Comments on: Discuss the "Earth Day Special: The History of Environmental Justice" radio report http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/ Science, Environment, and Nature in the SF Bay Area Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:23:31 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Amy Standen http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1600 Amy Standen Tue, 01 May 2007 21:46:07 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1600 Thanks for writing, Gregory. I agree, faith-based organizations have long played an important role in environmental justice campaigns -- as with many kinds of American social justice work. Had we more air space, we might have heard from someone at the UCC, or another faith-based organization like EnviroJustice. Given our time constraints, our focus was more on the work people have done than what's driven them to do it. Likewise, some of the people in the story believe race is a primary factor for environmental injustice, while many others focus on income or class. What connects all of the voices in the story is, as you put it, the belief that "the right to a safe, sustainable, and just community and to the food and water that sustain us is a global issue and one that affects everyone." Thanks again for your post. Thanks for writing, Gregory. I agree, faith-based organizations have long played an important role in environmental justice campaigns — as with many kinds of American social justice work. Had we more air space, we might have heard from someone at the UCC, or another faith-based organization like EnviroJustice. Given our time constraints, our focus was more on the work people have done than what's driven them to do it. Likewise, some of the people in the story believe race is a primary factor for environmental injustice, while many others focus on income or class. What connects all of the voices in the story is, as you put it, the belief that "the right to a safe, sustainable, and just community and to the food and water that sustain us is a global issue and one that affects everyone." Thanks again for your post.

]]> By: Gregory Hile http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1569 Gregory Hile Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:57:13 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1569 As the president of EnviroJustice, an environmental justice organization in the Bay Area that works from an ecumenical faith-based perspective, I was quite interested in your report. Here are my comments: 1. The report that was a central part of the story was commissioned, as you did state, by the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination in the United States. I thought it interesting that there were no interviews or comments from the faith perspective. 2. Wayne Ott's comments were interesting and deserve taking a closer look at, but he stretches his argument to the breaking point by stating that close-to-the-source is a myth. There are indeed many stories where proximity is a major factor. The examples of Libby, Montana, Love Canal, New York and Hinkley, California immediately come to mind. 3. Reference to Libby, Love Canal and Hinkley also brings up another point of interest: none of those communities could be said to be communities of color. I believe that while race and class is indeed a factor in environmental justice, it is not the only factor. The right to a safe, sustainable and just community and to the food and water that sustain us, is a global issue and one that affects everyone. As the president of EnviroJustice, an environmental justice organization in the Bay Area that works from an ecumenical faith-based perspective, I was quite interested in your report. Here are my comments:

1. The report that was a central part of the story was commissioned, as you did state, by the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination in the United States. I thought it interesting that there were no interviews or comments from the faith perspective.

2. Wayne Ott's comments were interesting and deserve taking a closer look at, but he stretches his argument to the breaking point by stating that close-to-the-source is a myth. There are indeed many stories where proximity is a major factor. The examples of Libby, Montana, Love Canal, New York and Hinkley, California immediately come to mind.

3. Reference to Libby, Love Canal and Hinkley also brings up another point of interest: none of those communities could be said to be communities of color. I believe that while race and class is indeed a factor in environmental justice, it is not the only factor. The right to a safe, sustainable and just community and to the food and water that sustain us, is a global issue and one that affects everyone.

]]> By: Paul Rogers - Managing Editor, QUEST http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1246 Paul Rogers - Managing Editor, QUEST Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:06:20 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1246 Dr. Ott, Thanks for listening to KQED's QUEST and for taking the time to post to our blog. You raise important points. We agree that when it comes to chemicals, the dose does make the poison, pathways to exposure are key to risk, and empirical measurements should always trump politics. As Amy noted, our goal with this show was to look at the history of the environmental justice movement - a group of people who have spent decades responding in various ways to the well-documented fact that low-income families and people of color live near hazardous waste facilities and air pollution sources in numbers that are disproportionate to the general population. We noted in the story that cancer has many causes, from diet to smoking to family history. During the reporting, we spoke to environmental health scientists about this subject (who chose not to be interviewed on the air). And we were also keenly aware that there is a robust debate surrounding this issue: race vs. class. In other words, does industry deliberately site facilities like hazardous waste incinerators in minority communities because they are minority communities? Or were the facilities there for decades before minority and low-income communities grew up around them (like at the Contra Costa oil refineries or Hunter's Point), in large part due to workplace trends and housing prices? One thing is clear. There are strong feelings around the issue, and our job is to represent all sides of these debates. QUEST is a science-based show, and KQED radio is a top-flight journalism institution. Accuracy is very important to us. And we will follow the research and data where it leads. In addition to working as managing editor of QUEST, I teach graduate science writing at UC-Santa Cruz, and have worked as the environment writer at the San Jose Mercury News for the past 12 years. You are right. We should have worked harder to get an environmental scientist on the air for this piece and we'll make sure to do it next time. Thanks again for writing. We've put you in our sources list, and you may be getting a call next time we do a toxicology or chemical risk story! All the best, Paul Rogers Managing Editor QUEST Dr. Ott,

Thanks for listening to KQED's QUEST and for taking the time to post to our blog. You raise important points. We agree that when it comes to chemicals, the dose does make the poison, pathways to exposure are key to risk, and empirical measurements should always trump politics. As Amy noted, our goal with this show was to look at the history of the environmental justice movement – a group of people who have spent decades responding in various ways to the well-documented fact that low-income families and people of color live near hazardous waste facilities and air pollution sources in numbers that are disproportionate to the general population.

We noted in the story that cancer has many causes, from diet to smoking to family history. During the reporting, we spoke to environmental health scientists about this subject (who chose not to be interviewed on the air). And we were also keenly aware that there is a robust debate surrounding this issue: race vs. class. In other words, does industry deliberately site facilities like hazardous waste incinerators in minority communities because they are minority communities?

Or were the facilities there for decades before minority and low-income communities grew up around them (like at the Contra Costa oil refineries or Hunter's Point), in large part due to workplace trends and housing prices? One thing is clear. There are strong feelings around the issue, and our job is to represent all sides of these debates. QUEST is a science-based show, and KQED radio is a top-flight journalism institution. Accuracy is very important to us. And we will follow the research and data where it leads.

In addition to working as managing editor of QUEST, I teach graduate science writing at UC-Santa Cruz, and have worked as the environment writer at the San Jose Mercury News for the past 12 years. You are right. We should have worked harder to get an environmental scientist on the air for this piece and we'll make sure to do it next time. Thanks again for writing. We've put you in our sources list, and you may be getting a call next time we do a toxicology or chemical risk story!

All the best,
Paul Rogers
Managing Editor
QUEST

]]> By: Amy Standen http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1244 Amy Standen Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:34:25 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1244 Hi Wayne, Thanks for writing. This was indeed a subject that got infinitely more complicated the deeper we delved in to it. Our goal was to look at the history of a group of people who have spent decades responding in various ways to one well-documented fact: the proximity of low income groups and people of color to hazardous waste facilities and air pollution sources. We point out in the story how much is unknown about the health impacts of that exposure -- that, for example, cancer rates in Bayview Hunters Point, for example, have not been scientifically linked to industry in that area (while things like lifestyle, genetics, pure chance, and other factors certainly do play a role). And, having spoken to environmental health scientists about this subject, we were also careful not to assert that the proximity documented in the UCC report causes health problems. Certainly some of the subjects feel that way, so we decided to let them say so, and bring in a narrative voice to show that there’s a great deal of debate around this. Stay tuned, as other members of the Quest team may be weighing in on this as well. And again, thanks for your comments, Wayne. I appreciate the feedback. Amy Hi Wayne,

Thanks for writing. This was indeed a subject that got infinitely more complicated the deeper we delved in to it. Our goal was to look at the history of a group of people who have spent decades responding in various ways to one well-documented fact: the proximity of low income groups and people of color to hazardous waste facilities and air pollution sources. We point out in the story how much is unknown about the health impacts of that exposure — that, for example, cancer rates in Bayview Hunters Point, for example, have not been scientifically linked to industry in that area (while things like lifestyle, genetics, pure chance, and other factors certainly do play a role). And, having spoken to environmental health scientists about this subject, we were also careful not to assert that the proximity documented in the UCC report causes health problems. Certainly some of the subjects feel that way, so we decided to let them say so, and bring in a narrative voice to show that there’s a great deal of debate around this.

Stay tuned, as other members of the Quest team may be weighing in on this as well.

And again, thanks for your comments, Wayne. I appreciate the feedback.

Amy

]]> By: Wayne Ott http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1240 Wayne Ott Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:41:55 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1240 One further comment that I hope is taken as constructive, because I think you did a god job putting your program together, except for this one missing area. An example of one of the important measurement studies on human exposure to toxic pollutants is the EPA Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) field study of 350 residents in Bayonne-Elizabeth, New Jersey. This study asked people to carry personal exposure monitors for 24 hours throughout the day; it also measured the levels of the pollutants in their homes (indoor air), in their backyards (outdoor air) and in their blood (breath sampling). More than 30 toxic chemicals were measured in this study, including the known human carcinogen, benzene. When this study compared the results for 150 persons living within 1 km from the factories and industrial plants with the exposures of 150 persons living more than 1 km from the factories, it found no difference in their exposures or the levels in their bodies. Thus, distance from the factories had no effect in increasing their exposures. Indeed, their exposures were just as high as for the people living in the little nonindustrial town of Devils Lake, ND, which was EPA's control population. Why? Because the main sources of the pollutants in the respondents' bodies came not from the nearby factories but from common everyday consumer products and human activities. Consumer products, building materials, and everyday activities are the main sources of our exposure to toxic pollutants, not living near superfund sites or factories. More information can be found in the book listed on ExposureAnalysis.org. Proposition 65 passed by California was wise public policy because it recognized this important fact -- that the common items we find in our homes are our main sources of exposure -- but it did not provide the funds to test consumer products, and no other state nor the federal government has passed a similar law. It would be a wise course for the persons interested in Environmental Justice to recognize the true sources of their exposures to toxic pollutants, which would greatly help them solve the mystery of their health problems. Indeed, it would be helpful if a more complete story of our exposure to toxic pollutants were told on KQED, just as Bill Moyers had attempted to do with his pioneering program Trade Secrets. There are many qualified environmental scientists in the Bay Area who would be willing to help tell this story, which is extremely important for all health-conscious adults, rich and poor, and for all people who are interested improving the health of their children. One further comment that I hope is taken as constructive, because I think you did a god job putting your program together, except for this one missing area. An example of one of the important measurement studies on human exposure to toxic pollutants is the EPA Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) field study of 350 residents in Bayonne-Elizabeth, New Jersey. This study asked people to carry personal exposure monitors for 24 hours throughout the day; it also measured the levels of the pollutants in their homes (indoor air), in their backyards (outdoor air) and in their blood (breath sampling). More than 30 toxic chemicals were measured in this study, including the known human carcinogen, benzene. When this study compared the results for 150 persons living within 1 km from the factories and industrial plants with the exposures of 150 persons living more than 1 km from the factories, it found no difference in their exposures or the levels in their bodies. Thus, distance from the factories had no effect in increasing their exposures. Indeed, their exposures were just as high as for the people living in the little nonindustrial town of Devils Lake, ND, which was EPA's control population. Why? Because the main sources of the pollutants in the respondents' bodies came not from the nearby factories but from common everyday consumer products and human activities. Consumer products, building materials, and everyday activities are the main sources of our exposure to toxic pollutants, not living near superfund sites or factories. More information can be found in the book listed on ExposureAnalysis.org. Proposition 65 passed by California was wise public policy because it recognized this important fact — that the common items we find in our homes are our main sources of exposure — but it did not provide the funds to test consumer products, and no other state nor the federal government has passed a similar law. It would be a wise course for the persons interested in Environmental Justice to recognize the true sources of their exposures to toxic pollutants, which would greatly help them solve the mystery of their health problems. Indeed, it would be helpful if a more complete story of our exposure to toxic pollutants were told on KQED, just as Bill Moyers had attempted to do with his pioneering program Trade Secrets. There are many qualified environmental scientists in the Bay Area who would be willing to help tell this story, which is extremely important for all health-conscious adults, rich and poor, and for all people who are interested improving the health of their children.

]]> By: Wayne Ott http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/comment-page-1/#comment-1232 Wayne Ott Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:20:36 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/19/discuss-the-%e2%80%9cearth-day-special-the-history-of-environmental-justice%e2%80%9d-radio-report/#comment-1232 Dear Amy: I am an environmental health scientist with more than 30 years at EPA who now teaches at Stanford in environmental engineering science. I am a little disappointed with the lack of valid science in your report on Environmental Justice. There is a long history of scientific study of human exposure to enviornmental pollutants (see, for example, the new textbook Exposure Analysis by Ott, Steinemann, and Wallace, CRC-Press, Taylor&Francis, 2007), which shows through extensive EPA field studies that living next to industrial plants and factories DOES NOT increase your measured exposure to pollutants, since the pollutants in one's body come from entirely different sources. Thus, the living-close-to-the-source hypothesis, which your story uncritially assumed, is a myth, based on 20 years of scientific findings on environmental health and exposure. I do not want to discourage your excellent work, but your story would be more balanced and credible if you interviewed some eenvironmental health scientists, of which there are many in the Bay Area, in addition to nonscientists who have a clearly nonscientific agenda. Sincerely, Wayne Ott, Ph.D. Dear Amy: I am an environmental health scientist with more than 30 years at EPA who now teaches at Stanford in environmental engineering science. I am a little disappointed with the lack of valid science in your report on Environmental Justice. There is a long history of scientific study of human exposure to enviornmental pollutants (see, for example, the new textbook Exposure Analysis by Ott, Steinemann, and Wallace, CRC-Press, Taylor&Francis, 2007), which shows through extensive EPA field studies that living next to industrial plants and factories DOES NOT increase your measured exposure to pollutants, since the pollutants in one's body come from entirely different sources. Thus, the living-close-to-the-source hypothesis, which your story uncritially assumed, is a myth, based on 20 years of scientific findings on environmental health and exposure. I do not want to discourage your excellent work, but your story would be more balanced and credible if you interviewed some eenvironmental health scientists, of which there are many in the Bay Area, in addition to nonscientists who have a clearly nonscientific agenda. Sincerely, Wayne Ott, Ph.D.

]]>