|
|
Sunday, January 30
LOOPHOLES IN IOWA POLLUTION LAWS by Molly Regan
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 30 Jan 2005 12:24 PM CST
 LOOPHOLES IN IOWA POLLUTION LAWS
by Molly Regan
Loopholes…Loopholes…Loopholes. Bad little areas of the law that just happen to allow all kinds of things to slip through. ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT
released a report saying: “At least 29 states have loopholes in
their laws that allow “accidental” pollution emissions to exceed
federal CLEAN AIR ACT limits, while many other states simply choose not
to take enforcement against industrial facilities for such emissions”
that include BENZENE, BUTADIENE and other CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICALS.
IOWA is one of those 29 states.
OIL
REFINERIES are some of the culprits. Is there a refinery near
you? Do you drive by one on the way to work? One woman who
lives in Ohio close to one stated for the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
PROJECT: “I used to work across the street from a Sunoco
refinery. I now have HEART ARRHYTHMIA and CHEMICAL
SENSITIVITY. We found nine people in a two-block area around the
refinery with MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS. Something is obviously
wrong. We know emissions from the refinery are affecting our
health, but we can’t even get basic information from the state about
what is being emitted. We’re at least entitled to know what we’re
breathing”.
The
great work that the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT has taken on
was started in 2002 by Eric Schaeffer. He had previously been
with the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY as part of their OFFICE OF
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT. “He resigned after publicly expressing his
frustration with efforts of the Bush administration to weaken
enforcement of the CLEAR AIR ACT and other laws”….KUDOS TO YOU, ERIC
SCHAEFFER!
This
non-partisan, non-profit organization’s August 2004 report goes on to
indicate that according to a woman in Texas who lives near an
industrial area: "HEART DEFECTS IN BABIES in our area occur at TWO TO
SIX TIMES THE STATE REGISTRY RATE”. Her grandbaby was born with a
heart defect, and when she sees the pollution she asks, “ How is this
affecting my family’s health? How is this affecting my
community? How sick must we be before someone pays attention?”
Another
woman in California admits: “You can sometimes smell a terrible odor
and feel a nasty taste in your mouth, but I’m just as concerned at all
the things I can’t see that I know are occurring on a daily basis!”
For further information on this report and to view their RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION, go to:
environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm to see the press release from AUGUST 18, 2004.
So,
“What now?” you may ask. To be sure, the first thing that would
really show you are serious about making an impact, is to make a change
in your behavior. For example, sit down and make a list of ways
to CUT DOWN ON PETROLEUM PRODUCT USE. This may be a very long
list, because you may be unaware of the extensive use that these
products play in our lives.
That
case holding your computer innards in one place is probably plastic
(Petroleum Based), the oil keeping your vehicle lubed is Petroleum
Based, your glasses sitting on your nose may be, that new lawn set
you’ll look at in a catalogue soon, and even the little ball bearings
making your child’s newest toy so much fun may all be Petroleum Based.
So where does a person go to find products that are less dangerous to create? One place to start is www.patagonia.com to find much information about becoming a more BENEVOLENT, LESS POLLUTION-CONTRIBUTING CONSUMER.
Another
suggestion to help clean up the air, is to report any sightings of an
industry spewing colorful, toxic smelling agents into our air. We
all should seriously change how we get from place to place, too, as
well as share that new-found information with others. It could
not only save you some money and possibly make you new friends, but may
also save lungs and hearts and lives.
Let us not forget to CPR…CONSERVE/PARTICIPATE/RECYCLE
Saturday, January 29
Cold-hearted, Divisive Iowa State Senators Introduce Gay Marriage Ban
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 29 Jan 2005 05:21 PM CST
 Cold-hearted, Divisive Iowa State Senators Introduce Gay Marriage Ban
by Christina Butts
The new
legislative session has barely started and the remnant religious
far-right in the Iowa State Senate wants to begin divisive political
tactics instead of working for the future of the state. These tactics
are keeping Iowa from becoming an economic and socially
progressive state that will attract and retain business and young
adults. This type of game and tactic in a state that was proudly one of
the main 'free' states during the Underground Railroad harkens a step
back from Quaker-based liberty and freedoms for which our state's
Constitution has always stood. This seems to be strategically done the
week before Iowa Equality Day, February 3, for educating legislators on
LGBT civil/human rights issues, which will get positive media attention
and publicity. --Christina Butts
Thursday, January 27, 2005 -- Mason City Globe Gazette
GAY MARRIAGE BAN INTRODUCED, BUT UNLIKELY TO ADVANCE
By DAN GEARINO, Globe Des Moines Bureau
DES
MOINES - A state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was
introduced by nine Republicans Wednesday in the Iowa Senate.
The
measure faces little chance of passage in a chamber tied 25-25 between
parties. A similar resolution fell short last year, a time when
Republicans held the majority.
"I still
feel the majority of Iowans think we need to keep marriage protected,"
said one of the co-sponsors, Sen. Bob Brunkhorst, R-Waverly.
The proposal would add the following sentence to the state constitution:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of Iowa."
Leaders
from both parties said before the session that hot-button social issues
would probably get little airing because of the even split between the
parties.
The
sponsors of the proposed amendment are the following Republican
senators: Jeff Angelo of Creston, Jerry Behn of Boone, Nancy Boettger
of Harlan, Brunkhorst, David Johnson of Ocheyedan, Jim Hahn of
Muscatine, Larry McKibben of Marshalltown, Paul McKinley of Chariton
and Jim Seymour of Woodbine.
Friday, January 28
Human Rights Watch Condemns U.S. Meatpackers
by
Chad Thompson
on Fri 28 Jan 2005 12:31 PM CST
 Human Rights Watch Condemns U.S. Meatpackers
This
week brought a new first: Human Rights Watch - an international
human rights watchdog agency - accused a specific U.S. industry of
violating basic human rights.
In a summary from the New York Times:
For
the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly
criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that
working conditions among the nation's meatpackers and slaughterhouses
are so bad that they violate basic human rights.
...
"Meatpacking
is the most dangerous factory job in America," said the report's
author, Lance Compa, who teaches industrial and labor relations at
Cornell and is a former union organizer and negotiator. "Dangerous conditions are cheaper for companies, and the government does next to nothing."
Responding
to that criticism, Richard Fairfax, director of enforcement for the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said the agency
vigorously oversaw the industry for excessive line speed and other
problems.
"We have a strong enforcement program" in meatpacking, Mr. Fairfax said, "and a strong compliance assistance program."
....
"Nearly every worker interviewed for this report bore physical
signs of a serious injury suffered from working in a meat or poultry
plant," the report says. "Meat and poultry industry employers set up
the workplaces and practices that create these dangers, but they treat
the resulting mayhem as a normal, natural part of the production
process, not as what it is - repeated violations of international human
rights standards."
The report also says that to save themselves money, companies
frequently pressure injured employees not to file workers' compensation
claims.
Something
to keep in mind - "repeated violations of international human rights
standards" is describing the process used to bring the majority of meat
products to your dinner plate. Meat packing has also been a
traditional Iowa industry - and many towns can tell you of their
experiences with meatpacking companies bent on paying the lowest wage
and ensuring the worst conditions possible just to boost profit margins.
Thursday, January 27
SENATOR TOM HARKIN ON THE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO SECRETARY OF STATE
by
Linda Thieman
on Thu 27 Jan 2005 04:26 PM CST
 SENATOR TOM HARKIN ON THE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO SECRETARY OF STATE
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2005
“After much consideration of Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s nomination to be Secretary of State, I am unable to support her nomination.
I am
very concerned about Dr. Rice’s role as the marketer of the inflated
evidence leading up to what was called a pre-emptive war in Iraq. The
Administration gave the impression to the American people that Iraq
posed an imminent threat to the US and the world, often based on worst
case scenarios and poor intelligence, which later proved to be untrue.
I have
experienced first hand in my travels the loss of U.S. credibility
worldwide which alienated many of our democratic friends and allies.
Dr. Rice’s elevation to Secretary of State will send the wrong signal
regarding our future diplomacy efforts and American interests.”
(Source)
Wednesday, January 26
Iowa: Don't Tax Under 30?
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 26 Jan 2005 12:22 PM CST
 Iowa: Don't Tax Under 30?
This morning the Des Moines Register ran with the headline "Don't Tax Anyone Under 30" - naturally above the fold in big, bold words.
The story revolves around Iowa Senate Repubicans revealing their take on stopping the "Brain Drain" of our college graduates:
Iowans younger than 30 would pay no state income taxes under an
economic-growth plan unveiled Tuesday by Senate Republicans - an idea
that drew cheers and jeers from young and old.
"More than half
of our college graduates leave the state after graduation. We want to
reverse Iowa's brain drain and make our state a more attractive place
for our young people," said Senate Republican Co-President Jeff
Lamberti of Ankeny.
Of course, none of this comes for free:
Eliminating the income tax for those under 30 would reduce state
revenue by an estimated $200 million a year, according to the
nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency.
A few points:
1)
As a former 'college graduate who left the state', trust me: this
won't make a difference. It's job quality and cultural options
that are more important - plus the draw of embarking on a new
adventure. We can improve job quality and cultural options, but
there really isn't much we can do abotu the 'new adventure' seekers.
2)
As we already know - state finances are drawn as tight as they can be
in the current circumstances, plus other programs are being burdened
with growing costs - most often due to the ever-increasing costs of
health care. Because the constitution requires the state to run a
balanced budget - a loss in revenue from one source will have to be
balanced by a gain elsewhere.
Quite
frankly, I'm a little shocked that anyone would treat this proposal
seriously, given the financial conditions the legislature has to face.
The more interesting proposal got "B-Side" coverage:
The GOP plan, an alternative to the Grow Iowa Values Fund created
two years ago, would give businesses a tax credit for newly created
jobs paying at least $10 an hour. The tax credit would be available for
up to five years, with a maximum annual credit of 20 percent of the
salary.
"This is a market-based approach to drive economic development," said Lamberti, 42, the Senate Republican co-president.
"We
don't need the government in the business of picking winners and losers
and handing out money only to select companies. We want any company to
consider growing in Iowa," he said. "So we don't care if you're a small
business in Iowa that the Values Fund would never touch, or a Wells
Fargo."
Senate Republicans also proposed setting aside $25
million per year to help companies with the cost of building or
renovating business facilities.
Another proposal is to enlarge a
state fund for assisting local governments with the development of
community attractions. The fund would increase from $12 million to $25
million annually over five years.
Business groups applauded the plan.
"I
think it's a creative, private-sector approach, and it seems to be
comprehensive. It's not just looking at one silver bullet," said John
Gilliland, a vice president of the Iowa Association of Business and
Industry.
There is
something to be said about making sure that "Grow Iowa Values" money is
equitably spread - but on the flipside there needs to be the
realization that two major needs to start a new business are startup
capital and risk management. Tax credits likely won't help in new
(or small) business situations.
Tuesday, January 25
John Drury: Iowa Pharmacy Board Gets Tough with Canadian Outlet
by
John Drury
on Tue 25 Jan 2005 06:40 PM CST
 Iowa Pharmacy Board Gets Tough with Canadian Outlet
by John Drury
As
I write this column, a very interesting case is being heard in a Cerro
Gordo County court room. Perhaps you’ve read about it already, if not,
here’s the deal.
Back in
June of 2004, Scot and Cheryl Huff of Mason City opened the doors on a
business called Canadian Drug Outlet. Here’s how it works: customers
receive their prescriptions from their doctors, then bring them to the
Canadian Drug Outlet where the drugs are then ordered from Canadian
pharmacies over the Internet. The pharmacies then ship the drug
directly to the customers’ homes. The pharmacies pay the Huffs a
commission on orders received. It seems perfect for those senior
citizens, and anyone else that may not be all that comfortable using
the Internet, to be able to get their prescriptions filled without
taking out a second mortgage on their homes just to pay the exorbitant
costs in the United States.
A couple
of months after opening the store, the Huffs were informed by the state
that they could not legally use the word drug in the name of their
store. They were also informed that the Iowa Board of Pharmacy feels
that they are violating state law by dispensing prescription drugs
without a license. They were also directed to close the business,
stating that there have been two other attempts to do this in the state
and they have both closed their doors after receiving a warning from
the state. The Huffs did remove the word drug from the name of their
business but are still in operation. They have attracted about 500
customers since opening the doors back in June and they plan on
expanding depending on the outcome of the court case.
The
Huffs argue that they aren’t actually dispensing prescription drugs,
only helping people gain access to affordable medicine. They don’t
claim to be pharmacists. The drugs are shipped directly to the
customers’ homes from the pharmacy offering a savings of anywhere from
25 to 85 percent on the same drug sold in the United States.
The
state disagrees. The state code defines a pharmacy as “ a location
where prescription drugs are compounded, dispensed, or sold by a
pharmacist and where prescription drug orders are received or processed
in accordance with the pharmacy laws.” The state argues that this
business does enough of those things to make it a pharmacy.
This
court case is so much bigger than whether or not the Huffs get to keep
the doors open on their business. It’s obviously part of a larger
national debate that is taking place in our country. Federal law
prevents individuals from ordering drugs from Canada but they don’t
prosecute individual citizens from buying their own medicines.
In this
case, we don’t see our government concerned with the fact that people
are breaking laws and ordering their medicines from Canada from the
privacy of their own homes, instead we see them concerned that perhaps
the practice is becoming all too common and convenient for people.
Obviously,
the administrators of the state pharmacy board jump on the fear
bandwagon and tell you that they are only concerned with the safety of
the drugs being shipped to the customer.
I would
say that the Canadian Outlet offers a very important service. They
offer safe, affordable prescription drugs conveniently shipped to your
home at a savings of up to 85 percent. The Huffs have made it easier for citizens to obtain affordable drugs that are prescribed to them.
Perhaps our government is just suffering from professional jealousy.
I’ll keep you posted on the outcome of the case.
Sunday, January 23
IOWA COUNTIES & THE DNR MASTER MATRIX by Molly Regan
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 23 Jan 2005 02:39 PM CST
 IOWA COUNTIES & THE DNR MASTER MATRIX
by Molly Regan
Good news for those of us in the IOWA counties that choose to retain
the Department Of Natural Resources’ (DNR) MASTER MATRIX system.
This Master Matrix is “a scoring system that can be used to evaluate
the siting of permitted confinement feeding operations” according to
information at www.iowadnr.com. This questionnaire is for animal
confinement owners as well as smaller farmers who raise a certain
number of cattle, hogs, or chickens. They need to indicate how
creating or expanding their business will impact the surrounding
COMMUNITY, THE WATER, AND THE AIR.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS in each IOWA county has until January 31st,
2005, to choose whether or not to continue (or in some cases take up)
the requirement that the Master Matrix be used for building
permits. For example, if a company wants to build a 30,000
chicken production facility in Scott County (whose Board Of Supervisors
APPROVED for the THIRD YEAR in a row the Master Matrix), it would need
to fill it out in that county.
One of the questions on the Master Matrix is as follows: “ Groundwater
monitoring wells installed near manure storage structure, and applicant
agrees to provide data to the department.” If these monitoring
wells will indeed be in place, then a score of 15 can be divided under
the Air, the Water, and/or the Community sections. 44 questions
with a total of 880 possible points are on the questionnaire. At
least one half of the total must be reached for approval.
Use of this system is of the utmost importance if counties want to have
any say as to whether or not confined animal feeding operations
(CAFO’s) operate or upgrade within their boundaries. The DNR
still has the final say, but at least with this Master Matrix, each
county can still have input on new or expanding operations.
For the smaller farmer, some may have to fill out the paperwork if
their expansion goes beyond a certain number of animal units.
Of utmost concern is AIR POLLUTION caused by these facilities.
Even a 500-head hog operation can create much HYDROGEN SULFIDE and
AMONIA. Both of these, if too concentrated, can cause damage to
humans. According to DR. KAY KIMBALL in his (yes, it is a man)
book ‘CHEMICAL BRAIN INJURY,’ too much exposure to these toxins can
cause memory loss, imbalance, reproductive problems, unconsciousness,
and even death. Dr. Kimball has researched this area for over 20
years, and his book explains in depth the consequences of living near
or working in an environment which produces harmful bi-products.
Check with your local Board of Supervisors to see if your county is
part of the process. Encourage them to do so. We all need to be
involved with this, even if you live in an urban area. Three
years ago, I spoke in front of the Clinton & Scott Counties Boards,
and I believe it helped encourage them to each go with the Matrix.
For more information go to: www.iowadnr.com or contact your local Board
of Supervisors…..And don’t forget: CPR/Conserve, Participate, Recycle
Friday, January 21
EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 04:05 PM CST
EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
Hastings Group
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(January 21, 2005) In the wake of the EPA release of its CAFO Air
Quality Compliance Agreement today, Michele M. Merkel, senior counsel
of the Environmental Integrity Project issued the following statement
today:
"These
EPA rules amount to a wholesale relaxation of the Clean Air Act as it
relates to factory farms, which are a major source of pollution in
rural America.
All
along, EPA has had the authority under the Clean Air Act to gather the
kind of data it needs to determine emission levels at these industrial
farming operations - it does not need the industry's permission.
The
EPA-proposed amnesty on imposing the Clean Air act protections for the
public can last until 2011. Given that EPA already has had a
moratorium on enforcement for the past four years, that means the
current Administration will stall permits and air pollution controls at
some facilities for more than a decade.
Why is
the EPA doing this? The industry's lobbyists who are operating
hand in glove with the Agency understand they can't defeat emission
controls outright, especially where the public's health is at stake,
but they understand that regulations deferred are money earned, so
their strategy is to postpone the day of reckoning.
This is
another example of what should be a scientific process conducted in the
public's best interest being hijacked by industry. Industry gets
to select the "independent monitoring contractor" who will select the
farms for testing and related steps. The scientific soundness of
the monitoring program can only be ensured if the monitoring protocol
is reviewed by qualified independent experts who do not have ties to
the livestock industry. Furthermore, we are also concerned that the
small number of farms EPA anticipates including in the data collection
process (28) will not provide a significant enough sample to be
representative.
What EPA
is proposing is a sell-out of the public in order to profit the
industry. In practice, this agreement will end up being even
worse than it looks now. Industry will use this agreement to try
and block citizen suits. The idea of preventing citizens from
exercising their rights to hold polluters accountable under federal law
for the next six years (or more) is troubling. Additionally, the
agreement allows companies that have been sued by citizens to sign up
for the amnesty."
For more information, contact Michele M. Merkel at (202) 263-4452 or mmerkel@environmentalintegrity.org.
|
|
