Skip to comments.ICC Could Be Hazardous To Your Children's Health
Posted on 12/02/2006 6:21:28 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
More than 1 million residents of the Washington-Baltimore region already live close to heavily trafficked motorways where dangerous soot pollution is at levels that can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks and respiratory disease. Building the $2.4 billion (and rising), 18-mile intercounty connector linking Interstate 270 to Interstate 95 through neighborhoods and near schools would worsen these health problems.
Maryland Gov.-elect Martin O'Malley (D) reiterated his support for the road following his election last month, but if the public demands protection for our children and the elderly, he still could take steps to prevent these health hazards.
The toxic pollution the ICC would generate will threaten the health of children who live, play and attend schools and day-care centers near this proposed highway. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended protecting children from the harmful effects of air pollution by not locating schools near highways.
California has banned new schools from locations within 500 feet of major highways. Yet located within 500 feet of the proposed ICC route are a school (Drew Elementary) and several parks: East Norbeck Park; Northwest Branch Recreational Park; Layhill Park; Rock Creek Regional Park; and ball fields and playgrounds near Royal Forest in Colesville.
The California law is based on recent research that links motor vehicle emissions and adverse health effects suffered by children. There are numerous studies from around the world that demonstrate that children in neighborhoods adjacent to freeways and major truck routes are at significantly greater risk of serious health impairment from asthma and other respiratory ailments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What a bunch of liberal frickin morons at the Wash comPost! Talk about trying to bias the article as MUCH as possible against the ICC. Ugh!!!
Highways wil actually HELP children and the elderly by:
1: Taking the traffic out of neighborhoods, where children play.
2: Allowing vehicles to travel efficiently so that they DO NOT pollute the way they do in stop-and-go typical Maryland gridlock.
3: I'm sure I can go on and on if need be.
Liberals just hate that people don't all take public transportation to and from work. Well, all of the people except themselves, of course.
-- John M. Balbus
-- Jim Fary
John Balbus is health program director at nonprofit Environmental Defense. Jim Fary is a former Environmental Protection Agency policy analyst and planner.
More liberal activists doing whatever they can to keep gridlock in the D.C. area. They already tried the "all of the children will die if you build the ICC" route. It has been approved by the state and federal government and has been in planning for 45 YEARS.
BUILD THE DAMN THING...
This is why I won't even steal a copy of the WaPo out of a trash can to line the bird cage. I have more respect for the bird shat.
But for all - Note: This is simply a Letter To The Editor. It has nothing to do with fact. It is a bunch of anti-car morons still trying to stop the now under construction ICC. With a new governor being sworn in in Jan(?) they are hoping that he pulls a Glendenning and change his mind after being elected running on building the ICC.
This is exactly what Al Gore wants - to go back to the horse and buggy!
I think people probably don't pay too much attention to car exhaust because it's largely invisible. But the sheer volume of it near a major road is obviously quite large. At least they are not putting lead in gas anymore, but perhaps there are other substances in car exhaust that are not so great for children's developing minds and bodies.
If the same quantity of traffic were to pass through smaller roads the quantity of emission would be higher. Cars are more efficient cruising at highway speeds than in stop and go traffic. Gridlock causes WAY more pollution than interstates. If a car gets 25 mpg on the highway and 17 mpg in stop and go traffic it will put out roughly 1.5 times the pollutants when NOT on the highway, over the same distance traveled.
Building a highway will not increase traffic. It will simply re-route the current traffic to a more efficient route.
Unfortunately, there is credibility. I do not live in the area under discussion, so I don't have a horse in this race. Statistics are proving a connection between the increase in asthma in society, particularly in children, to increased exposure to auto emissions. Those children who live closest to heavily-trafficed highways are at increased risk.
Of course, I also have another idea about this. When I was a child, children spent very little time in vehicles at all. They were not being constantly transported here and there. They were not exposed to heavy traffic on a daily basis or to idling vehicles. I knew 1 classmate in 13 years of school who had asthma. Nowadays, there might be as many as 2 or 3 in 1 classroom who need inhalers.
My son's girlfriend suffers from severe asthma. We almost lost her a couple of years ago.
This is misleading. You left out children who live closest to heavily-trafficked arterial roadways. Since these are normally more gridlocked than interstates the problem is worse than with interstates. If the same quantity of traffic goes by at an average of 15 mph vs. 30 mph the pollution is worse in the slow condition due to engine efficiencies.
The answer, of course, is to close all roads and/or stop building new roads. and force everyone to take public transportation - which is what many liberal governments are trying to do.
It's an editorial. They can say that.
Yep. Sorry I jumped on you. I agree: BUILD THE DAMNED THING!
I wonder if the ultra-low-sulfur diesel being mandated for trucks and autos in this country will reduce the soot content in the exhaust? I'm not sure the enviros are taking this possibility into account when planning to sue ICC construction, as they intend.
Not quite: it's a letter to the editor, which is not news nor an editorial. Therefore they are rarely posted on F.R. (much like posting people's blogs). It was not made clear in the post that it was simply someone's rantings.
As you can see in my post #5 I identified it as such after reading the article in it's entirety.
I didn't deliberately leave out anything. It was a general statement. I am not adverse to the increased voluntary use of public transportation, although I don't want it forced down my throat.
This type of letter to the editor is what people do to try and scare people: "Children **may** die if...blah, blah, blah..." They then don't cover the other side of the issue that says children will be better off.
Sadly the entire story rarely gets out when it comes to these types of issues. Much like the press rarely getting out the conservative side of a story. The "environmentalists" "We're All Gonna Die - The Children Twice... Each" stories make much better headlines.
I live in this area and frankly, I am against this new development. It will just encourage more sprawl and make the problem worse in the long run.