ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

SURVEY CLAIMS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SMOKING BANS

     The United Pro-Choice Smoking Rights Newsletter reports a survey by a Mississippi State University researcher Robert McMillen, M.D. indicating anti-smoking attitudes have increased in the USA from 2005-2006.  A key excerpt:

“A growing majority of adults in the U.S. favor restrictions on smoking in public settings, suggesting that many communities across the nation have the public support for much broader public smoking restriction policies,” he concluded.

McMillen and his research team conducted six annual cross-sectional household telephone surveys in the summers of 2000-2005, while numerous state and national tobacco control programs were being implemented. The surveys included national probability samples of adults from all 50 states, and had a response rate of 75-87 percent.

Support for smoking bans increased from:
--71 to 80 percent in shopping malls;
--61 to 71 percent in restaurants;
--77 to 82 percent in fast-food restaurants;
--25 to 39 percent in outdoor parks; and
--78 to 82 percent in indoor sporting events.

Regarding household practices, support increased from 69 to 77 percent for smoke-free homes; and from 79 to 90 percent for smoking bans when children are present.

     So, if you smoke in your own home, beware:  you're next, especially if you have kids.  Just one thing--I wonder how the government will enforce an in-home smoking ban?  Will the police be going to Court to get a warrant to break into your house to arrest you if there is probable cause to believe you are smoking in your den?

     Will your neighbors have a "hotline" to phone in anonymous tips if the neighbors peer into your windows and see you smoking? 

     What if you're smoking both cigarettes (increasingly impermissible) and marijuana (increasingly permissible) and you're cited or arrested because someone sees you smoking marijuana in your own home and merely mistook the weed for a cigarette? 

     Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  This will be one of those times if we move toward a police state in which anti-smoking stormtroopers can issue citations or make arrests for smoking even inside your own home. 

     Where is the ACLU when you really need it?

ARKANSAS-WHO SAYS A RED STATE CANNOT BE "PROGRESSIVE"?

     Previous Posts on this Blog have identified how the State of California (Post of 1/27/06) , Illinois and Maryland (Post of 2/10/06), Oklahoma (Post of 3/10/06), the City of Calabasas, California (Post of 3/18/06) and the District of Columbia (Post of 4/2/06) have jumped aboard the anti-smoking legislative bandwagon.

     Interestingly, while some of the jurisdictions noted above (D.C., California, Illinois, Maryland) are "Blue States" which could be expected to jump on this bandwagon, the "Red State" of Oklahoma has hopped aboard as well.  Now comes word that another Red State, Arkansas, is on board, too. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported earlier this month that the Legislature had sent to the Governor a bill that

...bans smoking in all motor vehicles carrying children who are restrained in those seats. The bill carries a $ 25 fine, which can be waived if drivers prove they have entered a smoking cessation program.

Violating the bill would be a “primary offense,” [State Rep. Bob]Mathis [D-Hot Springs and the author of the bill] said, meaning police could use violations of the bill to justify pulling someone over.

“And I’m tickled to death about it,” Mathis said.

He said he wasn’t particularly sure how police would determine the age or weight of children while trying to enforce the law.

“I don’t know that the police are going to be out there with a scale weighing anybody,” Mathis said.

A spokesman for the Little Rock Police Department said he wasn’t too sure on how the law would be enforced in the field, either.

“That’s a good question,” said Little Rock Police Sgt. Terry Hastings.

“The law enforcement of it is something that would have to be worked out. If a parents says, ‘No, they’re 7,’ that could be a problem.”

     The Governor has signed the bill into law, per the The [Arkansas] Herald Leader.  As I've asked before in Posts on this subject, is this really how citizens want law enforcement expending its limited resources?  Apparently, in Arkansas, yes.

SUPREME COURT ASKED TO RESOLVE KEY CERCLA CONTRIBUTION ISSUE

     The April 21, 2006 edition of BNA's Environmental Reporter (subscription site) contains two important updates on the evolving law as to when a "Responsible Party" can bring a lawsuit for contribution under CERCLA:

Court Allows Use of CERCLA Section 107 As Vehicl to Sue Others for Contribution

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon joined the ranks of a growing number of federal courts March 14, holding that a potentially responsible party that voluntarily cleans up its property can sue under Section 107 of the superfund law (McDonald v. Sun Oil Co., D. Or., No. 03-1504, 3/14/06).

Over the last 16 months, more and more federal courts have read Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act broadly to mitigate the fallout of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cooper Industries v. Aviall, 543 U.S. 157, 59 ERC 1545 (2004).

In Cooper Industries, the Supreme Court ruled that a potentially responsible party (PRP) can file a contribution action against another PRP under Section 113 of CERCLA only if a "civil action" or a settlement has been filed previously (35 ER 2581, 12/17/04 ).

Supreme Court Asked to Review Ruling Allowing Section 107 Cost Recovery Lawsuit

UGI Utilities Inc. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court April 17 to review an appeals court ruling that a private party may bring a superfund cost recovery action against other potentially liable parties after it has voluntarily cleaned up hazardous waste (UGI Utilities Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., U.S., docket number unavailable, 4/17/06). The high court was asked to review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision, which was the first federal appeals court decision to address cost recovery under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act since the Supreme Court decided Cooper Industries v. Aviall, 543 U.S. 157, 59 ERC 1545 (2004) (35 ER 2581, 12/17/04 ).

In Cooper Industries, the Supreme Court held that only potentially responsible parties that have been sued or have otherwise resolved their superfund liability with the government may bring a Section 113 contribution claim for costs incurred. However, the decision left open the question of whether a PRP may pursue a 107(a) action against other PRPs, including as an alternative remedy to a barred Section 113 claim.

***

The Second Circuit decision said that after Cooper Industries, it "no longer makes sense" to view Section 113 as the sole means by which PRPs can seek to recover from other PRPs (Consolidated Industries Co. v. UGI Utilities Inc., 423 F.3d 90, 61 ERC 1321 (2d Cir. 2005) (36 ER 1954, 9/23/05 ).

ANOTHER REASON TO LIKE CHRISTMAS TREES

The Guardian (UK) carries a story today ("Fragrance of pine forests helps to slow climate change") that might even cause the ACLU to like public displays of affection for Christmas:

The fresh fragrance released by trees in northern pine forests is a significant component in slowing climate change, according to research.

The particles that carry the forests' olfactory assault also help to cool the planet by bouncing energy from the sun back into space. Now researchers have worked out that the forests produce enough microscopic particles to load the atmosphere around them with 1,000-2,000 particles per cubic centimetre of air.

***

Hans-Christen Hansson of the Air Pollution Laboratory in Stockholm, Sweden, said airborne particles are a big unknown factor for climate scientists. "We are afraid we have totally misjudged the trend of climate change because the particles are not in the models in a comprehensive way."

The particles, called monoterpenes, give pine and spruce forests their characteristic aroma. They either affect climate directly by bouncing sunlight back into space or by seeding clouds, which do the same thing. "That gives us a very big uncertainty for projection of the effects of greenhouse gases," he added.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT-"Riding a solar cycle"

     The Waterbury Republican-American weighs in on the global-warming debate in today's editorial, "Riding a solar cycle":

The global-warming scare machine has been running full bore, most recently with Time magazine's cover story, "Be Worried. By Very Worried." What is remarkable about the promulgation of the dogma that global warming is destroying the earth, and human activity is causing it, is the way this perspective ignores a rather large force dictating surface and atmospheric temperatures.

That is to say, the sun.

***

The sun is currently at its most active level in 300 years.

"That, say scientists in Philadelphia [at a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science], could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed." It may also help to explain why the effects of global warming have been observed on Mars, a planet not known for its coal-burning power plants or sport-utility vehicles.

      The Waterbury Republican-American thus repeats what I previously covered here in a Post of September 28, 2005 ("Global Warming-On Mars and Pluto")  (see "GLOBAL WARMING" under CATEGORIES", right-hand side of this web page).  There is a substantial scientific view that, if global warming is in fact occurring, the phenomenon may be part of a natural cycle rather then the by-product of evil industrialism.

     Obviously, the jury is still out.  However, before we set about to wreck our lifestyles and plunge the country into recession or even depression (see previous Posts on this subject, again under "GLOBAL WARMING") by signing on to such ill-conceived notions as the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps we should at least let the jury continue to hear all the theories and evidence on the subject of global warming rather than plunge into potentially disastrous policies based on fear mongering.

     A final, side, note:  I'm sure that the above-referenced scientific comment on the sun, rather than man, possibly being the cause of any global warming will receive prominent attention in The New York Times, the LA Times and on the mainstream network newscasts.  Do I need to add a "(sarcasm)" disclaimer to that statement or is the sarcasm obvious?

New Study Claims "Mold Usually Harmful Only in Large Concentrations to Allergic Individuals"

A new study from the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology ("ACAAI") falls into line with a growing consensus the effects of "toxic mold".  For what it's worth, the study was funded in part by the Clorox Corporation.  Anyway, here are key conclusions from a press release put out by the ACAAI:

Mold is normally present in all homes, but is usually harmful only in large concentrations to allergic or sensitive individuals, according to a report published in this month’s Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the scientific journal of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI).

"Although toxic mold has received much media attention lately, toxic reactions caused by fungal exposure have not been found to be a significant health problem," said lead author Jay M. Portnoy, MD, of the Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. "The more common household molds, when in the presence of moisture, can proliferate and cause problems and health effects that are generally due to allergy or irritation to fungal substances."

***

"A number of studies have suggested that exposure to indoor fungi can trigger allergy symptoms. Fungal exposure is also associated with exacerbations of asthma, although it remains unclear that this exposure causes the disease," Dr. Portnoy said.

Adverse health symptoms associated with fungal contact also include fungal infection, irritant reaction to spores or fungal metabolites, and toxic reaction to mycotoxins, described in the report as follows:

• Infection: Most common indoor fungi grow near room temperature and do not easily grow inside the human body. Aspergillus is the most likely to cause respiratory infections, where most other fungi tend to infect the skin, nails and other areas of the body that function a lower temperatures.

• Irritant: An irritant reaction to fungi exposure causes inflammation and can happen without previous hypersensitivity. Substances produced by fungi that are suspected to cause irritant reactions include microbially derived volatile organic compounds (MVOCs), ergosterols and glucans. MVOCs are produced by fungi as a byproduct of their metabolism, and their health effects are undetermined. They may cause nontoxic adverse effects as irritants or trigger psychological effects because of their odor. Toxic reactions do not likely occur as a result of MVOC exposure due to the low concentrations present in even the most contaminated environments.

• Toxic reaction: Most toxic reactions to fungi occur as a result of eating mold-contaminated foods. A toxic reaction is unlikely to occur from inhalation of fungi since the amount of exposure generally is too low to cause health effects.

THE 70'S WERE EVEN COOLER THAN WE REMEMBER

     George Will reminds us how short is our attention span:

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

Ah, but 30 years later, the global-warming crowd knows it all.

IN PERCHLORATE DEBATE, THE KEY LETTER IS "P" FOR POLITICS

     The Los Angeles Times never fails to disappoint in its mediocre coverage of just about any story.

     The most recent example of the paper's mediocrity regarding perchlorate coverage is seen in the Times' March 16, 2006 coverage of critics blasting the federal EPA's 24.5 ppb interim health goal for the chemical in drinking water.  The Times prominently implies that this is a lax standard (never mind it is only an interim guidance while EPA studies and formulates a permanent standard) promoted solely because those wicked people in the Bush Administration want to spare industry and the military from having to clean up their health-threatening menacing messes:

Warning that babies are especially vulnerable, a federal panel of scientists has lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency's health goal for a toxic chemical that has widely contaminated drinking water and foods, particularly in Southern California.

The EPA's new goal for perchlorate, an ingredient of solid rocket fuel, "is not supported by the underlying science and can result in exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early life," wrote Melanie Marty of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who chairs the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.

The letter from the committee of 26 scientists, sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson on March 8, warned the agency that it is putting babies at unnecessary risk of neurological damage. The EPA's interim goal for perchlorate, announced in January, "does not protect infants and should be lowered," the scientists said in their letter.

It is the second time in less than two months that an EPA scientific advisory panel has criticized the Bush administration for proposing a standard or guideline for a pollutant that would not adequately protect public health.

     It is not until the 10th paragraph of the article that the Times grudgingly gives a one-sentence reference to the fact (previously reported on this Blog; see Post of February 18, 2005) that the 24.5 ppb interim guidance standard is not far off of a 20 ppb standard recommended by the National Academy of Sciences--a prestigious scientific organization in itself.  Moreover, the Times article conveniently fails to mention that the Academy has issued a study finding no adverse health effects from perchlorate in milk (see Post on this Blog of November 18, 2005).  Nor does the Times find it important to report there is reason to doubt that, at least in the United States (where iodine-abundant foods are consumed by almost everyone) and even in some foreign countries, the reduction in iodine caused by perchlorate likely has anything above a de minimis health effect at all (see Posts of March 9, 2005 and December 30, 2005).

     Most everyone knows that the Times has seen a decline in its fortunes over the past few years.  With reporting like the article discussed herein, it is easy to see why the decline continues.

ADD D.C. TO THE ANTI-SMOKING LIST

From Sunday's Washington Post:

Washington's new smoke-free workplaces law takes effect Monday. The law prohibits smoking in indoor public places such as restaurant dining areas, offices and apartment lobbies.

Regulations get tougher on Jan. 1, 2007, when the ban will extend to bar areas of restaurants, taverns and nightclubs.

The only exceptions are outdoor areas, hotel guest rooms, tobacco stores and cigar bars.

Business owners have objected to the ban, arguing it will drive customers to Northern Virginia, where smoking is still allowed.