Wednesday, May 28, 2008

KATRINA KIDS FACE LIFELONG HEALTH PROBLEMS

BOSTON GLOBE Tens of thousands of youngsters . . . may face lifelong health problems because the temporary housing supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency contained formaldehyde fumes up to five times the safe level. The chemical, used in interior glue, was detected in many of the 143,000 trailers sent to the Gulf Coast in 2006. But a push to get residents out of them, spearheaded by FEMA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not begin until this past February.

Members of Congress and CDC insiders say the agencies' delay in recognizing the danger is being compounded by studies that will be virtually useless and the lack of a plan to treat children as they grow. . .

Formaldehyde is classified as a probable carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no way to measure formaldehyde in the bloodstream. Respiratory problems are an early sign of exposure.

16 Comments:

At May 29, 2008 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ethnic cleansing continues.

 
At May 29, 2008 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wake up, grow up! The government is not your mother. You are responsible for your own life, your own health, and your own safety. No one is forced to accept FEMA aid after a disaster. No one is forced to keep living in a city that has seen four or five major floods in the past hundred years. If you choose to keep living in a disaster area, expect disasters. And quit whining.

 
At May 29, 2008 1:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to put too fine a point on it it, but if the "ethnics" you're referring to are American Negroes, then one would have to say that with their rates of black-on-black murder, drug usage, and (preventable) HIV infection, they're doing a pretty good job of 'cleansing' themselves out of existence.

 
At May 29, 2008 5:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That should of course be one "it".

 
At May 30, 2008 12:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Warning: "Compassionate conservatives" (racist Libertarian psychopaths) showing their good side at 12:37 and 1:20. Story at 11.

 
At May 30, 2008 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truth is often unpleasant, unpalatable and unfortunate--but it should always be spoken, in distinct preference to the namby-pamby pretty lies, evasions, and whitewashings (and yes, I'm aware of the pun) that the likes of 12:25would have us indulge in.

 
At May 30, 2008 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So does government owe anything to Taxpayers? Many of the people displaced in Katrina were/are taxpayers. Should the governement have warned them better and had buses to help get taxpayers and their familes out of the city? Or should the government take people's money and tell them "tough" when disaster strikes that was peventable, but happened anyway because of governement inaction.

If the tax money of the people in the area had been used to shore up the levees, the city might not have flooded, or it would have flooded less, saving a great deal of life and property.

If the government wants taxes then the government owes a debt to the taxpayer and should do at least some minimal efforts to protect the safety of the populace. Anything less makes taxes nothing, but theft.

 
At May 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can completely agree with 1252's comments on what the gov. owes to the taxpayers who fund it; but I'm also tired of the 'ethnic cleansing' line. Poor whites got and continue to get just as screwed as the poor blacks in NOLA, but nowadays, poor whites aren't news. Maybe there are just too many of 'em.

 
At May 30, 2008 3:57 PM, Anonymous laughing said...

Firstly, there are some serious questions as to whether the corps of Engineers hindered not only warnings about the imminent threat of hurricane disaster, but failed to effectively and in a timely fashion proceed with then currently approved repairs. This reminds us of Nixon's sabotage of previously funded social programs by witholding (illegally) the appropriated money then blaming the programs themselves for failure. Secondly Libertarians are not racist nor are they lacking in compassion, irregardless of the mewings of clintonistas who keep encouraging Obama's murder. What should have been expected is that bush/cheney would seize on disaster as an opportunity for rape (frat boys that they are). Putting all that aside, most of the ninth ward residents have been pretty much excluded from return by GOVERNMENT ACTION AND POLICY. THAT'S BULLSHIT and we as fellow citizen's and human beings owe them a debt. We are obligated to make a lot of noise until they get some real help that doesn't involve building casino's for white gangsters who contribute to gangsters (dem and repub) campaign funds.

 
At May 30, 2008 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racists dancing on the misfortunes of poor children in NOLA. You must have mistaken Prorev for Free Republic.

 
At May 30, 2008 5:24 PM, Anonymous laughing said...

Why is it so unfathomable that reducing the inevitability of most U.S. tax money going to the pentagon and it's legions of teat/dick/ass suckers is so radical? Ron Paul wants to close ALL overseas U.S. bases. If the only game in town weren't international gangsterism , isn't it possible that there would be money to be made in producing cheaper and better food? Cheaper and better housing? Cheaper , better, less intrusive government including fairer more responsive less intrusive law enforcement? What is so fucking radical and offensive about that?

 
At May 30, 2008 5:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only "racist" here is you, 516, with your sorry-ass inability to admit that poor white children suffered and continue to suffer as well. Burn in hell hypocrite asshole.

 
At May 30, 2008 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I'd guess nothing about that is so 'radical' or 'offensive', Laughing, seeing as nobody here has been arguing against any of those things.

 
At May 30, 2008 8:09 PM, Anonymous laughing said...

The FEMA trailers and their formaldehyde contamination are direct evidence of the corrupt cronyism that has masqueraded as gov't for too long. Whether you believe that blacks or whites are the source of your problem, those misconceptions play to the advantage of the dems and the repubs because their whole scam is that if you give them money and relinguish control they'll fix things. Right, they'll fix things so no one has any chance to effect change or even to be heard. When you try to legislate social justice you can expect those who disagree with equal rights will use gov't to legislate their own beliefs once they gain power. Everytime I read this site Sam or some other dreamer is mooning about his own heaven (which might be our hell) being visited upon us by a beneficit gov't. I n Britain they now have courts where you can be prosecuted for civil (or incivil) offenses that aren't even crimes. My view is that I can make my own whiskey without the gov't's help or interference. But the real deal is that everytime the gov't attempts anything, it ends as graft, failure and taxpayer debt. I have no quarrel with helping poor people, but until control is wrested from the corporately controlled political parties, the best course of action is to reduce gov't. and restore the constitution.

 
At May 31, 2008 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This may be the first time I've ever agreed with you on this site, but in essence I'd have to say your remarks are correct--up to a point.

There is no doubt that the US gov. has pretty much devoluted into a pluto-cum-kleptocracy, where only the wealthy stand any chance of rulership, and where, once in those positions they do little else but rob the populace to further their wealth and thereby entrench themselves that much more deeply into their positions of power. I don't see the option of anarchy as any real option, however. There's never yet been a sustained, viable, long-term social structure based on anarchic principles,; and while, as Gore Vidal has said, nothing is impossible, there are many things that are highly improbable; and a long-term anarchic social situation would be high up on the list of improbables. Man is a hive and social animal, and, like it or no, some form of government will always be a necessary evil deriving from that basic fact. That said, the real trick is to minimize both just what it is government does, and put strong strictures into place on just who may serve, and for how long. This would of necessity exclude some citizens (in my book some of the excluded would include any individual who is a practicing religious functionary, anyone with ties to or serving on any large corporate body, and those with a net worth of over 500,000.00); of course, these exclusions would perforce not be in total keeping with the stated ideals of a democratic society. But since the plutocrats have had little scruple about jettisoning those ideals to replace with their own self-serving ideals of 'democracy' anyway, I think we can afford not to lose too much sleep over the idea of turning the tables to favor the majority over the wealthy minority.

Britain is a poor choice of country to cite as an example of socialist government; it has (and has also in the past) tended dangerously to emulate the American slide into fascism and totalitarian rule through a so-called 'nanny state'. Most European nations who have achieved viable socialist systems of wealth distribution have done so under the eye of a very involved and vocal population, something the US (and increasingly, Britain) rather notoriously lack. The checks on government have to come through the agency of the governed; in this country, we abandoned that idea so long ago--if we ever really practiced it anyway--that it is unlikely, under present circumstances, that we'll ever get out from under the mess that our government has cancerously metastasized into.

 
At June 3, 2008 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another thread that shows the world is doomed. Don't you just love it when racists hide behind the "I'm just trying to be objective and point out the realities" line. The problem is, they only seem to see half the realities and ignore the facts which are incovenient.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home