Chemical Companies Could Be Safer

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A House committee last year passed a plan to require industries to replace dangerous chemicals
with less toxic alternatives whenever feasible. The US Public Interest Research Group is among
the environmental organizations urging this year’s Congress to revive the measure.


Spokesman Bruce Speight argues the companies, and consumers, would not face sticker shock
when adopting greener chemicals and processes:


“No, in fact, over the long term they could actually save the facilities money and, you know, of course in the event of something happening, the cost to these facilities is great.”


When Speight says something happening he means an accident or terrorist attack at a site that
uses dangerous chemicals. Thousands of people could be hurt in such an incident. But the
chemical industry says many firms are already switching to less toxic substances, and don’t need
the federal government to push them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

No Such Thing as a Just War

Americans, often independent and splintered, learned on September 11th that – like it or not – we are tethered to our neighbors in ways we never imagined. As the world awaits the next phase of the U.S. response to the terrorist attack, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King examines the ethical paradox of a just war:

Transcript

Americans, often independent and splintered, learned on September 11th that – like it or not, we are tethered to our neighbors in ways we never imagined. As the world awaits the next phase of the U.S. response to the terrorist attack, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King examines the ethical paradox of a just war.


On one side of my home, there lives a jovial, white-haired grandpa who likes feeding birds and playing soccer with his granddaughters. A retired cop and staunch patriot, he plans to cheer out loud when the United States retaliates for the World Trade Center attack.


On the other side of my home, there lives a quiet, soft-spoken Mennonite couple. Thin, gentle people, they spend their time tending an organic garden and often share their tomatoes and flowers with my young daughter. They are pacifists, bracing themselves for the coming horrors of American warfare.


Sandwiched between committed Hawks and Doves, I’m lonely with my ambivalence.


Americans overwhelmingly say they support a military response. But how many of us answered the question with true contemplation, instead of simple reflex?


“My God,” we said as the buildings smoldered, “do something!” Our minds were made up before we even had time to think.


I both envy and mistrust such certainty. Some of my neighbors are as unyielding in their pacifism as others are in their wish to fight. Both sides are unwilling to consider that the answer might lie somewhere beyond the confines of their own firm beliefs. (Or maybe that there’s no answer at all.)


There are Americans who believe we can bomb Evil from the earth, while others believe that if we are just kind enough; Evil will wander off on its own, like a child without a playmate. And if we believe that our path — whether it be military action or inaction — offers the final solution, we seem to think we have no moral culpability, no blood on our own hands.


And yet we all must know by now, especially now, that with our convictions come ethical burdens. All we can do is follow the paths of our ideals to their logical ends and hope against all odds that they remain intact.


But they won’t, and that is the true horror of war. To fight means that innocent, precious human life will be lost. To refuse to fight means that innocent, precious human life will be lost. And either way, Evil will remain standing. Guilt clings to us all — like original sin — because none of us has been able to end hate.


This is why Americans weep. It’s why our nights are sleepless and our days are clouded with sadness. It’s why we hold to one another and light candles and why we have flooded our places of worship.


We know now what we never wanted to know: there is no such thing as innocence.

Will Environment Be on Back Burner?

Some environmentalists are concerned that the terrorist attacks on September 11th will hurt the environmental movement. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Some environmentalists are concerned that the terrorist attacks on September
11th will hurt the environmental movement. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.


Tom Lowe is a professor of environmental management at Ball State University in
Munice, Indiana. He says the reaction to the attacks could lead to bad decisions that would devastate the environment down the road.


“If we continue to spoil the environment, the tragedy of 9-11 is going to be amplified many times by what is going to happen with the environmental impact of global warming and other kinds of problems.”


Lowe says one example is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. He says national security interests may push for that now, even though it will be damaging in the long run. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Part 1

After the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Congress approved funding to help cities prepare to defend against acts of terrorism. The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation (also known as The Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996) brings together various federal agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, the FBI, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Over the last year, they’ve been visiting the most populated cities to train local emergency responders in dealing with nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism. In part one of a two part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant Cooper reports:

Weapons of Mass Destruction – Part 2

President Clinton has announced plans to better protect citizens from the use of biological weapons. He’s called for greater research and development of new vaccines and medicines to protect people who face a biological or chemical attack. But there’s debate about who should be able to access these potentially dangerous substances for experiment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant Cooper reports on efforts by cities to prepare themselves against a weapon of mass destruction: