Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|