You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Politics' category.
Today’s New York Times’ editorial No Friend to Workers provides just a few examples of how Labor Secretary Elaine Chao has made a sham of our nation’s worker protection laws. The examples come from a GAO report about the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division: One case involved child-labor violations but the matter was closed because the investigators couldn’t track down the employer (but GAO easily found him); another involved a worker’s complaint about his employer’s failure to pay his legally-due overtime wages. The complaint languished at DOL for 17 months, past the statute of limitations. Yep, the worker got screwed.
Lest anyone thinks this ineptitude is unique to DOL’s Wage and Hour division, I’ve my own example—a double doozy involving the combined incompetence of MSHA and DOL’s own Inspector General.
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
Recently the New York Times and RHRealityCheck reported on a leaked internal proposed regulation that calls for more and different enforcement of anti-discrimination provisions for health care providers. The provisions are forms of conscience clauses that do not allow discrimination in hiring or promotion of health care workers who do not wish to perform abortion or sterilization (or indeed in the reverse, no discrimination against those who do perform abortions or sterilizations) in federally funded settings.
The draft regulation goes into detail outlining the history of the laws protecting the conscience of health providers and entities and then outlines the problem. It seems that the central concern is not discrimination against those who won’t perform abortions, but that the US Department of Health and Human Services sees a real problem with requiring health professionals (and anyone in the healthcare workforce) to be involved with contraception, even if it is part of the job. The majority of the section outlining “The Problem” concerns states that have passed laws or issued executive orders requiring pharmacies to dispense contraception, including emergency contraception, and that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
From the regulation:
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Congressman George Miller (D-CA) are demanding answers from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao on her mysterious proposed rule on risk assessment. I reported earlier this week that the Secretary’s office sent a proposed rule to OMB on July 7 entitled “Requirements for DOL Agencies’ Assessment of Occupational Health Risks.” Although this proposal might sound innocuous, past experience at so-called “regulatory reform” of risk assessment tells us to be very wary of plans to “improve” the risk assessment process. In layman’s terms, it means workers’ health gets screwed.
Kennedy and Miller’s letter to Secretary Chao asks for a briefing within a week about the proposed regulation, and asks for:
- a copy of the proposed rule
- the legal authority under which the Department expects to promulgate this regulation
- the reason that this proposed rule was not listed in the Department’s Regulatory Agenda (which was published in May 2008 )
A screenshot of OMB’s webpage on which this proposed rule appears is here.
Thanks to the Senator and Congresman for taking their oversight responsibilities seriously.
I found the most curious item on OMB OIRA’s webpage today, and my paranoia about end-of-the-term mischief by the Bush Administration kicked into high gear. The item is listed as a proposed rule submitted to OIRA for review on July 7 titled:
“Requirements for DOL Agencies’ Assessment of Occupational Health Risks” (RIN: 1290-AA23) (Link here, select DOL) or (screenshot)
Whenever the term risk assessment is uttered by the Bush Admininstration, I know they are up to no good. Recall their earlier effort at a major overhaul of agency’s risk assessment procedures; this was a proposal that was long on new one-size-fits-all requirements for agencies involved in health, safety and environmental protection, but woefully lacking in details about the alleged problem it was designed to fix. More importantly, it would have added new steps to the rulemaking process, making a dysfunctional system more so, and creating administrative obstacles for health protective rules. Thankfully, a failing grade by the National Academy of Sciences forced OMB to junk it.
This mysterious draft proposal at OMB makes me wonder whether this is the White House’s plan B for so-called “reforms” to agency risk assessments. Let’s see: they couldn’t impose their requirements agency-wide, so why not target specific agencies? What better place than those pesky rules to protect workers’ from dangerous contaminants?
Obviously, the economy and Iraq are big issues on voters’ minds, but a new poll from Scientists and Engineers for America shows that candidates would also be smart to demonstrate their support for science. In fact, SEA’s Michael Stebbins reports that although the organization expected positive answers to their questions, they were stunned by the overwhelmingly affirmative response:
Eighty-six percent of those polled, for example, say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.
Similarly, 84 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare through public investments in science and technology. And 52 percent indicated they would be much more likely to support candidates who expressed that science and technology is a priority for them.
Update: 7/1 (4:00 pm): The link is fixed! It was two reps of the National Association of Home Builders, four staff of OMB and one from the Dept of Labor’s Solicitor’s Office. Hmmm…no one from OSHA attended the meeting.
On June 18 we reported here that OSHA had submitted to OMB’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) its proposed rule on crane safety. Today, I noticed on OIRA’s site that on June 26, someone met with OMB staff about OSHA’s crane safety proposal, but the link is broken — you get this message. It’s a mystery for now the names and affiliations of the participants. A person at OMB, who confirmed that a meeting on June 26 took place, told me that he would get the link fixed.
By Michael Stebbins, originally published at Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund
Last month I wrote about the White House’s apparent involvement in the denial of California’s request for exemption from the Clean Air Act to set their own guidelines for the regulation of auto emissions standards. Now the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been forced to postpone a vote to hold EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Susan Dudley in contempt for not turning over documents relating to the role of the White House because the administration is claiming executive privilege.
Under the law, California is the only state that can set their own standards for auto emissions, but it has to have a waiver by the EPA to do so. If granted, other states are permitted to adopt either the federal standard or the California standard.
We’ve written before about how important it is for the presidential candidates to let the public know where they stand on science issues. Now, the Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund, in partnership with 15 prominent scientific and engineering societies, is asking Congressional candidates where they stand on science-related issues, including climate change, water, and research funding.
SEA and its partners developed a seven-item questionnaire and are sending it out to the candidates in districts where primaries have been held. They’re posting responses as they come in, along with additional information, like the voting records of incumbents – see their page on Danny Davis (IL-7) for an example. And they’re also asking that science supporters email their local candidates (you can find yours using their zip code tool):
We’d like to flood their in boxes today with hundreds of emails from concerned citizens. Politicians pay attention to their voters, and together we can show that there is a constituency for science. We can make science and technology a prominent part of the 2008 elections.
If we’re going to tackle the many health and environmental challenges facing our country and our world, we’re going to need to fund research and strengthen science-based agencies. The next Congress’s approach to science will play a major role in determining how well we meet these challenges.
Updated below ( 6/18/08 )
Earlier this month I wrote in “Crashing Cranes, Deaths and the White House’s Edict” about the inexcusable inaction by the US Department of Labor and OSHA to address the decades-old problem of crane-related deaths. I am not alone in my disgust at this regulatory system, which yet again is failing to protect our nation’s workers. I’m pleased to report that two parties familiar with an attempt at crane safety rulemaking have strongly expressed their own dissapointment with OSHA’s failure to act. First are members of the negotiated rulemaking committee (NegReg) who prepared in 2003 a draft rule for OSHA. Second is the independent facilitator who was hired by OSHA to bring this group of affected labor-, employer-, and manufacturer- groups together to prepare the consensus document.
by revere, cross posted at Effect Measure
Our post on what is behind the Right Wing attack on science drew a lot of attention and numerous comments. I’d like to emphasize some key points that may have gotten lost in the details (for the details, please see the original post). We’ll use climate change skepticism as an example, but the principles hold for other kinds of assaults, for example, on public health concerns regarding bis phenol A.
The cardinal point is that the attacks aren’t about science. Refuting false statements about whether CO2 is or is not a driver of global warming may seem (and be) necessary, but it is not the objective of the attackers. Karl Rove is famous for his doctrine that you attack your adversary at his strongest point. Environmental science’s strongest point is the scientific integrity and credibility of the developing consensus that human activities are driving a significant increase in mean global temperatures. It is not the science of global warming that the Right Wing is concerned about but the policy consequences it entails. It is therefore necessary to destroy its authority and credibility.
The attack on the science has two components. The first is the most obvious: to use what appear to be scientific arguments to cast doubt on what the scientific community deems valid arguments about climate change. But the second may be the most important: to do it in a way that casts aspersions on all kinds of scientific argument. The attackers don’t care if they are accused of political or economic bias in making their own scientific arguments because one of their objectives is to establish a covert narrative that says science is always biased and tainted by political corruption. The aim is to destroy the moral authority of science, not its factual basis. They then erect a new standard based on economic promise and the virtues of “progress” and modernity.
In our view an important element in countering the attack is not only to respond by pointing out what is behind the attack (which we have just done), but who is behind the attack and why. Our original post discussed this in some detail, where we document that, almost without exception Far Right ideologues and wealthy elites are the material force behind the assault on mainstream environmental science. Is this a conspiracy theory? There is nothing theoretical about the demonstration that over 92% of books in English questioning the science supporting climate change, endocrine disruption, air pollution effects and other environmental issues with obvious consequences for policy are directly and explicitly affiliated with Right Wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and their ilk.
That’s not a side issue. That’s the issue.
OSHA’s Assistant Secretary Edwin Foulke flopped and fumbled during CBS’s 60 Minutes “Is Enough Done to Stop Explosive Dust?” which aired last night. Correspondent Scott Pelley pressed Foulke to explain how the 50 OSHA inspectors who have been trained to identify combustible dust hazards will be able inspect the estimated 30,000 worksites with this dangerous volatile hazard.
“We’re not gonna get in every work site every year. It would be physically impossible from a monetary standpoint and on a personnel standpoint to get in every facility once a year. Or even every five years.”
Foulke said his Agency expected to inspect only about 300 of these workplaces this year. Pelley remarked:
“If you do 300 a year, it’ll take you 100 years to inspect all those places that you’ve identified.”
With Foulke’s dumbfounded look, I seriously thought he might have asked, “is that a problem?”
by revere (originally posted at Effect Measure)
Does the Obama candidacy signal a return of “the sixties”? It’s possible. What does that mean? Even those us who were there remember the sixties imperfectly. Not because we were permanently stoned. Memory is selective. We remember it as better than it was. We were young, and that makes a difference.Yet, as tristero observes over at Digby’s place, the sixties were not just a time of flowering creativity and the securing of new freedoms, but also a terrible, difficult and dark time for anyone who had any political awareness.
The run-up to the sixties was in fact much like the last few years. Rick Perlstein’s book Nixonland fills in the grubby and genuinely horrible details. If you haven’t read it you owe it to yourself to see just how terrible each days news good be. A few words that come to mind suffice: anger, anguish, shame, embrrassment, fear, disgust, outrage, confusion — that’s just for starters. They should sound familiar to anyone paying attention these last few years. Maybe there was no internet or cable TV, but the period had its own versions of swiftboating, some of it as hilarious as it was dismaying. Here’s
Perlstein’s sketch of a 1950 Democratic primary campaign:
Set your wristwatch alarms or your VCR for this Sunday (June 7) at 7:00 pm (EST) to watch CBS’s 60 Minutes and a hard-hitting story on OSHA and its failure to protect workers and communities from combustible dust explosions. CBS’s correspondent Scott Pelley interviews Carolyn Merritt (former Member of the US Chemical Safety Board), Tammy Miser (whose brother Shawn was killed in an aluminum dust explosion), Edwin Foulke (OSHA Asst. Secretary), and at least one EXPERIENCED but UNDISCLOSED speaker.
Many thanks to the CBS crew who pursued and persisted with this story: David Gelber, producer; Joel Bach, associate producer; and Rachel Kun, researcher.
By Susan F. Wood, PhD
Much has been written at the Pump Handle and elsewhere in the media and scientific literature about ensuring that science appropriately drives government policies. Questions and concerns have abounded regarding inappropriate non-scientific interference, while at the same time many health and environmental agencies (and the scientific staff within them) continue their incredibly important work in research, evaluation, development, regulation and service delivery. Several organizations have done surveys and developed principles on scientific integrity including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Scientists and Engineers for America.
At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we are launching a multi-part study to get a strong handle on the written policies regarding the role of scientists in government that are currently in place, an understanding of how they are implemented at various agencies, and what recommendations can be made to specifically create policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
This is where we need your help:
We are seeking current and former government scientists to participate in interviews for the Scientists in Government project. Interviews will be conducted in Summer 2008.
If you are a current or former government scientist (with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency), you can help us in our work to strengthen policies on science in the federal government. Participation involves a phone or in-person interview of 1-2 hours. Our study is approved by George Washington University’s IRB (#030823).More information about the project can be found at: http://www.defendingscience.org/Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm.
If you are interested in participating, please contact Ruth Long at 202-994-7993 or eohrwl@gwumc.edu. If you know others who might be interested in participating, please send them to this webpage: http://www.defendingscience.org/Participate-in-the-Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm
Susan F. Wood, PhD is Research Professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, where she is part of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). She also served as Director of the FDA Office of Women’s Health from 2000-2005 and is a member of the Board of Directors for Scientists and Engineers for America.
For the first time since 2005, the full Senate chamber is debating climate legislation: the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, or CSA. Although the chances of this legislation becoming law this year are slim, it could lay important groundwork for the next Congress and Administration.
If you want to know the key details about what the CSA proposes and what the remaining sticking points are, go read this excellent Gristmill post by Kate Sheppard – and don’t seek your information from today’s New York Times. As the title suggests, John M. Broder’s NYT article “Senate Opens Debate on Politically Risky Bill Addressing Global Warming” focuses not on the measures Senators propose to address this crucial-to-human-survival issue, but on how they’re spinning the situation. Here’s the opening paragraph:
On Friday, May 30 it was a crane collapse in NYC where Donald Leo, 30, and Ramadan Kurtaj, 27 were killed and Simeon Alexis, 32, was seriously injured. On Saturday, May 31 it was a crane collapse at the Wyoming Black Thunder mine which seriously injured ironworkers Andrew Milonis and Frederico Salinas. These incidents are in the wake of the mid-March New York collapse which killed six workers: Wayne Bleidner, 51; Brad Cohen, 54; Clifford Canzona, 45; Aaron Stephens, 45; Anthony Mazza, 39; Santino Gallone, 37; and Ms. Odin Torres, 28, a visitor from Miami. And there have been many other similiar “accidents.”
OSHA acknowledges that as many as 82 workers are killed each year in crane “accidents,” and that the 1971-based crane safety standard is outdated (here). Just a year ago, OSHA chief Edwin Foulke claimed his Agency was making significant progress on a Cranes & Derrick rule (here). An OSHA spokeswoman says the Agency “believes its standards are sufficient” (according to ABC News report), however “the cranes and derricks rulemaking is a top priority.” Confused?
It’s business as usual at the nation’s top workplace safety agency, and now, an edict from the White House will further stall any progress on a new crane safety rule.
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
Last year, Congress passed new legislation on the Food and Drug Administration, known as the FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007.This legislation, while limited, made some significant steps forward, see here and here. It reauthorizes the user fee systems for drugs, biologics and medical devices, and expands FDA’s authority on labeling, requires new transparency for the Agency and establishes broader registries of clinical trials and requires results from clinical trials to be released to the public The public concern over the handling of medications like Vioxx and Ketek highlighted problems ranging from companies misleading FDA, to fraud by investigators, to FDA scientific management and lack of priority on safety studies. The new law provided some additional requirements on safety as well as some additional resources for this critical area. It also added some new requirements focused on reducing financial conflicts of interest of FDA Advisory Committee members.
When FDAAA was signed into law last fall, many thought that this would be the last major FDA legislation to be taken up by Congress for another 5 years. But it seems we were mistaken. Read the rest of this entry »
In 1999, the CDC announced its selections for the 10 greatest achievements in U.S. public health history in the 20th century, and among them was improvements in motor vehicle safety. I’ve nothing against looking at success over a long term, but we know that much still needs to be done. The rate of motor vehicle fatalities has indeed declined substantially over the last 100 years, but the rate of deaths and serious injuries in roof-crush and rollovers has actually increased.
In 2006, (the most current NHTSA data available), nearly 11,500 people died in rollover crashes, and another 163,000 people suffered injuries. I was shocked by the shear numbers AND when I learned that the standards guiding roof crush resistance date back to 1971. 1971??
Readers of The Pump Handle and David Michaels’ newly-published book Doubt is Their Product should be able to predict why no improvements to vehicle roof strength standards have been implemented in nearly 37 years.
by David Egilman, MD, MPH
I just finished watching the Waxman hearings on FDA preemption and must comment on Christopher Shays’ (R-CT) comments. Christopher Shays is the last remaining Republican congressman from New England. Hopefully the November elections will result in the extinction of this last remaining
remnant of the age of the dinosaurs.
He repeatedly stated that he “had no dog in this hunt” concerning the impact of preemption and torts suits on drug safety. This is a peculiar position for a Congressperson who must decide whether or not the FDA’s actions are appropriate. It’s one thing to have no opinion; it is in another to imply that there is no reason to have opinion.
For more than two years, the Cook family has waited for answers about the coal-truck crash that took the life of Chad Cook, their son and brother. Their long ordeal began immediately after 25-year old Chad’s death, when an MSHA inspector decided that the fatal crash occurred on a public road and therefore would not be investigated. The State followed MSHA’s lead, and Chad’s death was chalked up as a motor-vehicle accident, not deserving of workplace safety agencies’ resources. Too bad none of them told the Cook family.
About a year later and as a last resort, Mrs. Gay Cook contacted Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette to ask his advice on how to get information from MSHA or the State. Curious as he is, and with a map and camera in hand, it didn’t take the reporter long to determine that Chad Cook’s death occured on mine property on a private road used exclusively by mine operator(s), and therefore should have been investigated by both MSHA and the State. Now, one year later, MSHA has issued its investigation report, the most sorry excuse for an investigation I’ve ever read. Read the rest of this entry »
by Emilie Hedlund
A recent article in the New York Times (”Flooded Village Files Suit” 2/27/08 ) focuses on the Alaskan village Kivalina, which is disappearing because of flooding caused by the changing climate. The residents are accusing five oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company of creating a public nuisance. Similar suits which blame major companies for adverse effects caused by their emission of green house gases (GHG) have been seen for some time now, but this particular suit is unique in that it accuses the defendants of conspiracy. The companies have been trying to convince residents that changes to their property and the coastline are ”natural” and not caused by global climate change.
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
The FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 includes a small section addressing direct to consumer (DTC) advertising. The bill doesn’t limit advertising to consumers, nor does it give FDA authority to put a moratorium on advertising while more data on safety or effectiveness is collected during the first months or years that a product is on the market. A moratorium was recommended by the IOM in it’s drug safety report in 2006, but was not adopted by Congress - perhaps due to arguments about first amendment rights, but perhaps due to objections by both the pharmaceutical industry and the advertising industry.
What was included is a small section requiring that all print DTC ads carry “the following statment printed in conspicuous text: ‘You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch, or call 1-800-FDA-1088′ “
The Department of Labor’s Inspector General (IG) issued a report yesterday about the Utah Crandall Canyon mine, saying:
“MSHA was negligent in carrying out its responsibilities to protect the safety of miners.”
The investigation was carried out in response to a request from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and documented in an 80-page report entitled: “MSHA Could Not Show it Made the Right Decision in Approving the Roof Control Plan at Crandall Canyon Mine.” The August 2007 underground mine disaster killed nine men, including Mr. Gary Jensen a federal mine inspector who worked out of MSHA’s Price, Utah office.
This was one of the first-class quotes from former OSHA Assistant Secretary Jerry Scannell (1989-1993) during today’s hearing on workers’ safety and health before the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. His comment came in response to discussions about OSHA’s and the Department of Labor’s Solicitor’s Office’s practices of reducing penalties, even in cases of serious violations. Mr. Scannell said he often felt pressure from inside and outside the agency to settle inspection and fatality-investigation cases by using ”discount factors” to reduce monetary penalties. He recalled wondering, “What are we, a discount house?” and avoided doing it.
The Senate HELP Committee’s Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety announced that former OSHA Assistant Secretary, Mr. Gerard Scannell, will testify at next week’s hearing on workplace safety. He was the OSHA chief during the George H.W. Bush administration, and a long-time officer with the National Safety Council.
The hearing (previous post here) about serious and repeat violators of worker safety protections will also feature testimony by Mr. Eric Frumin, Director of OHS for Unite!Here, who will likely discuss corporate bad actors, link Cintas (post here). I’m so pleased to read that Senator Murray’s staff invited Mr. Scannell to testify, and that he agreed to do so.
The Senate HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), will hold a hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 entitled “Serious OSHA Violations: Strategies for Breaking Dangerous Patterns.” The subcomittee has not yet released a witness list, but I’d expect to hear something about some of the bad actors profiled in the “Dirty Dozen” report, prepared in 2006 by the National COSH.
A coal miner from eastern Kentucky filed a law suit yesterday requesting a federal court judge to compel MSHA to issue a health standard to prevent miners from developing black lung disease. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Howard v. Chao) argues that Congress intended, through the Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1969 (amended 1977), MSHA to promulgate regulations to prevent new cases of coal workers pnuemoconiosis, progressive massive fibrosis and other illnesses related to miners’ exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Despite evidence over the last 12 years that the current permissible exposure limit is inadequate to prevent black lung disease, including a NIOSH criteria document which recommended a 1.0 mg/m3 limit, the petitioner argues that MSHA has failed to fulfill its duties under the Mine Act. The Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center filed the petition on behalf of Mr. Scott Howard*—one heck of a brave man for putting his name (not John Doe) on this case. He is a coal miner (has been since 1979) and is directly affected on every shift by an inadequate coal mine dust standard.
Despite the excellent presentations by USMWF’s Tammy Miser, the Chemical Safety Board’s William Wright and NFPA’s Amy Spencer, the image that remains in my head from last week’s congressional hearing on combustible dust was Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon’s performance. After the aforementioned witnesses made common-sense appeals in support of an OSHA standard modeled on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, Congressman McKeon (R-CA) made unconvincing claims that such rules are so very complicated. Surely, no simple small businessman could ever be expected to comply with them.
I say: “Phooey!”
Yesterday we learned that former Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) passed away at age 90. His former colleague, Sentor Edward Kennedy issued a statement, saying:
“He was the conscience of the Senate, who never shied away from the difficult fights, and never apologized for standing up for workers.”
I had the unforgettable opportunity to watch Senator Metzenbaum in action at numerous congressional hearings on worker safety and health topics. Whether the topic was right-to-know, protections for hazardous waste clean-up workers or inadequate OSHA penalties, he was always well-prepared and GRUMPY. I don’t know if his ornery disposition was just his public persona, but it surely sent the message to senior OSHA officials that Senator Metzenbaum took serious his oversight responsibility.
A group of state legislators in West Virginia introduced a bill earlier this year to strengthen the State’s laws to protect mine workers who raise concerns about unsafe working conditions. The lead sponsors were Delegate Bill Hamilton (R) who represents the region where the now-abandoned Sago mine and State Senators Jon Blair Hunter (D) and Randy White (D). (I wrote earlier about their effort here.) Several weeks have now passed, and are any of us surprised to learn that the bill was killed in the WV legislative committee?
Nathan Fetty of Mine Safety Project of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and Environment names names of the State Senators who killed the bill. Read the rest of this entry »
OSHA’s Assistant Secretary Edwin Foulke is expected to travel to Port Wentworth, Georgia today, more than 3 weeks after a horrific combustible dust explosion at Imperial Sugar took 12 workers’ lives. Another 11 workers remain in critical condition at a burn treatment center in Augusta. Apparently, pressure from Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) convinced Mr. Foulke that a trip to the Dixie Crystals’ community is appropriate. It is, afterall, a workplace disaster on par with the January 2006 Sago disaster which also claimed the lives of 12 men, and arguably more devastating because scores of other workers remain critically injured. I wonder why we expect to see MSHA’s top officials at the scene of mine disasters (e.g., Crandall Canyon, Sago, Quecreek) but we don’t wonder where is OSHA’s Foulke?
For the first time, beginning on April 29, it will be unlawful for employers in the mining industry to expose workers to asbestos concentrations higher than 0.1 fiber (per cubic meter of air) over an 8-hour shift. MSHA published today a new exposure limit for asbestos to replace a 2.0 fiber limit which has been on the books since 1978 when the agency was created. Other U.S. workers, in contrast, began getting protection from an OSHA asbestos standard in 1971 and it was revised several times over years—from 2 fibers, to 0.5, to 0.2 and 0.1—-to make it more protective of workers’ health.
But, and this is a big BUT, there is still a vast difference between OSHA’s asbestos standard, and the one issued by MSHA. This new standard for U.S. mine workers is ONLY an exposure limit, it does not have any of the additional protections afforded to other asbestos-exposed workers, such as protective clothing, hygiene facilities and medical surveillance. Don’t let anyone in the Administration get away with suggestions that mine workers now have a federal workplace health standard on asbestos that is equivalent to every other worker in the country. It is not.
That’s the headline from an editorial in today’s Savannah Morning News, laying responsibility for the broken workplace safety regulatory system on the Secretary of Labor’s desk. The words of editorial page editor, Tom Barton, sound like those I’ve heard before when a workplace disaster strikes a town. Journalists, community leaders, and family member victims are appalled to learn that OSHA and MSHA don’t work as well as our civics books would lead us to believe. It’s not until the deaths, injuries and heartbreaks hit your own backyard, do people care enough to figure it out.
I don’t agree with everything that Mr. Barton writes, such as seeming to agree with Imperial Sugar officials who use the lack of OSHA penalties (only $315 in fines over the past seven years) as evidence that the firm had a “superb” safety record. But I couldn’t agree more with Barton when he says: Chao and Foulke have “been asleep at the switch - perhaps fatally so.”
Read the full Savannah Morning News editorial below:
Read the rest of this entry »
There are a number of memorable quotes in the Center for Study of Responsive Law’s newly released report “Undermining Safety: A Report on Coal Mine Safety.” In one section, report author Christopher W. Shaw discusses the mining industry’s lobbying for “targeted inspections” (a la the OSHA model) instead of the current requirement for mandatory quarterly inspections. The AFL-CIO’s secretary-treasurer Richard L. Trumka—a former coal miner—derided the notion of making MSHA more like OSHA:
“OSHA reminds me of an 18-year old Mexican Chihauhua dog that’s lost its teeth and hides behind the furniture going ‘bark, bark, bark’.”
Ouch! for the chihauhua lovers out there, but Trumka doesn’t mince any words about his views on OSHA’s relevance.
The final deceased victim of the February 7 explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery has been recovered from the scene, and a ninth victim, Mr. Michael Fields, 40, succumbed to his severe injuries earlier today at the Joseph M. Still Burn Center in Augusta, Georgia. U.S. Senators Johnny Iasakson (R-GA) and Saxby Chamblis (R-GA) met today with victims’ families as well as about 200 employees from the plant. Senator Isakson’s news release said:
“On my visit this morning, I saw the absolute devastation of the tragic explosion at the Imperial Sugar facility. …We pledged to them our complete support and that of the U.S. government in every way possible on a thorough, precise investigation and then reconstruction of this valuable facility in the greater Chatham County community.”
The Senators’ statements comes on the heels of a letter the two Georgia Senators sent (along with Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Enzi (D-WY) and Murray (D-WA)) to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao and William Wright of the Chemical Safety Board (CSB).
Friends and colleagues continue to offer lovely memorials to Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who passed away on February 11. (here, here) Human Rights Watch noted in their tribute he was an ”unwavering advocate for fundamental rights,” and “his remarkable and sustained efforts on behalf of vulnerable and otherwise voiceless people.”
Indeed, for Cong. Lantos, human rights was not only about the politically oppressed in far away places. The vulnerable and voiceless included workers who were injured or otherwise harmed by hazards on the job, or those discriminated against for complaining about safety problems.
The date is set for the presidential candidates’ Science Debate 2008 – it’ll be April 18th at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute – so now the push is to get candidates’ commitment to participate. Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Barack Obama have been invited, and the fact that the debate is set for four days before the Pennsylvania primary may encourage them to make it a priority.
Blogger and author Chris Mooney, one of the campaign’s co-organizers, asks bloggers, scientists, and concerned citizens to contact the campaigns to encourage their participation; write letters to local papers to spread the word; and help swell the list of supporters from 13,000 to 15,000. (You can go here to add your name to the list, and here to tell friends about the effort.)
On his Dot Earth blog, the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin wonders whether the candidates will show up:
The push for a presidential candidate science debate is stronger than ever: Yesterday, the National Academies joined other prestigious organizations to co-sponsor the effort.
“This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates’ positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness,” the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.
“A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate,” the statement adds.
As we’ve noted before, one major problems over the last few years has been the administration’s tendency to ignore, distort, or suppress scientific findings and advice that didn’t jibe with its political goals. Will focusing public attention on scientific issues really help counteract this?
In his last state of the union address, President Bush glossed over the seriousness of some of the most pressing problems facing our country, and suggested they could be solved with something that’s been in short supply during his tenure.
“Global climate change” got one brief mention, as something that the nation is committed to confronting with cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. Unacceptable rates of uninsurance and spiraling healthcare costs were obliquely referenced with a stated goal of “making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.” Bush invoked technology as the cure for our energy and health care woes, and said this about the energy, medical, and physical sciences research that’s required:
Yesterday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science – the world’s largest general scientific society – announced its co-sponsorship of the Science Debate 2008 campaign (which we at The Pump Handle support, and blogged about here).
In light of recent economic events, the press release announcing AAAS’s co-sponsorship focused on the link between science and economic success:
The Washington Post’s Jeffrey H. Birnbaum observes that the site of this year’s Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) convention is Denver, Colorado, yet the city only has one unionized hotel. The DNC should take a page from the American Public Health Association (APHA), which adopted a policy in 1999 (#9922) on the use of union hotels for conventions and major meetings.
Remember Julie MacDonald, the Department of Interior appointee with industry connections but no biology degree, who altered scientific field reports to minimize protections for endangered species? There are plenty of wildlife scientists who haven’t forgotten about her or about the larger problem of the Bush administration meddling with environmental science, and two dozen of them descended on Capitol Hill last weekend to make their concerns known. The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Williamson explains:
The U.S. House of Representatives debated today the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (S-MINER, H.R. 2768) which would require, among other things, closer review of retreat mining plans, allow independent investigations (outside of MSHA) for multiple fatalities, and update permissible exposure limits. The White House issued a veto threat, saying the bill would “place in jeopardy meaningful achievements and efforts currently underway”…”weaken several existing regulations” and “impose burdensome and unrealistic time requirements.” Likewise, the National Mining Association said the bill “would interfere with mine safety progress.” In contrast, families from Kentucky and Utah, who lost loved ones in mining disasters, sent letters of support for the bill (here and here).
As I listened to the debate on C-SPAN radio, I heard a lot about ”drug use” by coal miners and reference to the Washington Post article called “A Dark Addiction” that I blogged about yesterday.
These are the words of Linden High School student Omar Diaz, 17, remembering his father Victor Diaz, 42 who died on December 1 at North East Linen Supply Company. Mr. Diaz and a co-worker Carlos Diaz, 41, were asphyxiated by chemical fumes while they were cleaning out a 20,000 gallon storage tank at the industrial laundry facility.
New Jersey Asssemblyman Joseph Cryan called immediately for state and federal probes into the workplace deaths, and yesterday, Cong. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Cong. Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Cong. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) held a congressional hearing “Workplace Tragedies: Examining Problems and Solutions” at Linden City Hall.
Tomorrow’s Science Friday radio program will feature a segment on the Science Debate 2008 campaign, which calls for the presidential candidates to devote a debate to science-related issues. You can listen live online from 2 - 4pm Eastern time, or check your local NPR station’s listings to see when the show airs.
Here’s what we wrote last month about why such a debate is needed and which questions we’d like to see the candidates answer:
I guess President Bush and Secretary Chao are stickin’ with Richard Stickler afterall. A personnel announcement this afternoon from the White House says:
“The President intends to designate Richard Stickler, of West Virginia, to be Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.”
Note the use of the word “designate” not ”nominate.” And now the webpage featuring Mr. Stickler’s photo is back up on MSHA’s website. My previous posts on this are here, here, and here. Oy!
Yesterday afternoon, if you happened to MSHA’s website and click on the Asst. Secretary’s button, you’d see