Re: Re: Re Arsenic
At 05:31 PM 4/20/2001 -0700, you wrote: John, the Wall Street Journal article made the case that it is one of the most studied issues in history. It also is dangerous in VERY small amounts. Of course, more affluent people can drink bottled water, so the benefits from cleaning up might not be much. OK, I thought I had agreed with you on the benefit of zero arsenic. The question I asked was how dangerous in small amounts vs how dangerous the effects of diverting resources to remove it? Not just to the rich but to the poor as well. Where is the cost-benefit analysis? I note you avoid addressing that. It reminds me of the web site with the abortion doctors. If it had the home addresses of Supreme Court justices HUH? Where did that come from? Best, John R Henry CPP Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
Re: Re: Re Arsenic
At 08:35 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: In other words, has anyone here done or seen a cost-benefit analysis of this arsenic reduction? Yeah, I did one. It costs the capitalist class to pay for devices that block the spread of arsenic. It benefits working people if such devices are implemented. This is what Marx called the class struggle. How do you get the "capitalist class" to pay for removal of the arsenic? Won't it be paid for by the municipal water departments? Won't that cost be born by the users? Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ Best, John R Henry CPP Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
Re: Re: Re Arsenic
A In other words, I doubt that there are more than 2-3 people in the world who wound deny that having zero arsenic in water is a good thing this issue (and those elided) were addressed in the article that was posted from Rachel's on-line environmental magazine. I missed the article. Was it published here? More or less when, so I can go look for it in the archives. Or perhaps a URL to the magazine? Best, John R Henry CPP Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
Quebec demonstrations
from SLATE: The NY [TIMES] ... [quotes an]anonymous Bush official who commented, "We expected this. You can't have a trade summit these days without tear gas; it would be like having a cheeseburger without cheese." - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://www.pandamail.net
How to nab an activist
Published on Saturday, April 21, 2001 in the Toronto Globe Mail Even the Green Zone Wasn't a Safe Haven by Naomi Klein QUEBEC -- Where are you," I screamed from my cellphone into his. There was a pause and then, "A Green Zone -- St. Jean and St. Claire." Green Zone is protest speak for an area free of tear gas or police clashes. There are no fences to storm, only sanctioned marches. Green Zones are safe, you're supposed to be able to bring your kids to them. "Okay," I said. "See you in 15 minutes." I had barely put on my coat when I got another call: "Jaggi's been arrested. Well, not exactly arrested. More like kidnapped." My first thought was that it was my fault: I had asked Mr. Singh to tell me his whereabouts over a cellphone. Our call must have been monitored, that's how they found him. If that sounds paranoid, welcome to Summit City. Less than an hour later, at the Comit Populaire St-Jean Baptiste community centre, a group of six swollen-eyed eyewitnesses read me their hand-written accounts of how the most visible organizer of yesterday's direct action protest against the free-trade area of the Americas was snatched from under their noses. All say Mr. Singh was standing around talking to friends, urging them to move further away from the breached security fence. They all say he was trying to de-escalate the police standoff. "He said it was getting too tense," said Mike Staudenmaier, a U.S. activist who was talking to Mr. Singh when he was grabbed from behind, then surrounded by three large men. "They were dressed like activists," said Helen Nazon, a 23-year-old from Quebec City, with hooded sweatshirts, bandannas on their faces, flannel shirts, a little grubby. "They pushed Jaggi on the ground and kicked him. It was really violent." "Then they dragged him off," said Michele Luellen. All the witnesses told me that when Mr. Singh's friends closed in to try to rescue him, the men dressed as activists pulled out long batons, beat back the crowd and identified themselves: "Police!" they shouted. Then they threw him into a beige van and drove off. Several of the young activists have open cuts where they were hit. Three hours after Mr. Singh's arrest, there was still no word of where he was being held. Throwing activists into unmarked cars and nabbing them off streets is not supposed to happen in Canada. The strange thing is that, in Jaggi Singh's short career as an antiglobalization activist, it has happened to him before -- during the 1997 protests against the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. The day before the protests took place, Mr. Singh was grabbed by two plainclothes police officers while walking alone on the University of British Columbia campus, thrown to the ground, then stuffed into an unmarked car. The charge, he later found out, was assault. Mr. Singh had apparently talked so loudly into a megaphone some weeks before that it had hurt the eardrum of a nearby police officer. The charge, of course, was later dropped, but the point was clearly to have Mr. Singh behind bars during the protest, just as he will no doubt be in custody for today's march. He faced a similar arrest at the G-20 summit in Montreal. In all of these bizarre cases, Jaggi Singh has never been accused of vandalism, of planning or plotting violent actions. Anyone who has seen him at the barricades, crumbling or otherwise, knows that his greatest crime is giving good speeches. That's why I was on the phone with Mr. Singh minutes before his arrest -- trying to persuade him to come to the Peoples' Summit teach-in that I was co-hosting to tell the crowd of 1,500 what was going on in the streets. He had agreed, but then determined it was too difficult to cross the city. I can't help thinking the fact that this young man has been treated as a terrorist, repeatedly and with no evidence, might have something to do with his brown skin, and the fact that his last name is Singh. No wonder his friends say that this supposed threat to the state doesn't like to walk alone at night. After collecting all the witness statements, the small crowd begins to leave the community centre to attend a late-night planning meeting. In an instant, the halls are filled with red-faced people, their eyes streaming with tears, frantically looking for running water. The tear gas has filled the street outside the centre, and has entered the corridors. "This is no longer a Green zone! Les flics (the police) s'en viennent!" So much for making it to my laptop at the hotel. Denis Belanger, who was kind enough to let me use the community centre's rickety PC to write this column, notices that the message light is flashing on the phone. It turns out that the police have closed in the entire area, no one is getting out. "Maybe I'll spend the night," Mr. Belanger said. Maybe I will too. Author and activist Naomi Klein's column appears Wednesdays on The Globe's Comment pages. Copyright 2001 Globe Interactive
Disappearing in Quebec City
from Naomi Klein: "They were dressed like activists," said Helen Nazon, a 23-year-old from Quebec City, with hooded sweatshirts, bandannas on their faces, flannel shirts, a little grubby. "They pushed Jaggi on the ground and kicked him. It was really violent." "Then they dragged him off," said Michele Luellen. All the witnesses told me that when Mr. Singh's friends closed in to try to rescue him, the men dressed as activists pulled out long batons, beat back the crowd and identified themselves: "Police!" they shouted. Then they threw him into a beige van and drove off. Several of the young activists have open cuts where they were hit. Three hours after Mr. Singh's arrest, there was still no word of where he was being held. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/B,B/20010421/wk lei?tf=RT/fullstory.htmlcf=RT/config-neutralvg=BigAdVariableGeneratorslug =wkleidate=20010421archive=RTGAMsite=Front Meanwhile, back at the ranch: In a speech hastily rewritten to address the clashes between police and small groups of protesters, Mr. Chrtien condemned the violence and said the 34 leaders gathered for the summit represent the will of the citizens who elected them. [Like Dubya, for example?] "Violence and provocation is unacceptable in a democracy," Mr. Chrtien said. "The type of behaviour that we have seen outside this afternoon by small groups of extremists is contrary to the democratic principles we all hold dear. "The creation of a free-trade area is not an end in itself," he said at the opening ceremony, which was attended by a host of dignitaries from across the hemisphere. "It is a means; a tool for growth that will allow us to promote closer, more dynamic economic relations among the nations of the Americas. In time, it will assure a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for all peoples of the hemisphere." Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, said activists representing unions, church groups and other citizens' group flatly reject Mr. Chrtien's contention that free trade creates prosperity. "It has increased poverty in Canada and in the United States and in Mexico, and it will do the same throughout the rest of the Americas," Ms. Barlow said. The summit leaders are also expected to focus on ways to enshrine and promote democracy in the region. The heads of government are expected to include in their final communique a "democracy clause," which Canadian officials described as a major advance for a region that has a history of brutal military dictatorships. "They were dressed like activists," said Helen Nazon, a 23-year-old from Quebec City, with hooded sweatshirts, bandannas on their faces, flannel shirts, a little grubby. "They pushed Jaggi on the ground and kicked him. It was really violent." Mr. Chrtien said Friday night the promotion of democracy cannot take a back seat to the advancement of free trade. "Then they dragged him off," said Michele Luellen. All the witnesses told me that when Mr. Singh's friends closed in to try to rescue him, the men dressed as activists pulled out long batons, beat back the crowd and identified themselves: "Police!" they shouted. Then they threw him into a beige van and drove off. Several of the young activists have open cuts where they were hit. "Economic integration is only one pillar in our hemispheric edifice," he said. "After all, prosperity has no meaning if our citizens are not free, if they are not equal before the law or if they cannot make use of the opportunities open to them." Three hours after Mr. Singh's arrest, there was still no word of where he was being held. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Re: Re Arsenic
Much of the arsenic would have to be removed by the mining companies and others that create the problem. It is very dangerous in small amounts. Again, the WSJ article makes it seem like an airtight case. Here is the article plus a more recent one April 19, 2001 Major Business News EPA's Reversal on Arsenic Standards Shows Disagreement Among Experts All Agree Chemical Kills, but Question Is Just How Much It Takes to Do So By PETER WALDMAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL After declaring that arsenic in drinking water causes cancer, it took the Environmental Protection Agency 17 years, and six intense weeks at the tail end of the Clinton administration, to order sharp reductions of the naturally occurring carcinogen in America's water supply. It took the Bush administration 58 days to shelve the new rule. "At the very last minute, my predecessor made a decision" to lower arsenic standards, said President George W. Bush last month. "We pulled back his decision, so that we can make a decision based upon sound science." In fact, few government decisions could have been more thoroughly researched, over so many years, than the EPA's move to slash the allowable content of arsenic in U.S. drinking water by 80%. The beefed-up standard, to 10 parts per billion from 50 ppb, was first proposed by the U.S. Public Health Service back in 1962. Over the next three decades, regulators weighed dozens of studies on the issue, including six reports by the prestigious National Research Council, as they struggled to balance the health risks of arsenic with the huge costs of extracting the metal from drinking water. 'The Science Is Unequivocal' "We know arsenic is carcinogenic in people -- not just laboratory animals -- at exposure levels that aren't much higher than the current U.S. standard," says Richard Wilson, a Harvard University physics professor and former department chair who studies health risks. "The science is unequivocal." Not to everyone. Since 1990, consultants working for corporations that could face billions of dollars in cleanup costs under a lower arsenic standard have cast doubts on the science. For ammunition, they funded studies, then shelved results they didn't like. In one case, a water-industry consultant put a prominent Taiwanese epidemiologist's name atop a scientific paper that the scientist says he never approved for publication. In another, a big energy company offered money to a Chilean researcher to produce helpful data. Offended, the researcher declined. "In earlier years, when tobacco companies needed science to support their claims, they had to hire their own researchers," says Jay Gourley of the Public Education Center, a Washington foundation that studies scientific issues. "Now, there's a thriving industry of consultants who will do it for you." Acrimony also infected the EPA. Researchers inside and outside government saw an apparent conflict of interest in senior EPA scientists co-authoring papers with industry consultants and helping organize a biannual conference on arsenic partly funded by industry. "I never saw a contaminant that caused so much friction within the agency," says James Elder, who ran EPA's drinking-water program in the early 1990s. 'Fair and Fully Justified' Wednesday, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman signaled the administration will lower the arsenic standard within nine months, but probably not as low as the Clinton administration's 10 ppb. She asked the National Academy of Sciences to perform yet another arsenic study, this time on levels of 3 to 20 ppb. She also asked a separate panel of experts to review the economic impact of lowering the arsenic standard, to ensure the "costs are fair and fully justified." The administration's stance on arsenic has become a lightning rod for environmental groups who claim it typifies President Bush's preference for pleasing industry at the environment's expense. This week, after several high-profile reversals of Clinton-administration moves to enhance
Re: Re:Arsenic
That arsenic is harmful to human health was never in dispute. Rather, the main issue -- and the debate reopened by the Bush administration -- concerns dosage: How much arsenic in water does it take to give people cancer? When I worked as a database administrator in the basement of Memorial Sloan-Kettering in the mid 1980s, I could never get used to the sight of all the patients who appeared to be under ten years old or so. Since cancer was supposedly an old person's ailment, what would explain the sight of a child who had lost all their hair from chemotherapy or radiation? Cancer is the quintessential disease of late capitalism. With the "revolution" in plastics, aluminum and other non-biodegradables around WWII, cancer has become an epidemic in certain "cancer alleys". This was the theme of Barry Commoner's "Closing Circle". The problem, however, is that medical science has not been able to "prove" in a definitive way that any specific carcinogen causes cancer. This would require a breakthrough in molecular biochemistry that would by its very nature lead to a cure for cancer. All we can do is point to overwhelming circumstantial evidence linking tobacco, PCB's, DDT, arsenic, etc. to cancer. But these sorts of substances are essential to capital accumulation in its decadent mature phase. Joel Kovel once analogized capitalist growth with metastizing tumors. He was correct. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re Arsenic
It was Rachel's Health and Environment News #722 that most recently addressed arsenic. It's currently online at http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=1. The EPA estimated that the annual cost of implementing a 10 ppb standard would be $181 million. Considering the benefits, this is extremely cheap. The price is probably an overestimate, as experience shows from previous cost-benefit analyses of environmental regulations later implemented at lower cost. In economics, cleanliness is next to efficiency. (At a later date, the Rachel's article should be in the archives at http://www.rachel.org/.) Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:24:44 -0300, John Henry wrote: A In other words, I doubt that there are more than 2-3 people in the world who wound deny that having zero arsenic in water is a good thing this issue (and those elided) were addressed in the article that was posted from Rachel's on-line environmental magazine. I missed the article. Was it published here? More or less when, so I can go look for it in the archives. Or perhaps a URL to the magazine? Best, John R Henry CPP Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
Re: Re Arsenic
For those interested in an empirical critique of static cost-benefit analysis applied to industrial pollution, I recommend one of the last reports prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment, before its elimination by congressional republicans: Gauging Control Technology and Regulatory Impacts in Occupational Safety and Health: An Appraisal of OSHA's Analytic Approach. Washington, DC: OTA-ENV-635. 1995. The short of it: cost projections based on existing technologies vastly overstate the actual ex post costs, due to inevitable technical innovation. It's difficult to read this report and not conclude that static CBA is simply an obfuscation. Peter John Henry wrote: Interesting responses to the arsenic issue. Especially coming from an economics list. Economics, of whatever flavor or wing, is in large part about allocation of finite "scarce" resources. Shouldn't we look at the arsenic issue in that regard? Especially here. In other words, I doubt that there are more than 2-3 people in the world who wound deny that having zero arsenic in water is a good thing. I'm certainly not one of them. There is probably some marginal benefit and probably no harm in water with zero arsenic. There is, of course, the question of just how much benefit reducing the levels from 50-10 will bring. My understanding is, relatively little. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that there is some benefit. The other side of the equation is, what is the "cost" of getting to zero? What happens if the municipal water department, decides to trade off, say, flouridation to cover the cost of additional arsenic removal? Or perhaps it postpones building additional waste treatment facilities? or...? Is that community going to be better or worse off as a result of reducing arsenic levels? Since most water supplies are government owned and operated rather than private (other than individual wells) profit motive won't be a factor here, will it?G> In other words, has anyone here done or seen a cost-benefit analysis of this arsenic reduction? Best, John R Henry CPP Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
technology assessment
[was: Re: [PEN-L:10508] Re: Re Arsenic] Peter Dorman writes: cost projections based on existing technologies vastly overstate the actual ex post costs, due to inevitable technical innovation. but don't new technologies have their own costs? -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://www.pandamail.net
Re: technology assessment
True enough, but running a process that produces chemical X and then adding on an abatement process to remove it is generally more expensive than changing the process to not use X in the first place. Conventional CBA methodology does not consider the second option if meaningful innovation is involved, but ex post we can see that innovation is the rule, not the exception. Again, read the OTA report. It's pretty convincing, I think. Peter (I think we agree, however, that there is usually some cost to cleaner production; the Michael Porter free lunch hypothesis is generally not valid.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [was: Re: [PEN-L:10508] Re: Re Arsenic] Peter Dorman writes: cost projections based on existing technologies vastly overstate the actual ex post costs, due to inevitable technical innovation. but don't new technologies have their own costs? -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://www.pandamail.net
Re: Re: technology assessment
But how is the improved quality of life and longer life of those who no longer get cancer factored in? And wouldn't there also be reduced medical costs? Surely all this must be included in any reasonable CBA. Even if this is done the result of the process will be mainly determined by who has the most funds to pay whoever makes the analysis. CBA results are wildly different depending upon who does them and the interests behind their funding. Ultimately is is simply a political decision and not primarily an economically based decision as to whether or not to reduce the amount of arsenic. Standard types of questions in CBA are biased in favor of those with lots of money. Do a CBA of whether one ought to put a waste dump in Hollywood or a poverty stricken reserve and guess what the result would show. CBAs are not entirely useless but in contexts such as this they are mostly just figleafs for competing intererests attempting to portray themselves as having science on their side. In poorer areas where arsenic leaches naturally from the soil it might be local ratepayers who would have to pay any increased costs. Presumably taxes would be based upon property owned so this would not directly impact the very poor but rents might increase. But if the increase costs were funded by increased water rates as it would be in a private system or possibly even in a public system this could cause significant hardships for the poor. There is a problem of paternalism that without intending to do so may cause hardships for the worst off that are overlooked in analysis of benefits. However CBA itself is a questionable tool to use when seeking welfare improvements. CBA, even when it well done, does not take into account distributional factors but adopts the Kaldor/Hicks viewpoint that any potential Pareto improvement is a welfare gains. If benefits are greater than costs there is a welfare gain no matter how benefits and costs are distributed because theoretically losers could be compensated by winners. At least that is how I understand it. If this isnt ridiculous enough one could point out that where funds are scarce a positive CBA even if well done tells you zilch about how the benefits of using x amount of dollars on reducing arsenic compares in terms of benefits to using it for increasing health insurance coverage for those without, or some other favored reform of the system. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Peter Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 2:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10510] Re: technology assessment True enough, but running a process that produces chemical X and then adding on an abatement process to remove it is generally more expensive than changing the process to not use X in the first place. Conventional CBA methodology does not consider the second option if meaningful innovation is involved, but ex post we can see that innovation is the rule, not the exception. Again, read the OTA report. It's pretty convincing, I think. Peter (I think we agree, however, that there is usually some cost to cleaner production; the Michael Porter free lunch hypothesis is generally not valid.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [was: Re: [PEN-L:10508] Re: Re Arsenic] Peter Dorman writes: cost projections based on existing technologies vastly overstate the actual ex post costs, due to inevitable technical innovation. but don't new technologies have their own costs? -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://www.pandamail.net
Re: Re: Re: technology assessment
Yes, I was only going after one issue in CBA. This is an area I've done a lot of work in. Peter Ken Hanly wrote: But how is the improved quality of life and longer life of those who no longer get cancer factored in? Wrote a book on that one... And wouldn't there also be reduced medical costs? Surely all this must be included in any reasonable CBA. Even if this is done the result of the process will be mainly determined by who has the most funds to pay whoever makes the analysis. CBA results are wildly different depending upon who does them and the interests behind their funding. Ultimately is is simply a political decision and not primarily an economically based decision as to whether or not to reduce the amount of arsenic. etc.
rabble.ca
There is good coverage of the FTAA meeting and other issues at the new website of the CCPA and Centre for Social Justice.. http://www.rabble.ca/ Cheers, Ken Hanly
Barbie -- but not Klaus
Today, I saw a parent buying a Flower Power Barbie at the grocery store, as a gift for a child's birthday party. Seeing the beads, bell-bottom trousers, granny glasses, and peace patches caused a flash-back, plus an inspiration for new toys that Matell can sell: Summer of Love Barbie -- has gonorrhea. People's Park Barbie -- free, but smells of teargas. Woodstock Barbie -- slowly melts, due to the bad acid. Altamont Barbie -- the less said, the better. Patty Hearst Barbie -- put her in a closet for a couple of days and she says Kill the Fascist Insect that Lives on the Life-Blood of the People! Squeaky Fromm Barbie -- shoots, but misses, in a vain attempt to impress Charles Manson. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Barbie -- but not Klaus
and of course the Klaus Barbie - Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fran 'Toots' Goldfarb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10514] Barbie -- but not Klaus Today, I saw a parent buying a Flower Power Barbie at the grocery store, as a gift for a child's birthday party. Seeing the beads, bell-bottom trousers, granny glasses, and peace patches caused a flash-back, plus an inspiration for new toys that Matell can sell: Summer of Love Barbie -- has gonorrhea. People's Park Barbie -- free, but smells of teargas. Woodstock Barbie -- slowly melts, due to the bad acid. Altamont Barbie -- the less said, the better. Patty Hearst Barbie -- put her in a closet for a couple of days and she says Kill the Fascist Insect that Lives on the Life-Blood of the People! Squeaky Fromm Barbie -- shoots, but misses, in a vain attempt to impress Charles Manson. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Barbie -- but not Klaus
sorry, I didn't complete my thought on the Klaus Barbie... aside from the bad taste holocaust jokes, I was thinking more of Klaus(sp) von Bulowbut have thought better of any further jokes, recalling my once coming across the bronze plaque memorializing his contributions to the Newport RI community. - Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fran 'Toots' Goldfarb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10514] Barbie -- but not Klaus Today, I saw a parent buying a Flower Power Barbie at the grocery store, as a gift for a child's birthday party. Seeing the beads, bell-bottom trousers, granny glasses, and peace patches caused a flash-back, plus an inspiration for new toys that Matell can sell: Summer of Love Barbie -- has gonorrhea. People's Park Barbie -- free, but smells of teargas. Woodstock Barbie -- slowly melts, due to the bad acid. Altamont Barbie -- the less said, the better. Patty Hearst Barbie -- put her in a closet for a couple of days and she says Kill the Fascist Insect that Lives on the Life-Blood of the People! Squeaky Fromm Barbie -- shoots, but misses, in a vain attempt to impress Charles Manson. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
