100 Slaves 100 Enemies

Sewers at Capacity, Pollution Spills Into Waterways
New York Times
November 22, 2009
By CHARLES DUHIGG

from the Toxic Waters series

EXCERPTS:

In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.

…

There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.

…

New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.

…

Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”

…

The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.

…

Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.

But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”

“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”

According to a New York Times article (“Another Hurdle for the Jobless“, NYT, 08/06/09), companies are now using credit checks to screen out applicants for jobs as mundane as data entry and secretarial/clerical positions. Common sense says, how else will can you attempt to get out of debt, unless you can find a job?

According to the article, some states have passed bills restricting employers to only perform credit checks if they directly pertain to the job. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill that came before him. Ironic, considering that his state is carrying such a huge debt load.

No human, and definitely no Human resources “professional”, have the right or acumen to judge the ability of a potential employee based on a credit check or other invasions into privacy. In my personal eaves-dropping experience I once overheard one of these “professionals” scoffing at the idea of hiring someone because “he was fired for trying to start a union!”

Without comment the article ends with statement that potential employees must “agree” to the credit check. Obviously, if one were to not “agree” to it, one would find that they are not considered for the position.

This is not something (like so many things) that we can allow companies to decide on their own. They are incapable of making humane decisions. This is something that must be regulated by the government.

In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system.

via New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan – NYTimes.com

That’s the last paragraph of the article. Obviously, people have no idea what to think about health care reform. Partly because no one has produced any details about it. And partly because the insurance industry is spending millions of dollars on propaganda to convince people that reforming health care will eliminate your choice of doctor (nevermind the 47 million people with no insurance and therefore no doctor) and increase your health care costs. How adding a public option could increase your private insurance is a mystery, probably because it doesn’t make any sense. If the government provides an option, it will create competition for the private  insurance industries who will be forced to lower costs.

As far as health care being “too expensive”, this is simply not true. Dean Baker points out the following in his Beat the Press blog in this post titled, NPR Wonders Why Public Support for a Health Care Plan With a “Huge” Cost is Slipping:

The program’s huge price tag is equal to about 0.5 percent of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq war at its peak cost more than 1.0 percent of GDP. NPR and other news outlets rarely, if ever, referred to the “huge” cost of this war, which was twice the “huge” cost of President Obama’s health care program. Perhaps the decision of supposedly neutral media sources to constantly warn that the costs of the program are “huge” has something to do with its dwindling public support.