web1_WP-screenshot.jpg

A dog’s owner lay dying - so she came to the hospital for a final goodbye

web1_road-sign-464653_1280.jpg

Consumer Watchdog: Study breaks stereotypes, stigma of the con artist victim

Trick question: Clean air, for or against?No, the trick is not that everyone would surely be for clean air, what with that whole breathe-to-live thing. The trick is that the question lacks any definition of &#8220;clean.&#8221;It&#8217;s a distinction critical to make. It&#8217;s rarely a question of can we afford to breathe something potentially hazardous, it&#8217;s much more often a question of how much of any pollutant we can inhale with reasonable safety.Which means we have become a nation where the definition of &#8220;clean air&#8221; is very much a numbers game, trying to limit &#8220;parts per million&#8221; or &#8220;parts per billion&#8221; of element x. And it is humans, particularly those in government regulatory positions, who pick the &#8220;parts,&#8221; and thus define &#8220;clean.&#8221;Which means it&#8217;s pretty important for sound science to trump most other components of the equation. If conservationists and environmentalists show concern regarding President-elect Donald Trump&#8217;s pick to head the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the record suggests they have good cause. From their perspective, Scott Pruitt has been a steady foe of such regulations.To supporters, of course, Pruitt is merely the antidote to an era of government overreach.In a recent visit with the Times Leader Editorial Board, activists from the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council and Earthworks, headquartered in Washington, D.C., touched on that issue, suggesting a relaxation of federal regulations makes it more important to push for state changes.And their current cause makes sense: Tighten rules regarding methane leakage at natural gas compression stations and along pipelines.Clean Air&#8217;s Eva Roben and Earthworks&#8217; Nadia Steinzor conceded their arguments aren&#8217;t bulletproof because there aren&#8217;t consistent measurements of leaks available for analysis and because it can be hard to prove health issues arise directly from living near a leaky facility.But there are studies linking proximity to these facilities with illnesses. And while leakage can be a modest 2 percent or less, there are cases where it has been as high as 11 percent, Roben said.Frankly, that should make this a no-brainer. Even if the definition of &#8220;clean&#8221; is debatable, surely companies stand to benefit by stopping their commodity &#8212; and thus, profits &#8212; from evaporating into thin air.One study estimated that enough methane leaked in Pennsylvania in 2014 to heat 65,000 homes.The two noted the state issued new rules for future permits that are more stringent than those in Colorado, currently considered a model state. Their organizations want the next step to be stepping up monitoring and repair of leaks in existing facilities.They offered no estimate of cost for such changes, but this seems like common sense. The &#8220;cost&#8221; can bring company savings. More importantly, there is a reason new gas connections are tested for leaks in your house before being put into service. Why should the rules be different in your proverbial backyard?

Your View: It’s no time to put our air at risk