JIP,

You are confusing the issue with the facts. You have the facts.

Jerks who author stuff like that use scattered facts in their BS rants.
Plus, they don't listen to followups like yours.

As Jesus said, "The truth is the truth no matter who says it."

The corollary is true as well: Democrats speak BS even in those rare
instances when they try to tell the truth. Unfortunately, THAT doesn't
happen often enough to have reliable data for a measurable statistic.

Dave
KZ1O

jjp wrote:
(Kevin Souter) wrote in message ...

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil
companies, making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union.


This is a misleading statement. There are many different kinds of
pollution, and this implies Texas is highest overall or in all
categories, which it is not.


During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the
most
smog-ridden city in America.


Ozone is only one component of air pollution; there are five others,
according to the EPA. Houston surpassed L.A. in ozone only (not other
kinds of air pollution or pollution overall) and only in 1999-2000.

These will be of interest:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m12.../article.jhtml
"Anyone who claims that Houston's smog problems are equal to or worse
than L.A.'s is misinformed," says Kay Jones, a former EPA official who
now consults on air quality."

http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_sout....af.0.a4.cccba.
html
"In some ways, calling Houston America's smoggiest city misrepresented
the relative quality of air in the two cities. Los Angeles' air is
worse than Houston's in other categories. But ozone is the primary
pollutant of concern and therefore gets more attention, officials
said."

http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn...lates/air.html
"Houston's number of ozone violation days are actually somewhat fewer
than in the 1980s. The difference seems to be that Los Angeles has
improved more and faster."

Those were older articles. Here's more recent info on ozone
violations:

http://www.lungusa.org/air2001/analysis02.html#woes
State of the Air 2002
"For the third straight year, the top four most ozone-polluted
metropolitan areas were in California: Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
County; Bakersfield; Fresno; and Visalia-Tulare-Porterville. The state
also has the five most ozone-polluted counties: San Bernadino has been
number 1 three years in a row; Kern, comes in at number 2 this year,
after claiming the number 3 spot for the previous two years; Fresno
moves up to number 3 after two years as the fourth-most polluted
county, Riverside is number 4, after two years as the second-most
polluted county; and Tulare, number five for the second year in a
row."

And overall air quality:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2056693
Number of days in 2000-2002 when air quality was unhealthy
1. Riverside-San Bernardino, Ca. 445 days
2. Fresno, Ca. 421
3. Bakersfield, Ca. 409
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Ca. 255
5. Sacramento, Ca. 163
6. Pittsburgh, Penn. 134
7. Knoxville, Tenn. 109
8. Birmingham, Al. 100
9. Houston, Tx. 94
10. Baltimore, Md. 93

Once again -- ozone (the main component of smog) is not the only kind
of air pollution, and probably not even the most dangerous:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html
".... 1999-2001 EPA data, do not take into account a pollutant that's
considered more dangerous than smog -- tiny particles of soot
that can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart problems and even
death."

http://bicycleaustin.info/articles/p...cise-risk.html
"Severe particulate (soot) pollution exists in many urban and desert
areas, including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City,
Salt Lake City and Phoenix, which in 1998 surpassed Riverside, Calif.,
with the nation's highest particulate levels. Levels of particulate
matter in Houston's air do not exceed the limit set in the current
national health standard for that air pollutant."

There is no good reason to spread lies and exaggerations about Houston
and Texas in the name of politics.


--
This file is PureMail protected. To reply to the sender,
you MUST include this in the subject line:

YKXWBSX7I6 01/03/2004

(without that string in the subject, your
message will be deleted, unread)