Harbor Headlines
More headlines in the news, for those of you naysayers out there....LA Times: Diesel Fumes From Ports Raising Cancer Risk in Region, Study Says
SF Chronicle: LA area's ports spread cancer threat far inland, study shows
And more on development...
Long Beach Press Telegram: Terminal's tradeoffs
Daily Breeze: Something big for the waterfront?
Daily Breeze: San Pedro residents will view plans for 2,300-home project
LA Times: Smoother-Running Port Isn't Pleasing Everybody
Posted by Mayor Frank @ 10/05/2005 05:17:00 AM
11 Comments:
Well, this all speaks for itself, doesn't it?
A wise man said that public awareness is the key to these issues. He said that, when the public realizes that its health, and the health of it children, are being sacrificed in the name of the "engine of the economy" (whose economy would appear to be an open question), the public will not stand for it.
Many thanks for your great public service in making this powerful contribution to that public awareness.
Mayor Antonio, it was both smart & brave to bring Ms. Kennard back to manage the Airport Department. Now, you need to find as good a leader for the Port - and it's not Mr. Bruce Seaton or Ms. Stacey Jones. They are both dinosaurs and need to be given the "Kim Day Treatment".
As for today's Post, let me start by quoting the San Gabriel Valley News (Oct.3,2005) "And the cargo coming into ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles has increased from the equivalent of 5.1 million 20-foot containers in 1994 to 13.1 million containers in 2004, according to data from the Port of Long Beach."
We Angeleno's need to ask What mitigation has Wilmington & San Pedro received in exchange for this huge increase in industrial activity and the subsequent decrease in quality of life and health? The Wilmington & San Pedro Waterfront Promenades were supposed to be a "down-payment" on the mitigation owed to the communities.
Instead, the Port Staff now says the Waterfront Improvements must pay for themselves and make a market rate-of-return. Turning the Waterfront Access projects into profit-centers and tourist-traps will require additional mitigation, and leaves unaddressed the original need to mitigate for a decade of unrestrained industrial growth.
I hope the Mayor will remind the new Harbor Commissioners that the community is still owed substantial mitigation for the past actions of the Port - and the best mitigation is to create a non-commercial public waterfront, with parks and promenades for all Angeleno's to enjoy. Privatizing the waterfront by building luxury hotels, condominiums & shopping centers is not Mitigation.
This looks a lot like a post I am putting together today, same links and everything. Damn you and your psychic abilities.
Thanks for covering the Harbor Area. There's as much going on in this part of the city as any other, yet so much of what happens here seems under the radar.
I guess the time has come to take this issue seriously -- and it seems that Freeman and the rest of the Harbor Commission are taking it seriously.
I'm hoping that there is some muscle behind the talk. The time to hesitate is long gone. Do Something Now!
How about electric rail!
I am a local resident, property, and small business owner in San Pedro. A day doesn’t go by that I don’t worry about what I’m breathing in. And I know that I’m probably going to get sick from living here.
How can the Port plan to add more than 14,000 parking spaces, multiple cruise ship terminals, a 6 lane highway, hotels and shopping plazas that will be serviced by more trucks – and so on, when this area is already one of the highest cancer risk areas in our state? I just can’t comprehend it… And I believe this kind of plan is discriminatory towards the local, generally poor community and frankly, ILLEGAL.
The Port needs to reduce pollution, not add to it with this greedy, short-sighted, and frankly, unremarkable and undistinguished plan. The Port must reduce privatization of OUR waterfront, not give it away to a few hit and run developers with mediocre profit driven visions.
We will follow which developer is connected to whom, and who has contributed to or supported whom’s campaign or career. Clearly, there will be connections…
And they will be publicized.
The Port has not mitigated for past growth & pollution. How can they add more polluting development without cleaning up the toxic past? Simple – greed and corruption - and an obvious disdain for the local community. Is it lawsuit time again???
Get rid of Bruce Seaton and Stacey Jones NOW. And the corrupt staff that’s feeding the new Harbor Commissioners and the Mayor’s office the dirt of the past. Are we familiar with the term “new broom”? There’s a reason why smart executives clean house when they enter their new positions.
PLEASE help the community that surrounds the Port, and the city at large.
Make changes NOW. Start cleaning up NOW. Don’t be corrupted. We’re depending on the new Mayor and Harbor Commissioners.
10:25 Hi Janet, nice to have you back.
Thanks for the pseudonym! ...guess it could be my new 'handle'...
I can assure you that there are more people than "Janet" in San Pedro and surrounds that are concerned about these issues.
The Ports are literally killing people. Shame on the LATimes for devoting one graf today to the Air Resources Board report that the pollution from the Ports is killing people 15-20 miles away. The BREEZE at least bothered to write a story about it and the LAWEEKLY devoted lots of ink recently to the stripmining of the community by PORT businesses. It is unconscionable that our government allows them to refuse to pay for the true cost of doing business.
Yes, it is time for a new broom to sweep out the myopic and tone deaf.
That broom will be pushed by the vast majority of residents and homeowners, who see their children suffering and who will soon have to disclose to prospective buyers the negative health impacts of living in the Ports' shadow. We have complained for more than 20 years. It is past time for the Port leadership to act. Stop the rampant pollution. Stop the coporate interests from walking off with bigger and bigger profits and slow-walking anti-pollution efforts. Clean up the particulates and the air pollution. Stop paying off the big box retailers with low-cost piece work hauling by truckers. Oakland is buying new rigs for truckers at PORT (!) expense.
Let's have ports for the 21st Century, not robber barons who live in the past.
In all fairness to the Times, they actually broke this story yesterday on page 3 of the California section, beating the Breeze and the Press-Telegram by a day. It was also reported on KFWB yesterday morning, I assume reading it from the Times as usual.
Aside from that, Mr. Warren is dead right in his comments.
Many thanks Mr. Warren for your thoughtful and insightful analysis and your courage in stepping forward to comment under your own name.
Thanks...and my apologies to the Times. I pulled the article from the recycling. WOW!
It said, in part:
------------------
"Diesel fumes from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are elevating the risk of cancer not only adjacent to the ports but many miles inland, a new study shows.
It is the first state study that shows that air pollution from the ports is increasing cancer risk in the Los Angeles Basin, said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which released a draft of the study Tuesday.
The study concludes that potential cancer risk from port-related diesel fumes exceeds 50 additional cases of cancer per million people for residents within 15 miles of the two ports....
"What we are saying is that ... 100 [in the study area] are going to have cancer for no other reason than the diesel pollution from the ports," Martin said. He said lung cancer is the primary risk from diesel fumes. Lung cancer is usually fatal.
The 53,000 people who live nearest the two seaports face a risk exceeding 500 in a million from port pollution alone, according to the study.
Under state law, fixed facilities such as refineries and dry cleaners must post warnings if the potential cancer risk exceeds 10 additional cases of cancer per million people. In the Los Angeles area, polluters must prepare detailed plans and slash emissions if the risk exceeds 25 cases per million.
The sources of much of the diesel exhaust, however, are not covered by those rules because ships, trains, trucks and cargo equipment are considered "mobile sources" that are regulated less stringently.
That distinction has handcuffed local and state regulators who are attempting to reduce port pollution.
Air experts call the latest study the most thorough to date of the potential health problems caused by pollution at the adjacent seaports, the two largest in the nation.
Earlier research had found that diesel fumes accounted for 71% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in the Los Angeles region.
Other reports have looked at cancer risk from a variety of sources. But the state study is the first comprehensive look at the cancer risk of diesel fumes generated within the ports. The fumes are especially harmful to children and the elderly....
One surprise in the study is that pollution from within the two ports extends so far inland, Ospital said."
--------------------
I guess I missed it cause I spent too much time with the AL play off games.
The LA Weekly article last week stated that 1 in every 200 people in the harbor area can expect to get cancer from port related pollution at some time in their lives.
That is a SHOCKING statistic!
Soon there will be a movie about this -- Erin Brockovich Part 2.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home