Time for precaution to protect public health
by Jane Dale Owen
The Houston Chronicle’s “In Harm’s Way” series reveals the critical state of air pollution in the Houston-Galveston area, lax regulation of polluters and a disturbing lack of concern for public health. When state employees become ill while monitoring the air in neighborhoods where children play every day and the officials say they don’t have the power to enforce emission standards, it is clear that something is wrong with this system. When “business” says the regulations are too strict, it is clear that public health is a lower priority than profit.
It also is clear that the Bush administration’s “Clear Skies” bill soon to reach the Senate for hearing is not going to help. The National Academy of Sciences released its report on the bill last week showing the bill would likely weaken the current Clean Air Act rules for emissions from power plants.
Major change is needed now in the way industry is monitored and regulated.
More than enough compelling evidence exists to show a relationship between air pollution and illness. High rates of asthma, cancer, birth defects and other health problems have been linked to air pollution. Cancer rates for children in most Westernized countries have risen over the last several decades, an increase that most researchers attribute to pollution.
Industry and government have had access to data regarding the link between cancer and industry emissions in the Houston-Galveston area for almost 30 years. A study published in 1976 by Eleanor Macdonald, epidemiologist then working for M.D. Anderson, showed Houston cancer death rates were tied to air pollution.
Underreporting of industry emissions also has been known for a while. In 2000, the $20 million Texas Air Quality Study discovered that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), known as ozone precursors, coming from plants and refineries in the area were seven to 15 times higher than what industry reported. Some chemicals were 100 times higher than reported.
It is time to make concern for long-term health effects a higher priority than short-term business profits. The cost for industry to reduce emissions would be a fraction of the cost in premature deaths, hospitalizations, emergency room visits and lost work, if industry is allowed to continue without better emission controls.
A policy of “do no harm” is needed now. The burden of proof needs to shift from those who call for protection toward those proposing an action, or in Houston’s case inaction, that may cause harm. As a guide toward this end, in 1998 environmental leaders developed The Precautionary Principle. It states: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." This principle is now guiding decisions in European countries and in international agreements.
Precaution regarding air pollution is long overdue in Houston. Clearly it is time for Houston leaders to demand industry accurately monitor and reduce emissions. We also need to urge the Houston medical establishment to study the health effects of air pollution in Houston and lead prevention of future health problems.
Mayor Bill White has stated his concern about Houston’s air pollution and his intention to call for tougher regulations and enforcement regarding air toxins. I support him in this effort, and I hope all Houstonians will become more active in demanding public health protection.
