American Lung Association: Vote No on Prop. 23

The No on Prop. 23 contingent is here, including public health and health care groups, and it includes Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital in the foothills.

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

19 thoughts on “American Lung Association: Vote No on Prop. 23”

  1. I bet that kid with the asthma inhaler is not really worried about his future, because he is looking forward to living on the thousand hillsides where you can hear a sparrow fly, or, how’d that go again? I’m sure he’s very relieved to hear that the total pollution estimate was changed by 340% too.

      1. Gail,

        Try Psalm 50 & 84 along with Matthew chapter ten or Luke chapter twelve and it will make little more sense.

        As to Tom’s concern for asthmatics, yes if there is too much carbon dioxide in the room it does bother us, but then it is pretty easy to open a window.

        Have never had a carbon dioxide problem outside however you do have to be careful about smoke, pollen and particulate matter…

        Of course both Tom and Steve know that AB32 does not deal with those, but they are willing to use the children as victims if that is what it take to win!


      2. Ooohhh sure. Of course Prop 23 isn’t about getting to kick out more soot and particulates. Of course not. Why, who would think this is about anything other than CO2 (or what does Russell Steele call it? That’s right! Tree food!)

        But isn’t it fun to read stuff once in awhile:

        “Valero and Tesoro, the two Texas oil companies bankrolling Proposition 23, have accumulated hundreds of violations of state and local health and air pollution laws in the Bay Area …”

        Hundreds of health law violations? Not because of tree food!

      3. Hi Gail, yes, sorry to be unclear but I was counting on the Reverend to chime in quickly and clear things up. Thanks Father John. Praise God.

        I can’t find the comment he had at the moment, but I should have copied it and framed it: The exact reference was to John’s comment a while back something along the lines of “luckily I don’t have to worry about declining oil availability because I will be living in a world with a thousand hillsides where you can hear a sparrow fly” or something shroomey like that. Pleather-covered limited edition BibleCorp bible: $25. Head in sand: priceless.

        The 340% was in regards to last week’s news about CARB revising their estimates of total statewide emissions from offroad diesel vehicles i.e. construction equipment and dumptrucks downwards by a huge factor: the headlines were that their first estimates were “340% too high”. The article in the chronicle basically says the error was composed about half of the fact that the first estimates were before the recession, therefore a lot of those vehicles aren’t currently in operation; and about half of the error was due to whatever other factors that the Reverend will want to latch on to… they say they will revise their methodology by looking more at the amount of diesel purchased instead of the estimated emissions… which, as an armchair quarterback, doesn’t sound any more robust…

        So, Reverend, can you name any ways to reduce CO2 emissions that don’t also reduce emissions of other air toxins at the same time? Other than smothering folks of course.

        Praise God. Sparrows and hillsides.

      4. Thanks Tom. Out of context I just wasn’t looking for a biblical reference. As to the 340% it sounded pretty familiar, but I just didn’t connect. Nice of you to give such a thorough recap.

      5. Tom,

        As an asthmatic I am all for reduing and/or avoiding a lot of that other stuff.

        The $64,000 question is why we need to reduce CO2. When I was a kid we learned that it was plant food, so the more you make the more they have to eat.

        Can’t figure out why you all hate plants 🙂


      6. So, Reverend, can you name any ways to reduce CO2 emissions that don’t also reduce emissions of other air toxins at the same time? Other than smothering folks of course.

      7. Gloria,

        This is a little out of place, but I think “tree food” was my line so maybe he borrowed it 🙂

        Now for the important question: IF we need AB32 to control all those other bad air or water pollutants, then which laws did these companies violate?


      8. Going once, going twice, …

        So, Reverend, can you name any ways to reduce CO2 emissions that don’t also reduce emissions of other air toxins at the same time? Other than smothering folks of course.

      9. I think that John’s comment was made in response to a comment I made. For the money word press was charging, you’d think they’d include a blog specific search engine. Does this thing still cost $250 a copy?

      10. You don’t seem genuinely curious enough to answer your own “important question,” though here are but a few offenses. Same site as before; you’re on your own for specific statutes.

        “The internal reports from California state environmental regulatory bodies reveal serious leaks of toxic substances and prolific violations of health and environmental safety rules by the two companies. In addition to spewing hazardous pollutants into the air and water of California, the records show Tesoro and Valero routinely fail to monitor their refineries, conduct the proper tests, and fail to report defective equipment and other problems.

        For example, one 2007 leak at a Tesoro refinery in the Bay Area included a spike in hazardous sulfur dioxide emissions so massive, state regulators said it was literally “off-scale” and could not be measured by the company’s instruments.

        The four primary chemicals which Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly been caught illegally releasing into the California atmosphere are hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide. All are hazardous to human health.”

    1. I’ve mentioned this before on my blog, so I guess I’ll mention it again about the Bay Area refineries in question. I have a unique perspective on this, having covered the refineries for the S.F. Chronicle:

Leave a Reply to Gail Allinson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: