|
|
  |
Welcome to www.dante7.com. The personal web site of Dante Picciano and friends.
VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS AND BRING IN THE LAWYERS
August 2, 2007 We have been fighting the dumping of contaminated, hazardous and toxic substances in Pennsylvania, especially Schuylkill County, for several years and have arrived at the conclusion that the only way to stop the dumping is to vote out all incumbent federal and state senators and representatives and to bring in the lawyers to sue the dumpers for the harm that they have done and are doing to us. We have tried to work with the federal and state agencies but have concluded that that is an exercise in futility. The U.S. Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly have passed laws to make contaminated, hazardous and toxic wastes "beneficial" and therefore not subject to regulations for the proper disposal. The dumping industries, through their lobbyists, wrote the laws and our senators and representatives made them into law. With a stroke of the pen, hazardous substances are no longer considered hazardous! In return for passing these laws, the federal and state senators and representatives have received enormous campaign contributions from the lobbyists and dumpers. The following websites are examples showing the money trail from the dumping industries to our elected officials: Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are failures in their efforts to protect us from the dangers of toxic exposures but they are not to blame. The EPA and the DEP are government-created agencies and are just carrying out the marching orders that they receive from the U.S. Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly, respectively. The EPA and the DEP do what the legislators tell them to do and the dumpers and their lobbyists tell the legislators what to do. We need to change this culture of deception and corruption. We need to elect federal and state senators and representatives who represent their constituents and not the dumping industries. Our present senators and representatives are the ones who enacted the laws to protect the polluters. If you want to stop the dumping, you have to vote out the incumbents. Enough is enough. This is only half of the solution. We also have to bring in the lawyers to sue the dumpers and polluters for the damages that they have done and are continuing to do to us. If we get enough lawsuits and eventual judgments against the dumpers and polluters, the dumping will stop. We need to sue for the cancers, birth defects, multiple sclerosis (MS) and other adverse health effects caused by the indiscriminate and continuing dumping of sewage sludge, fly ash, cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, contaminated construction and demolition waste, river sludge, harbor sludge, etc. The list of contaminated, hazardous and toxic substances shows that we have been and are being exposed to a "toxic soup." Such a toxic soup has caused problems for lawyers trying to prove that chemicals have caused adverse health effects to exposed people. At present, lawyers have to prove that a specific chemical causes a specific disease. For example, lawyers are able to sue polluters when they can show that benzene causes leukemia or that asbestos causes mesothelioma or that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Even with these limitations, we are moving closer to showing that specific chemicals are the cause of specific diseases to exposed people in our communities. As you may know, we have the major health problem with polycythemia vera, a rare bone marrow cancer. A recent newspaper article reported that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Resources, is completing a study on the incidence of polycythemia vera in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties showing an almost quadrupling of the incidence of this cancer. We have a specific cancer and we are moving closer to showing a specific chemical exposure as the cause of this disease. When the connection is shown, the lawyers will come a knocking. Also, the times they are a changing. Now, we are learning that specific chemicals cause more than one specific disease. We are learning that cigarette smoke causes more than lung cancer in smokers. If we look long and hard at cigarette smokers, we see significant increases in many cancers, not just lung cancer. Furthermore, we are seeing increases in many diseases in the people in New York City exposed to the toxic soup resulting from the collapse of the Trade Center on 9/11. Should these people not be compensated because they cannot show which of the hundreds of chemicals in the toxic soup to which they were exposed caused their specific health problems? The lawyers in New York will be arguing that the burden of proof should not be on the victims to prove which of the chemicals caused their specific health problems but should be on the polluters to prove that their chemical did not cause the specific health problems. Likewise, the people in this area will be able to sue the makers of the toxic soup to which we are exposed and the burden of proof will be on the polluters to prove that their chemicals were not the cause of our health problems. When this happens, the lawyers will come a knockin. In summary, we shouldn’t be wasting our time fighting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Instead, we must vote out the incumbents and bring in the lawyers. COMMENT: You certainly hit the nail on the head with this one. When I went to Democracy School several years ago, I came away with this exact feeling - that we are the pawns of industry (especially those that produce toxic waste through their processes) and our elected officials are their bitches. Our tax dollars, in turn, pay the electeds to do the work of industry/polluters, so they (polluters) essentially get their work done by us (free for them) and to us (thanks for the poisons). I wish they taught history the real way in schools so kids would learn that our Constitution has been misinterpreted by corporate America to give them human rights. I guess with the current Supreme Court we have no hope of taking away corporate civil rights, so it has to be done at the local level. I want Tom Linzey to run for President. [Tom LInzey is the Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund: www.celdf.org]. Keep up the good work!! VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS AND BRING IN THE LAWYERS
August 2, 2007 We have been fighting the dumping of contaminated, hazardous and toxic substances in Pennsylvania, especially Schuylkill County, for several years and have arrived at the conclusion that the only way to stop the dumping is to vote out all incumbent federal and state senators and representatives and to bring in the lawyers to sue the dumpers for the harm that they have done and are doing to us. We have tried to work with the federal and state agencies but have concluded that that is an exercise in futility. The U.S. Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly have passed laws to make contaminated, hazardous and toxic wastes "beneficial" and therefore not subject to regulations for the proper disposal. The dumping industries, through their lobbyists, wrote the laws and our senators and representatives made them into law. With a stroke of the pen, hazardous substances are no longer considered hazardous! In return for passing these laws, the federal and state senators and representatives have received enormous campaign contributions from the lobbyists and dumpers. The following websites are examples showing the money trail from the dumping industries to our elected officials: Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are failures in their efforts to protect us from the dangers of toxic exposures but they are not to blame. The EPA and the DEP are government-created agencies and are just carrying out the marching orders that they receive from the U.S. Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly, respectively. The EPA and the DEP do what the legislators tell them to do and the dumpers and their lobbyists tell the legislators what to do. We need to change this culture of deception and corruption. We need to elect federal and state senators and representatives who represent their constituents and not the dumping industries. Our present senators and representatives are the ones who enacted the laws to protect the polluters. If you want to stop the dumping, you have to vote out the incumbents. Enough is enough. This is only half of the solution. We also have to bring in the lawyers to sue the dumpers and polluters for the damages that they have done and are continuing to do to us. If we get enough lawsuits and eventual judgments against the dumpers and polluters, the dumping will stop. We need to sue for the cancers, birth defects, multiple sclerosis (MS) and other adverse health effects caused by the indiscriminate and continuing dumping of sewage sludge, fly ash, cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, contaminated construction and demolition waste, river sludge, harbor sludge, etc. The list of contaminated, hazardous and toxic substances shows that we have been and are being exposed to a "toxic soup." Such a toxic soup has caused problems for lawyers trying to prove that chemicals have caused adverse health effects to exposed people. At present, lawyers have to prove that a specific chemical causes a specific disease. For example, lawyers are able to sue polluters when they can show that benzene causes leukemia or that asbestos causes mesothelioma or that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Even with these limitations, we are moving closer to showing that specific chemicals are the cause of specific diseases to exposed people in our communities. As you may know, we have the major health problem with polycythemia vera, a rare bone marrow cancer. A recent newspaper article reported that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Resources, is completing a study on the incidence of polycythemia vera in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties showing an almost quadrupling of the incidence of this cancer. We have a specific cancer and we are moving closer to showing a specific chemical exposure as the cause of this disease. When the connection is shown, the lawyers will come a knocking. Also, the times they are a changing. Now, we are learning that specific chemicals cause more than one specific disease. We are learning that cigarette smoke causes more than lung cancer in smokers. If we look long and hard at cigarette smokers, we see significant increases in many cancers, not just lung cancer. Furthermore, we are seeing increases in many diseases in the people in New York City exposed to the toxic soup resulting from the collapse of the Trade Center on 9/11. Should these people not be compensated because they cannot show which of the hundreds of chemicals in the toxic soup to which they were exposed caused their specific health problems? The lawyers in New York will be arguing that the burden of proof should not be on the victims to prove which of the chemicals caused their specific health problems but should be on the polluters to prove that their chemical did not cause the specific health problems. Likewise, the people in this area will be able to sue the makers of the toxic soup to which we are exposed and the burden of proof will be on the polluters to prove that their chemicals were not the cause of our health problems. When this happens, the lawyers will come a knockin. In summary, we shouldn’t be wasting our time fighting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Instead, we must vote out the incumbents and bring in the lawyers. COMMENT: You certainly hit the nail on the head with this one. When I went to Democracy School several years ago, I came away with this exact feeling - that we are the pawns of industry (especially those that produce toxic waste through their processes) and our elected officials are their bitches. Our tax dollars, in turn, pay the electeds to do the work of industry/polluters, so they (polluters) essentially get their work done by us (free for them) and to us (thanks for the poisons). I wish they taught history the real way in schools so kids would learn that our Constitution has been misinterpreted by corporate America to give them human rights. I guess with the current Supreme Court we have no hope of taking away corporate civil rights, so it has to be done at the local level. I want Tom Linzey to run for President. [Tom LInzey is the Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund: www.celdf.org]. Keep up the good work!! August 10, 2007 The State of Delaware has confirmed a link between a coal-burning plant and an increase in cancer among exposed residents. The Delaware News Journal reports that years after citizen activists first asked the state to investigate the problem, the Delaware Division of Public Health has finally confirmed what the activists suspected: There’s a cluster of cancer cases near a coal-burning plant, the state’s worst polluter http://www.delawareonline.com The coal-burning plant is NRG Energy Inc.’s Indian River complex and is located in Millsboro, Delaware. The study was conducted by examining the cancer cases in a six ZIP code area around the plant. The areas examined were Dagsboro, Frankford, Georgetown, Millsboro, Ocean View and Selbyville. The Division of Public Health study showed an incidence of 553.9 cancer cases per 100,000 residents of this area between 2000 and 2004 compared with the Delaware state rate of 501.3 and the U.S. rate of 473.6 cancer cases per 100,000 residents. Thus, this study confirmed that the rate of cancer cases in this area is 17 percent higher than the national average. According to the U.S. Environmental Protect Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory http://www.epa.gov, coal-burning power plants in Delaware release large amounts of toxic hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, along with lead, nickel and mercury compounds and other chemicals that may cause cancer or linger in human tissues or the environment. No government study would be complete without a qualification blaming the exposed people. The Delaware study is no exception. In the study, the highest incidence of cancer among the exposed residents was lung cancer, which accounted for 19.5 percent of the cases. The Division of Public Health said that it is not sure whether the higher incidence of lung cancer could have been caused by tobacco or by people having moved into the area from a different environment. The report also said that new state rules intended to reduce emissions "are a major step forward in providing a clean environment." With this, we agree. Does any of this sound familiar? As you may know, citizen activists first uncovered an unusual cluster of polycythemia vera cases along the Ben Titus Road in the Still Creek area of Rush Township. Polycythemia vera is a rare bone marrow cancer. Two cancer studies by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) left the affected residents with little information of significance about the rates of cancer in the area or the cause of the polycythemia vera. The PA DOH attributed any increases in the incidences of cancer that did appear in its two studies to life style, specifically smoking and diet. The PA DOH was partially correct. The increases can be attributed to life style but in these studies the life style relates to living in an area contaminated with imported hazardous wastes and to being exposed to a toxic chemical soup. A reporter, Sue Sturgis, from North Carolina has reviewed the PA DOH’s data of reported cases of polycythemia vera by county for the years 2001 through 2003 and suggests a possible association between polycythemia vera and power plants that burn waste coal www.hometownhazards.com. It is amazing to us that a reporter from North Carolina has done more investigating into the basis of our problems than the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Finally, a recent article reported that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the federal Department of Health and Human Resources, is completing a study on the incidence of polycythemia vera in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties. The article reported that the ATSDR has found an almost quadrupling of the incidence of polycythemia vera in the area. The primary purpose of all government is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. When will our government begin to protect our health, safety and welfare from the toxic emissions of coal-fired power plants? We are not asking that these plants be shut down but we are asking that our legislators stop giving these toxin-emitting plants licenses to pollute. We are demanding that they be operated in a manner that reduces the risks of toxic emissions for the people living near these plants. *We thank Jill McElheney of the Ministry to Improve Child and Adolescent Health (MICAH’s Mission: Micahmission@aol.com), P.O. Box 275, Winterville, GA 30683, for calling our attention to the study by the Delaware Division of Public Health. BARLETTA ANALYSIS
August 17, 2007 We recently read an article that some leaders of the Republican Party are courting Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta to run for the U.S. Congress or Governor of Pennsylvania. The story indicated that some leaders thought that the immigration issue and his success as mayor make him an unusually attractive candidate. Let’s take a closer look at his record. First, let’s look at Lou Barletta’s success as mayor. Our immediate reaction was to ask whether these leaders have ever been to Hazleton. The city is a mess. The crime rate is out of sight. In the past few weeks, there were two additional murders and several random shootings. Police are seldom seen on foot patrol and it’s not safe to walk the streets. The city is replete with empty stores and buildings. Contaminated river sludge is being dumped in the city and the streets are in a state of disrepair. In short, this once proud city is now decaying and badly in need of help. How does the deterioration of Hazleton qualify its mayor to run for higher office? We don’t know. In all fairness, we cannot hold the mayor responsible for all of Hazleton’s problems but he has done little, if anything, to stop or slow down the city’s continuing decay during his term in office. In fact, we believe that the deterioration has accelerated during his term. Now, let’s look at the immigration issue. We should first note that Lou Barletta was a major proponent of bringing immigrants to Hazleton. A few years ago, he was on television bragging that while many cities in Pennsylvania were losing population, Hazleton was one of the fastest growing cities in the state. He credited this growth to the influx of immigrants. Then, Lou changed his tune. He discovered that the people of Hazleton were opposed to this influx of immigrants so he blamed all of the city’s problems on illegal immigrants. He promoted an anti-illegal immigration ordinance that got him national attention. From the beginning, the ordinance had a snowball’s chance in hell of being declared constitutional in a federal court. Thus, it came as no surprise to anyone with a minimal knowledge of the law when the ordinance was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Does the mayor have any legal advisors? It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to enact laws that regulate immigration. What a responsible mayor would have done was to pressure the members of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to better protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The city is now burdened with major legal fees for its frivolous ordinance. In spite of this, the mayor has indicated that the city will appeal the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. The ordinance will continue to be declared unconstitutional by the appellate courts and the legal fees will continue to mount. As a result, the residents of Hazleton will probably see an increase in their property taxes to pay the legal fees. However, Lou Barletta will still have the soapbox and the national attention that goes with it and his political career will be advanced at the cost of the City of Hazleton. POINTING THE ATSDR IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
August 24, 2007 Polycythemia vera is a rare bone marrow cancer occurring with a frequency of between one in 100,000 and one in 200,000 people per year. In 2004, the Carbon County Groundwater Guardians reported an unusual cluster of polycythemia vera cases in people living on Ben Titus Road, along the Still Creek Reservoir in Rush Township. Since then, there have been three studies in this area of cancer rates and polycythemia vera by government agencies. The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) conducted two of the studies and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the federal Department of Health and Human Resources, conducted the other study. The two cancer studies by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) left the affected residents with little information of significance about the rates of cancer in the area or the cause of the polycythemia vera. A recent newspaper article reported that the ATSDR is completing its study on the incidence of polycythemia vera in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties and that the agency has found an almost quadrupling of the incidence of this cancer in the area. The ATSDR is expected to present its results to the public at the end of September. Assuming that the recent newspaper article is correct, and we see no reason why it should not be correct, we would expect the ATSDR to announce that there is a dramatic increase in the incidence of polycythemia vera in this area. The next step will be to discover what is causing this unusually high incidence of this rare cancer in our communities. Before, the ATSDR attempts to address the causes or causes, we would like to help point the agency in the right direction. First, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory, the top polluters in Schuylkill County in 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available) were five coal-burning plants. Together, these five plants released 2,219,827 pounds of pollutants into the environment or 85.7 percent of all reported releases in Schuylkill County for 2005. The releases included arsenic, barium, chromium, dioxins, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury and other chemicals that may cause cancer or linger in human tissues or the environment. Second, the State of Delaware has confirmed a link between a coal-burning plant and an increase in cancer among exposed residents. The Delaware News Journal reported that years after citizen activists first asked the state to investigate the problem, the Delaware Division of Public Health has finally confirmed what the activists suspected: There’s a cluster of cancer cases near a coal-burning plant, the state’s worst polluter. The study confirmed that the rate of cancer cases in the area around the plant is 17 percent higher than the national average (see Delaware confirms coal plant – cancer cluster link, www.dante7.com). Third, a reporter, Sue Sturgis, from North Carolina has reviewed the PA DOH’s data of reported cases of polycythemia vera by county for the years 2001 through 2003 and suggests a possible association between polycythemia vera and power plants that burn waste coal (see Cancer researcher confirms possible link between polycythemia, waste-fuel-burning power plants, www.hometownhazards.com). In a mystery novel, Sherlock Holmes once said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." We are hoping that this letter will prevent obvious facts from being deceptive for the ATSDR. PLANTS’ CLEANUP MAY CREATE SIDE-EFFECT
August 27, 2007 By ANNA JO BRATTON As the nation's coal-fired power plants work to create cleaner skies, they'll likely fill up landfills with millions more tons of potentially harmful ash. More than one-third of the ash generated at the country's hundreds of coal-fired plants is now recycled -- mixed with cement to build highways or used to stabilize embankments, among other things. But in a process being used increasingly across the nation, chemicals are injected into plants' emissions to capture airborne pollutants. That, in turn, changes the composition of the ash and cuts its usefulness. It can't be used in cement, for example, because the interaction of the chemicals may keep the concrete from hardening. That ash has to go somewhere -- so it usually ends up in landfills, along with the rest of the unusable waste. "You're replacing an air problem with a land problem -- a disposal problem," said Bruce Dockter, a research engineer with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. Coal ash naturally contains arsenic and mercury, and if the elements leach into groundwater they can contaminate drinking supplies. The EPA says ash disposed of in landfills could pose significant risks when mismanaged, and there are gaps in state regulation. And the chemicals added to clean up emissions -- such as ammonia, lime and calcium hydroxide -- make the ash worse, environmental groups say, because they take toxins such as mercury out of the air but leave higher levels of it in the ash. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn't classify coal ash -- with or without the added chemicals -- as a hazardous waste, although many environmental groups say it should. "As a general rule, anything you do to make the air emissions cleaner makes the ash more toxic," said Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. More than 120 million tons of ash and other leftovers come from coal combustion each year in the United States, and more than 46 million tons are reused, according to the American Coal Ash Association. Environmental groups encourage reuse of the ash because it keeps most of the waste out of landfills. And substituting ash for cement means less mining for the materials typically used to make cement -- consequently causing a drop in the amount of carbon dioxide that would be emitted by mining machinery. But the EPA is pushing power companies to cut emissions of the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which add to smog and acid rain and contribute to thousands of premature deaths, asthma and other respiratory ailments. A large portion of those emissions come from coal plants, the EPA says. "If you live near a power plant, you want the cleanest air possible," said Dave Goss, executive director of the American Coal Ash Association. "If in exchange for clean air they have to dispose of material -- that's the challenge. The only option may be putting it in a landfill." It's not clear how many plants already using or will use the new technology or how much ash may be affected, but the technique is becoming widespread as companies work to comply with federal guidelines, Goss said. The issue was raised as the EPA developed air emissions rules, but the power sector has found ways to minimize the impact, said EPA spokesman John Millett, who said the agency doesn't believe the increased injection of the chemicals into ash will cause a significant drop-off in ash recycling. But the effects are evident in Nebraska, for example, where the Omaha Public Power District sells about 135,000 tons of ash from its current plant near Nebraska City every year. Ash from a new plant being built nearby will be injected with chemicals to clean emissions, and it will be dumped in a 16-acre landfill to be built onsite at a cost of $2.7 million, said Mike Jones, a spokesman for the utility. "You've got to do something with it," Jones said. "This was the best option." The landfill will fill up in about five years and likely have to be expanded. Xcel Energy Inc. will use the injection equipment on a new plant near Pueblo, Colo., and also will install the equipment on two existing units there. The ash will be dumped in a 250-acre onsite landfill. But even if there is a drop in recycling, the trade-off might be worth it. "The benefits of the additional (emission) reductions from these controls is immense," Millett said. In Nebraska, the dump sites are closely regulated, said Bill Gidley, a section supervisor with the state's Department of Environmental Quality. Landfills must have liners to collect seepage, and they are inspected every year. This month, the Maryland Department of the Environment ordered the operator of an 80-acre Anne Arundel County coal ash dump to clean contaminated water detected near the site. Cancer-causing metals were discovered last fall in almost two dozen wells in the area. BBSS Inc. also was fined an undisclosed amount. In a 2000 report, the EPA promised to re-evaluate the potential risks of coal ash and is developing regulations for disposal of coal byproducts in landfills, spokeswoman Roxanne Smith said. There are ways to remove the pollutants from emissions without making the ash unusable. But that equipment can be up to four times more expensive, adding millions of dollars to the cost of meeting EPA guidelines, Goss said. "The utility's primary goal is to provide cheap, dependable electricity for you, the consumer, connected to the grid," he said. "In order to do that and maintain compliance, sometimes the only thing they can do is make the ash unusable." August 30, 2007 More garbage is being dumped in Schuylkill County but this time it is coming from within the county. On August 30th, the Pottsville Republican-Herald ran an editorial entitled "Delay on coal-to-oil approval an outrage" www.republicanherald.com. The first line of the editorial indicates that there is only one word for the fact that companies aren’t producing oil from coal right now – inexcusable. After reading this puff piece, we have come to one conclusion: there is only one word for the writer of this editorial – irresponsible. The writer states that it is taking too long for the government to provide a loan guarantee for the project. However, he fails to mention the size of the loan. The writer doesn’t understand why a private company has to wait so long for the government to provide corporate welfare subsidies to finance such a questionable project. In a free enterprise system, the financing would come from private investors and not from government loan guarantees. The free market should be allowed to dictate practicable solutions, not government subsidies for politically connected companies for inefficient or unproven technologies. The writer also states that it is taking too long for the government to review the environmental impact statement. Forget the environmental laws and regulations. Just issue the permit to build the plant. Incredible naiveté! The writer also states that fossil fuel production isn’t nearly as potentially dangerous or complex as nuclear power. This is a highly debatable subject -- just ask the coal miners and their families involved with the recent mine cave-in accident in Utah, not to mention, toxic emissions, acid rain, etc. Is this incredible naiveté or intentional deceit? You should know that on June 10, 2007, the Associated Press reported that China is considering halting efforts to make oil from coal because of concerns about cost and energy efficiency www.iht.com. The story also indicated that scientists expressed concerns about the release of greenhouse gases and pollutants created during production. Apparently, there is another side to the coal-to-oil story that was not mentioned in the editorial. A newspaper has a minimal responsibility to at least attempt to provide the public with accurate information. The editorial in question shows an almost complete lack of research or understanding of the subject matter. In short, the editorial should never have been published. Again, there is only one word for the writer of this editorial – irresponsible. |