AP:
By on Dec 13th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
AP:
An analysis of “a little-known government research project shows that black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I guess the Right is Wrong and that racial segregation is thriving in Bush’s Amerikkka.
I realize Bush doesn’t like the “soft bigotry” of lowered expectations. I guess he prefers the “hard bigotry” of poisoning children by forcing them to live in squalid conditions.
“We had a war on poverty, and poverty won.” R. Reagan
We need a new war on poverty, as well funded and aggressive as the Iraq venture. If we can be in the Iraq war for decades, why can’t we fight this one for equally as long?
Don’t tell me it’s too expensive. If there’s money to help Iraqis there’s money to help Americans. Make the rich and the corporations pay their fair share and there’ll be plenty of money for real programs to eliminate poverty.
Hear that, Clarence Thomas?
December 13th, 2005 at 3:47 pmEconomic and environmental racism, although I think poverty in general is the overarching theme here.
If we can be in the Iraq war for decades, why can’t we fight this one for equally as long?
Unfortunately, Bush, or his handlers, must think photo-ops on aircraft carriers trump actually doing something that actually helps people who lack large amounts of disposable income. And asking rich people to forego their tax cuts in a time of “war?” Why do you hate America?
December 13th, 2005 at 3:56 pmIf the rich CEO’s and Corporations really gave a good rat’s ass the pollution would never have occurred in the first place. But unfortunately the rich CEO’s and Corporations are rich because they polluted instead of cleaning it up. The tax cuts that benefits that Bush has stolen from you and I and given to his cronies would be more than enough to help the poor keep the neighborhoods livable, at least, after the corporations are forced to clean up their mess. In this country only those with nothing to lose (read nothing with which to buy their way out)are held accountable. How many people have a lesser standard of living due to Enron, WorldCom, et al, while the CEO’s and the money are long gone? How many people are without proper medical care while Frist is quibbling over by how many MILLIONS he understated his insider trading gains? Why does this country allow the greedy in the health care, pharmaceutical, insurance, and related thieves get rich on the tragedies of the poor. Those industries, with the exception of the cosmetic type elective medical fraud, should at least be declared non-profit if not totally society controlled. It does not sit well with me to see some doctor drive off in some big foreign car which I bought for him because my boy fell and broke his arm. There will be another civil war in this Country sooner than we realize if something is not done with the crooks in Government and all political parties. IMPEACH NOW!
December 13th, 2005 at 4:16 pmOur corporation’s subtle practice of genocide.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:18 pmHaving grown up in a heavily industrialized (polluted) area myself, I can say first hand, that I’ve seen the negative effects of soil/air pollution on some of my neighbors, family members and childhood friends. Even though I no longer live in such an area, I still have some latent respiratory problems.
That said, as the article notes, the Bush administration’s relaxing of the clean-air standards is reversing any progress that has been made (by the Clinton administration) in making these areas safer for the inhabitants. This is unacceptable.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:47 pmzoning is no accident… this stuff is all planned out… there’s no question low income housing is put in dangerous locations (e.g. the Ninth Ward) intentionally…
December 13th, 2005 at 4:56 pmIt is very clear that the rates of cancer in crease in the US are much faster than any possible genetic mutation of the species. But the corporate power supported by the Bush administratio would not dare to invest more money that might expose environmental sources for cancer. Imagine if even one week’s Iraq budget went to research on cancer causes.
“Most breast cancers are preventable. This was the consensus of scientists who met with thirty-six women activists from the United States, Mexico, and Canada last month in Austin, Texas. Conference participants representing health, environmental, community, and medical research groups from across the continent discussed Women, Cancer and the Environment: Action for Prevention.
Women activists confirmed with the scientists what their research had already told them: 80 percent of cancers are caused by environmental factors. Cancer comes from the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, and the work we do. And these factors can be controlled.
In 1950 the rate of cancer was one in ten. It is now one in three. By the year 2000, cancer is expected to become the primary cause of death.
In 1940, only one in twenty women developed breast cancer and the rate was decreasing. ”
http://perc.ca/PEN/1994-06/mussell.html
December 13th, 2005 at 5:06 pmClinton ordered the study in 1993 and it’s based on 2000 census data. Bush wasn’t even president yet but it’s his fault. Hey TP, your pull your tin-foil hat above your eyes.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:38 pm#8
Where’s this Bush bashing you speak of?
The AP (Associated Press) examined the earlier Clinton study from 1993 and used 2000 Census information to get updated data.
And speaking of Bush, rolling back clean air standards that Clinton put in place to deal with said air-quality problem (thus increasing the risk for these people) is Bush’s fault.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:55 pmOh, crap, how could we be so blind. It is Clinton’s fault. Bush is the best president ever.
/sarcasm=off
December 13th, 2005 at 7:03 pmClinton ordered the study in 1993 and it’s based on 2000 census data.
Comment by Dirty Sanchez — December 13, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
Pres Clinton did order a study, but it was not based on 2000 census data.
From the article: “With help from government scientists, AP mapped the risk scores for every neighborhood counted by the Census Bureau in 2000. (…) President Clinton ordered the government in 1993 to ensure equality in protecting Americans from pollution(…)”
The 2000 census and the 1993 study were both used to map pollution to neighbourhoods, and then break that into risks by ethnic group, income, employment and education levels.
Bush wasn’t even president yet but it’s his fault.
Who said that?
Pollution is the result of failed environmental policies by successive administrations, Pres Bush II included. Fact is, not only has this administration thumbed its nose at international protocols and treaties that would reduce emissions, it has also relaxed existing standards.
Hey TP, your pull your tin-foil hat above your eyes.
You should follow your own advice and read what’s put in front of you.
You could start by reading this: “President Clinton ordered the government in 1993 to ensure equality in protecting Americans from pollution, but more than a decade later, factory emissions still disproportionately place minorities and the poor at risk”
“Unemployment was nearly 20 percent higher than the national average in the neighborhoods with the highest risk scores, and residents there were far less likely to have college degrees.”
What is the current administration doing to address this problem?
December 13th, 2005 at 7:19 pmThe foundations of minority discrimination rest on the makeup of the heritage of slavery in the south and the wedge of wealth in the north. I grew up in Palo Alto, Baltimore, Dallas, Mountain Lakes (NJ), and Redlands (CA). In each of those cities, the only time I saw a member of a minority in the community was when they came to clean up the house. The experience almost matched traditions in India where there are untouchables. The unwashed were delegated to areas where there were factories or warehouses. That is where some still live now. I did not interface with a minority in the educational environment until I entered college. That was the most awakening experience of my life. I had been fed from the bias of my parents and learned from contact that minorities were people as well.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:27 pmMore environmental insults from the White House:
December 14th, 2005 at 11:42 amEPA Would Ease Pollution Reporting Rules
January 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
prevention of air pollution
Its very nice, i love it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 amHealth Insurance Aetna Health Insurance Universal Life Insurance
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
July 6th, 2008 at 11:02 amprevention of air pollution
Very resourceful information.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am