Comments on: Why Data About Data Matters

By: Dana Brown

Dana Brown — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:29:23 +0000

“I appreciate the irony of your conveinient manipulation of the “additional cancer risk” stat with respect to the blogs actual topic. ”

Not my stats, those are from EPA, not my manipulation.

Additionally, the environmental impacts and the GAO aghrees with my take on the cleanup. I guess you did not read the link, they are throwning asbestos in a commercial grinder.

Why is there no outrage?

By: M. Borman

M. Borman — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:08:15 +0000

Thanks for posting the link. I appreciate the irony of your conveinient manipulation of the “additional cancer risk” stat with respect to the blogs actual topic.

I am by no means an EPA apologist and overall I feel that the Agency has taken a step backwards in recent years. However, hurricane Katrina is an extrodinary situation that at the very least requires evaluation of unconventional/”outside-the-box” approaches, whether or not they are adopted. This region will not be well served by more rigid buracracy that prolong this complex process…

By: Dana Brown

Dana Brown — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:25:53 +0000

Forgot the link…. (I can’t believe they actually put this in print)
here it is:

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6xa/burn_and_grind_pilot.htm

Same people involved as the AACM “research”

Cadmus, Inc.
The Louis Berger Group
EEG
EPA Region 6

Why are these people getting funded over and over again for dubious research?

By: Dana Brown

Dana Brown — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:23:41 +0000

YEs, data does matter, however the EPA ORD are doing “research” on BURNING and GRINDING asbestos containing houses in St. Bernard’s Parish in Lousiana. Their data claim is that this is no worse than a “1 in 1,000,000,000″ excess cancer risk, ignoring the fact that in the United States the asbestos cancer risk is already in the 1 in 10,000 level, and not with “Alternative Processes”. (Ignoring the issue of asbestosis deaths, lead poisoning cases, and the Lung and Meslthelioma undercount of incidence.)

This is the exact same crowd involved with the controversial “Alternative Asbestos Control Method” that uses “air sampling data” collected at non-detect levels to establish “Statistical equivelancy” to traditional and REQUIRED NESHAP practices. Additinally, this “research” is only aimed at the asbestos issue, but puttting a pre-1978 house in a grinder will make the Lead Based Paint pulverized and highly likely to “methylize” and become mobile in soil chemistry in acidid or akaline soils.

Here is the entire startling fiasco. This is clearly why EPA is looked at as a goofy agancy. All this BS about “Greenservations”, riding a bicycle to work, ad naeseun, but ignoring the reality that if applied to the 260,000 house in NO Area, and 4 to a house, a rate of 1 in 10,000 increased risk of cancer results in 104 cancers. Asbestos cancers cost about $1,00,000 per case for Mesothelioma and Lung Caner. This study ignores the asbestosis and lead poisoning effects as well.

Simply put, is EPA off it’s collective rocker? Promoting the changing to CFLs, and biking to work, but ignoring real and immediate public health risks? IS this sound Public Health and Environmental Protection Policy???

Expediency to “rebuild New Orleans” is not a good thing if it results in elevated cases of lead poisoning and asbestos related diseases and deaths. Those costs are regularly ignored by the EPA ORD. Remember this is the group in the “National Risk Management Research Laboratory”. IT seems as if their strategy to “manage risk” with asbestos is to ignore the costs, and trends with the diseases!

WAKE UP EPA, for God’s sake!