicians ready to pander to polluting companies with no track record of operations or safety."
Nobody could say it better.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Columbus Monthly publicizes Newark ethanol discussion
Any magazine article that begins with the words "Bruce Humphrey" ought to be pretty informative, which is why I recommend the current (July) issue of Columbus Monthly.
Author Jeff McCallister began his article on Newark's proposed ethanol plant with my name, though my importance to the piece is miniscule. I simply served as his launching pad, no more.
The article, "Torn by corn" is a good summary of Newark's debate over whether we want an ethanol plant in this city or not. Jeff did a good job of summarizing the complex issues and explaining how and why citizens' quality of life is at stake. He is employed by Suburban Newspapers.
By the way, Columbus Monthly is available at Giant Eagle and, I was told, Krogers. It is not carried by the bookstore at the mall, nor was it available at Meijers when I looked for it there.
Author Jeff McCallister began his article on Newark's proposed ethanol plant with my name, though my importance to the piece is miniscule. I simply served as his launching pad, no more.
The article, "Torn by corn" is a good summary of Newark's debate over whether we want an ethanol plant in this city or not. Jeff did a good job of summarizing the complex issues and explaining how and why citizens' quality of life is at stake. He is employed by Suburban Newspapers.
By the way, Columbus Monthly is available at Giant Eagle and, I was told, Krogers. It is not carried by the bookstore at the mall, nor was it available at Meijers when I looked for it there.
Monday, June 25, 2007
E85 pollution: Good to go
Your state government has issued a final air pollution permit to E85, Inc. so that it can build an ethanol plant and further screw up the air over Newark by sending into it "92 tons a year of nitrogen oxides, 88 tons a year of carbon monoxide, 89.4 tons a year of solvents (volatile organic compounds), 68.3 tons a year of dust (particulate emissions) and 46.9 tons a year of sulfur dioxide," according to a web report by WCLT.
What gets me most is the reassurance in the report that: "These levels will be protective of public health and the environment."
You don't have to be very smart to know that's a lie - and you don't have to be very perceptive to know it was swallowed whole by local media.
What's protective is no more pollution. But people are used to government lies reasserted by media without question - because of media ineptitude, laziness and its crazed need for more businesses, no matter what the cost.
Apparently the resistance to this project has gone belly-up. Nobody cares enough to get off their butts, so the beat goes on.
What gets me most is the reassurance in the report that: "These levels will be protective of public health and the environment."
You don't have to be very smart to know that's a lie - and you don't have to be very perceptive to know it was swallowed whole by local media.
What's protective is no more pollution. But people are used to government lies reasserted by media without question - because of media ineptitude, laziness and its crazed need for more businesses, no matter what the cost.
Apparently the resistance to this project has gone belly-up. Nobody cares enough to get off their butts, so the beat goes on.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
New ethanol pollution rule: A kiss of death?
Congratulations ethanol factories, thanks to the evermore nutty Bush Administration, you'll be able to stink up the world even more than before. Starting in July, the EPA's new rule will allow you to pollute the air 150 percent more than you already pollute.
This could be the kiss of death for the ethanol project of Newark.
Surely nobody who cares about health or stink will now argue that an ethanol plant is welcome here. Here's a report by CNSNews.
This could be the kiss of death for the ethanol project of Newark.
Surely nobody who cares about health or stink will now argue that an ethanol plant is welcome here. Here's a report by CNSNews.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Man can influence this?
It is a humbling experience for me when I see evidence of the vastness of the Creator's work, and you can almost daily find a visual record of it at Astronomy Picture of the Day, where I found this image of Horsehead Nebula.
This vast complex of dust and glowing gas is 1,500 light years away from Earth, in the direction of the constellation of Orion.
The forces "out there" are not only immense beyond imagination, but also are always changing and constantly moving.
In view of that, I don't think man could have any influence on the temperature or longevity of our tiny speck of the planet Earth.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
An old twist on global warming
Here's an interesting report by Monitor News Service about the change in climate and man's effect thereon.
"The task of piecing together the vast puzzle of how the earth's weather changes has new impetus these days. More and more, scientists agree that current weather changes are connected to man's search for more food and more energy. Not only does weather affect food, but energy use and agriculture affects climate."
Keep reading.
"The direction and the extent of these effects remain a mystery which scientists want to unravel. So far, as they strain some of the world's largest computers, study satellite photos, and launch large-scale atmospheric experiment's, the practitioners of the new science of climate change cannot agree where the different pieces of the 'puzzle' fit."
Don't stop reading. We're going to make a point.
(Skipping down several paragraphs ... )
"Scientists already have established that waste heat from large cities can change local climates. In Washington, D.C., the frost-free growing season is one month longer than in outlying areas, Dr. James Peterson of NOAA has found. Also, cities average as much as 10 degrees warmer and have less snowfall and fog than rural areas. ... beside putting out heat, burning coal and oil pours vast amounts of tiny particles - aerosols - into the atmosphere.
Yeah, yeah; now to the point ...
"This could account for the worldwide cooling trend since 1945, which has spurred widespread speculation about the return of the ice ages ... "
Huh?
(The article was published 2/10/75)
"The task of piecing together the vast puzzle of how the earth's weather changes has new impetus these days. More and more, scientists agree that current weather changes are connected to man's search for more food and more energy. Not only does weather affect food, but energy use and agriculture affects climate."
Keep reading.
"The direction and the extent of these effects remain a mystery which scientists want to unravel. So far, as they strain some of the world's largest computers, study satellite photos, and launch large-scale atmospheric experiment's, the practitioners of the new science of climate change cannot agree where the different pieces of the 'puzzle' fit."
Don't stop reading. We're going to make a point.
(Skipping down several paragraphs ... )
"Scientists already have established that waste heat from large cities can change local climates. In Washington, D.C., the frost-free growing season is one month longer than in outlying areas, Dr. James Peterson of NOAA has found. Also, cities average as much as 10 degrees warmer and have less snowfall and fog than rural areas. ... beside putting out heat, burning coal and oil pours vast amounts of tiny particles - aerosols - into the atmosphere.
Yeah, yeah; now to the point ...
"This could account for the worldwide cooling trend since 1945, which has spurred widespread speculation about the return of the ice ages ... "
Huh?
(The article was published 2/10/75)
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Fayetteville man writes about ethanol plants
A former city councilman from Fayetteville NC has written a column for the Observer, published 3/29/07 entitled: An E85 ethanol plant: The more you know, the less you’ll like it. In it, he refers to a conversation with Newark Mayor Bruce Bain. It's worth a read for anyone following the ethanol-plant controversy.
Friday, March 30, 2007
If you want to make a difference, get off your butt
The concerns of people opposing the construction of an ethanol plant in Newark have been well-publicized. Folks came together in an organization they called CLEAN (search this blog for "CLEAN" and/or "ethanol") and asked questions that should concern everyone on that end of town, everyone who sympathizes with those folks, and everyone who thinks an ethanol plant is a worthless addition to this city.
The question is: will anyone get off their butt and talk back to city government?
Opponents were given some first-rate coat-tails to grab when Eme Lybarger visited for a public meeting recently. Representing the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, http://www.celdf.org/ she met with a relatively small and wet-rag group, judging by her reaction. She admitted that community response to the meeting left her pessimistic about the will of the community to fight off developers of the plant, or words to that effect.
To me, it's incredibly unfair that people should have to spend money and time to fight off an enterprise so silly and worthless as an ethanol plant - which is no more than another government-financed solution to a non-problem - one that makes no economic sense whatever, one being showcased as a way to "solve" an energy problem that doesn't exist by driving up corn prices AND most likely gasoline prices too - all of which will benefit ... who?
Mostly an investor from India who is the prime mover of E85, the ethanol company building these plants in various U.S. locations.
If, eventually, market forces determine that ethanol is indeed based on political flimflam, who will pay to have Newark's ethanol plant dismantled and cleaned up? Why, that would be the same taxpayers who cleaned up after the old refinery in Heath.
All that aside, the fact that the neighbors don't want this thing ought to be the measure by which it is judged by the city and all others. Representatives of the people - the mayor, the council, and all government regulators - ought not to have any conflicts about where their allegiance lies.
But they do. Politics is politics and money is money.
The people of Newark need to get off their collective butt and start doing more about their collective future.
Citizens are in charge here if, and only if, they will stand up and say so. To do that is to have the battle won.
People who want to make a difference need to read THE PRICE OF FREEDOM and then go make a difference.
The question is: will anyone get off their butt and talk back to city government?
Opponents were given some first-rate coat-tails to grab when Eme Lybarger visited for a public meeting recently. Representing the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, http://www.celdf.org/ she met with a relatively small and wet-rag group, judging by her reaction. She admitted that community response to the meeting left her pessimistic about the will of the community to fight off developers of the plant, or words to that effect.
To me, it's incredibly unfair that people should have to spend money and time to fight off an enterprise so silly and worthless as an ethanol plant - which is no more than another government-financed solution to a non-problem - one that makes no economic sense whatever, one being showcased as a way to "solve" an energy problem that doesn't exist by driving up corn prices AND most likely gasoline prices too - all of which will benefit ... who?
Mostly an investor from India who is the prime mover of E85, the ethanol company building these plants in various U.S. locations.
If, eventually, market forces determine that ethanol is indeed based on political flimflam, who will pay to have Newark's ethanol plant dismantled and cleaned up? Why, that would be the same taxpayers who cleaned up after the old refinery in Heath.
All that aside, the fact that the neighbors don't want this thing ought to be the measure by which it is judged by the city and all others. Representatives of the people - the mayor, the council, and all government regulators - ought not to have any conflicts about where their allegiance lies.
But they do. Politics is politics and money is money.
The people of Newark need to get off their collective butt and start doing more about their collective future.
Citizens are in charge here if, and only if, they will stand up and say so. To do that is to have the battle won.
People who want to make a difference need to read THE PRICE OF FREEDOM and then go make a difference.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Confiscating a neighborhood for profit
The question of whose rights take precedence in the matter of the proposed ethanol plant for Newark is the thing that nags me and keeps me interested.
I live a few miles away from the site and I might not be able to care less if it weren't for the fact that people living near the factory site are going to get shafted if the city and the developers go ahead with this thing because, simply put, they don't want the potential danger and nuisance. And even if there weren't that potential, if the people there don't want it, that should be the overriding consideration for government. It is not. What government seems most concerned about are bucks and the feel-good goose they get from hatching a new factory.
So Newark has a classic standoff between citizens and the government-business complex. On one side are people who want to be left alone and on the other side are people in government (namely the city government) and developers (mostly a billionaire from India) who want more money and are willing to confiscate neighborhoods and change lives in order to get it.
Recently a representative from something called "Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund" met with Newark residents about their options. It offers a grassroots litigation support program and that seems to be what it's going to take to stop this government-business steamroller, if anything can.
This Tea Party is about the rights of citizens versus government nannies who point and shoot at the command of political donors, so stay tuned.
I live a few miles away from the site and I might not be able to care less if it weren't for the fact that people living near the factory site are going to get shafted if the city and the developers go ahead with this thing because, simply put, they don't want the potential danger and nuisance. And even if there weren't that potential, if the people there don't want it, that should be the overriding consideration for government. It is not. What government seems most concerned about are bucks and the feel-good goose they get from hatching a new factory.
So Newark has a classic standoff between citizens and the government-business complex. On one side are people who want to be left alone and on the other side are people in government (namely the city government) and developers (mostly a billionaire from India) who want more money and are willing to confiscate neighborhoods and change lives in order to get it.
Recently a representative from something called "Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund" met with Newark residents about their options. It offers a grassroots litigation support program and that seems to be what it's going to take to stop this government-business steamroller, if anything can.
This Tea Party is about the rights of citizens versus government nannies who point and shoot at the command of political donors, so stay tuned.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The right of citizens to decide ...
... on pollution, noise, odor, increased truck and train traffic, emergency response, property values, water safety, water usage, and the long-term economic prosperity - issues would directly affect the quality of life for all residents and business owners in the vicinity of the proposed ethanol plant. Read the latest CLEAN news release.
Friday, March 2, 2007
CLEAN Questions
The following are questions being asked of Newark officials by Citizen Leaders for Environmental Advocacy in our Neighborhoods. CLEAN wants assurance that the ethanol plant proposed for Newark will be clean, safe, and quiet - pretty much what any family would want to know about a neighbor who would build something close by.
Representatives of that group, other interested persons, and city officials have met twice to deal with specific issues. CLEAN has followed up with an e-mail to the city, asking for written responses to 15 questions. Except for questions numbered 3, 4, 5, and 7, which I consider rhetorical and/or impossible for anyone to answer, here they are.
1 - ... It would make sense for the city to conduct both an environmental impact study as well as an economic impact study to ensure the public health, safety, and economic success of the city. Will the city fufill its commitment to the health, safety, and quality of life to the residents of this area and commission these studies?
2 - The city stated that E85 would be responsible for the cost of any damages to a resident. In the event that an accident occurs, and the plant becomes inoperable, will E85 have the financial ability to pay for damages and costs incurred by residents? What will the procedure be and how long would it take to be compensated for damages? How would E85 and the City of Newark deal with potential litigation following an accident?
6 - Will the city develop a plan to ensure that residents do have a safe area to go to if an accident occurs?
9 - What would the city deem as a reason or reasons to not allow E85 to build the proposed ethanol plant?
10 - Several council members have stated that if they vote against the proposed zoning, the city would be open to litigation by not approving the zoning change. Will city council be able to vote based on the concerns and objections from residents and voters in Newark ...?
***The following questions come from the Performance Standards (Article 140) from the Newark City Zoning Code:***
11 - In reference to Odor (Articlel40.8): "No malodorous gas or matter shall be permitted which is discernible on any adjoining property, with the exception of appropriate use of agricultural fertilizer in an agricultural district." How can the city consider zoning for a polluting, odor causing industry adjacent to residential areas?
12 - In reference to Fire or Explosion (140.2): "Noise, which is objectionable, as determined as determined by Ordinance of the Newark City Council, due to volume,frequency, or beat shall be muffled, or otherwise controlled as to not affect adjoining and surrounding property." We have been told that the proposed ethanol plant will produce noise. What city ordinances are currently in force to control industrial noise? If none exist, is Newark City Council considering an ordinance to regulate the noise from the proposed plant that would be adjacent and very near heavily populated residential areas?
13 - In reference to Noise (140.5): "Any activity involving the use of flammable or explosive materials shall be protected by adequate fire-fighting and fire-suppression equipment and by such safety devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material." From the comments from the fire chief at the last public meeting, it would appear that the financial investment to purchase safety devices normally used in an ethanol related accident has not yet been made. What are the city's plans to purchase safety devices used to deal with an ethanol explosion, what will the cost be, and where will these funds come from?
14 - In reference to Smoke and Air Pollution, (140.7): "Any discharge into the air shall be controlled and regulated by any appropriate State and Federal rules and regulations, specifically including those promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agencies, and by City Ordinance." The current understanding is that E85 would monitor its own emissions, and that the EPA would not become involved until complaints were made by residents. What current city ordinances are in place to monitor emissions from polluting industry? If there are none, will the city council put an ordinance in place to control the pollution emitted by E85?
15 - What are the future steps including city meetings, permit applications, zoning, as well as answering the concerns of the public will the city take?
Representatives of that group, other interested persons, and city officials have met twice to deal with specific issues. CLEAN has followed up with an e-mail to the city, asking for written responses to 15 questions. Except for questions numbered 3, 4, 5, and 7, which I consider rhetorical and/or impossible for anyone to answer, here they are.
1 - ... It would make sense for the city to conduct both an environmental impact study as well as an economic impact study to ensure the public health, safety, and economic success of the city. Will the city fufill its commitment to the health, safety, and quality of life to the residents of this area and commission these studies?
2 - The city stated that E85 would be responsible for the cost of any damages to a resident. In the event that an accident occurs, and the plant becomes inoperable, will E85 have the financial ability to pay for damages and costs incurred by residents? What will the procedure be and how long would it take to be compensated for damages? How would E85 and the City of Newark deal with potential litigation following an accident?
6 - Will the city develop a plan to ensure that residents do have a safe area to go to if an accident occurs?
9 - What would the city deem as a reason or reasons to not allow E85 to build the proposed ethanol plant?
10 - Several council members have stated that if they vote against the proposed zoning, the city would be open to litigation by not approving the zoning change. Will city council be able to vote based on the concerns and objections from residents and voters in Newark ...?
***The following questions come from the Performance Standards (Article 140) from the Newark City Zoning Code:***
11 - In reference to Odor (Articlel40.8): "No malodorous gas or matter shall be permitted which is discernible on any adjoining property, with the exception of appropriate use of agricultural fertilizer in an agricultural district." How can the city consider zoning for a polluting, odor causing industry adjacent to residential areas?
12 - In reference to Fire or Explosion (140.2): "Noise, which is objectionable, as determined as determined by Ordinance of the Newark City Council, due to volume,frequency, or beat shall be muffled, or otherwise controlled as to not affect adjoining and surrounding property." We have been told that the proposed ethanol plant will produce noise. What city ordinances are currently in force to control industrial noise? If none exist, is Newark City Council considering an ordinance to regulate the noise from the proposed plant that would be adjacent and very near heavily populated residential areas?
13 - In reference to Noise (140.5): "Any activity involving the use of flammable or explosive materials shall be protected by adequate fire-fighting and fire-suppression equipment and by such safety devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material." From the comments from the fire chief at the last public meeting, it would appear that the financial investment to purchase safety devices normally used in an ethanol related accident has not yet been made. What are the city's plans to purchase safety devices used to deal with an ethanol explosion, what will the cost be, and where will these funds come from?
14 - In reference to Smoke and Air Pollution, (140.7): "Any discharge into the air shall be controlled and regulated by any appropriate State and Federal rules and regulations, specifically including those promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agencies, and by City Ordinance." The current understanding is that E85 would monitor its own emissions, and that the EPA would not become involved until complaints were made by residents. What current city ordinances are in place to monitor emissions from polluting industry? If there are none, will the city council put an ordinance in place to control the pollution emitted by E85?
15 - What are the future steps including city meetings, permit applications, zoning, as well as answering the concerns of the public will the city take?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Ethanol plant stink: "hopefully minimized for the most part"
In one of its essays meant to ease your mind about the proposed ethanol plant, WCLT interviewed someone they identified as "Mike Riggleman with the Ohio EPA." You know right away how this is going to turn out. Ohio EPA is the standard mouthpiece for government-approved industrial pollution.
Anyway Riggleman says: "Of course there will be emissions of criteria pollutants which are nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide."
Gee, sir, will this perhaps stink?
"They are going to be putting a lot of control equipment out there. Hopefully, the odor will be minimized greatly. We are running an odor model to make sure that as much as possible that the odor doesn't get past their property line for the most part."
Don't ya love it? Hopefully minimized as much as possible for the most part?
Anyway Riggleman says: "Of course there will be emissions of criteria pollutants which are nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide."
Gee, sir, will this perhaps stink?
"They are going to be putting a lot of control equipment out there. Hopefully, the odor will be minimized greatly. We are running an odor model to make sure that as much as possible that the odor doesn't get past their property line for the most part."
Don't ya love it? Hopefully minimized as much as possible for the most part?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
CLEAN news
CLEAN Coalition announced the publication of its website at www.thecleancoalition.com Check it out for news of their efforts to learn about the advantages and disadvantages that might be the result of constructing an ethanol factory in Newark. Upcoming meetings will be listed there.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The plight of county smokers vs. the plight of those who just breathe county air
As though further proof is needed, yesterday's Advocate page-one report on the plight of smoking county employees proves again that we live in a society gone mad. Let us count the ways ...
... anyone who would deliberately suck into their lungs any quantity of tar, ammonia, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and about 4,000 (really!) other ingredients, most or all of them unhealthful, has gone mad.
... anyone who would pay $4.45 for a pack of killer cigarettes (Ohio average) has gone mad, especially when you can roll your own for a lot less.
... anti-smokers who are so artificially touchy about the tiniest waft of cigarette smoke in their presence have gone mad.
... voters who passed the state smoking ban in public places, making them now only partially public, have gone mad.
... smokers who didn't do anything much to preserve their freedoms before that election proved themselves to have gone mad.
... health "gurus" such as as Joe Ebel, county health commissioner, and County Commissioner Doug Smith, who continue to do a war dance over miniscule amounts of second-hand smoke, while continuing to ignore the colossal dump that Fiberglas takes on Licking County 24/7, have gone mad.
... Advocate reporters and managers, who think the plight of a few county employees without a smoking haven and the reaction to this plight by gone-mad health "gurus" - and not Fiberglas pollution - merits a page-one report, have gone mad.
... anyone who would deliberately suck into their lungs any quantity of tar, ammonia, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and about 4,000 (really!) other ingredients, most or all of them unhealthful, has gone mad.
... anyone who would pay $4.45 for a pack of killer cigarettes (Ohio average) has gone mad, especially when you can roll your own for a lot less.
... anti-smokers who are so artificially touchy about the tiniest waft of cigarette smoke in their presence have gone mad.
... voters who passed the state smoking ban in public places, making them now only partially public, have gone mad.
... smokers who didn't do anything much to preserve their freedoms before that election proved themselves to have gone mad.
... health "gurus" such as as Joe Ebel, county health commissioner, and County Commissioner Doug Smith, who continue to do a war dance over miniscule amounts of second-hand smoke, while continuing to ignore the colossal dump that Fiberglas takes on Licking County 24/7, have gone mad.
... Advocate reporters and managers, who think the plight of a few county employees without a smoking haven and the reaction to this plight by gone-mad health "gurus" - and not Fiberglas pollution - merits a page-one report, have gone mad.
Monday, January 29, 2007
CLEAN presses on, wants task force
I posted here on January 21, 2007 a pat on the back to organization called CLEAN for its willingness to get real answers to their questions regarding any disadvantages there might be in having as a neighbor a plant in Newark that manufactures ethanol.
Citizen Leaders for Environmental Advocacy in our Neighborhoods - or CLEAN - has taken the position that "the proposed site is too close to residential areas, the hospital, our schools, colleges, parks, and local businesses. Our concerns include pollution, noise, odor, increased truck and train traffic, emergency response, property values, and water safety, water usage, and the long term economic prosperity of this area. The City of Newark needs to be held accountable for all of these concerns regarding the proposed ethanol plant and begin the process of looking at an alternative site."
You can get information from them directly about their agenda, which includes setting up an official task force to research the proposed ethanol plant in Newark. E-mail them at cleancoalition@yahoo.com
Citizen Leaders for Environmental Advocacy in our Neighborhoods - or CLEAN - has taken the position that "the proposed site is too close to residential areas, the hospital, our schools, colleges, parks, and local businesses. Our concerns include pollution, noise, odor, increased truck and train traffic, emergency response, property values, and water safety, water usage, and the long term economic prosperity of this area. The City of Newark needs to be held accountable for all of these concerns regarding the proposed ethanol plant and begin the process of looking at an alternative site."
You can get information from them directly about their agenda, which includes setting up an official task force to research the proposed ethanol plant in Newark. E-mail them at cleancoalition@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
