Rick Casey's column in the Houston Chronicle today (Dallas, Fort Worth: school, to live in)

[Blawp]

I have read it, and it is interesting. He cites a study that links school absenteeism to elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the air, which actually makes a good point why there should be better regulation of air pollution, because a healthy, educated populace is more likely to engage in consumerism and productive activities.

It would be great if the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would take this study seriously, but I fear they will not take the short-term risk of a slight economic impact due to revamps to decrease emissions for the long-term gain in health and education.

[jfre81]

Got a link?

If I had to base it solely on your description I'd think Mr. Casey huffed too many diesel fumes. But I'd be willing to read.

[Blawp]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/6829510.html

[Kenpar]

I don't think I even want to get in on this one.

But, I will watch.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by Blawp

I have read it, and it is interesting. He cites a study that links school absenteeism to elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the air, which actually makes a good point why there should be better regulation of air pollution, because a healthy, educated populace is more likely to engage in consumerism and productive activities.

It would be great if the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would take this study seriously, but I fear they will not take the short-term risk of a slight economic impact due to revamps to decrease emissions for the long-term gain in health and education.

Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head and says, "You must live next to the refinery." Houston is huge. You can live far, far away from industry if you want to. It's a shame that the left has become too alarmist with this issue. I mean, really, how can cleaner air be a hard sell? We can't work together to make it economically feasible? At this point, sadly we can't. There's the extreme view on the right and the left and nothing in between.

[Blawp]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head and says, "You must live next to the refinery." Houston is huge. You can live far, far away from industry if you want to. It's a shame that the left has become too alarmist with this issue. I mean, really, how can cleaner air be a hard sell? We can't work together to make it economically feasible? At this point, sadly we can't. There's the extreme view on the right and the left and nothing in between.

You don't know anything about benzene emissions, do you? Even in Katy they're exceeding federal requirements.

[hsw]

Any engineer or financier knows everything has a cost; every reward entails risks; and nothing is "risk free"

Pollution and traffic-free places are usually also job-free and have no viable economy...

Plenty of pollution around any major city in US (or RoW); and rural areas have own issues w/pesticides and other pollution; but suspect air quality is a hell of a lot better in LA (or any other major US city) today than 30+ yrs ago, despite millions more cars and people

Those with money anywhere usually pay more to live in parts of town away from industrial stuff, crime, poverty and pollution (and major fwys, shopping malls and airports)....same game in TX or NYC or CA

[Malvie]

Originally Posted by Blawp

I have read it, and it is interesting. He cites a study that links school absenteeism to elevated levels of carbon monoxide in the air, which actually makes a good point why there should be better regulation of air pollution, because a healthy, educated populace is more likely to engage in consumerism and productive activities.

It would be great if the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would take this study seriously, but I fear they will not take the short-term risk of a slight economic impact due to revamps to decrease emissions for the long-term gain in health and education.

Hmmm.

Source: Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Short-Term Particle Pollution:

1) Pittsburgh, Pa.
2) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif.
3) Fresno/Madera, Calif.
4) Bakersfield, Calif.
5) Birmingham, Ala.
6) Logan, Utah
7) Salt Lake City, Utah
8) Sacramento, Calif.
9) Detroit, Mich.
10) Baltimore, Md./Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia.

Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution:

1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif.
2) Pittsburgh, Pa.
3) Bakersfield, Calif.
4) Birmingham, Ala.
5) Visalia/Porterville, Calif.
6) Atlanta, Ga.
7) Cincinnati, Ohio
8) Fresno/Madera, Calif.
9) Hanford/Corcoran, Calif.
10) Detroit, Mich.

Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Ozone:

1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif.
2) Bakersfield, Calif.
3) Visalia/Porterville, Calif.
4) Houston, Texas
5) Fresno/Madera, Calif.
6) Sacramento, Calif.
7) Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
8) New York, N.Y./Newark, N.J.
9) Baltimore, Md./Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia
10) Baton Rouge, La.

(source: weather.com)


Gee, looks to me like California would want to do something about their air pollution problem, because "a healthy, educated populace is more likely to engage in consumerism and productive activities" and might spend them out of their economic doldrums........

And in THIS ranking, "Smartest States", Cali came in at #45, while stupid old Texas came in at #25.

Gee, maybe you should dumb Texas down a bit and take your smartness back to California. I'm sure they need another engineer.....

[Blawp]

California is a victim of its geography, as it causes inversions. A flat area like Houston has no excuse.

[Poltracker]

Originally Posted by Blawp

You don't know anything about benzene emissions, do you? Even in Katy they're exceeding federal requirements.

Since when? Where is your source to prove this? I do not think you are correct in this statement.