Health, Safety & the Environment

Consumer Reports Safety blog recently reported the alarming statistic that each year there are 4.7 million dog bites in the United States.   Apart from postal workers, often find themselves violent pets, children are particularly vulnerable.   Each year 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of them children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about 16 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control &  Prevention, which has a website for avoiding dogbites.  Children 5 to 9 years old are the most vulnerable.  As part of their training, letter carriers are told: Don’t be fooled when a resident says, “My dog won’t bite.” That’s good advice.  Consumer Reports recommends the following  as is the following: (1) Don’t approach an unfamiliar dog; (2) If knocked over by a dog, roll into a ball and lie still; (3) Avoid direct eye contact with a dog; (4) Do not pet a dog without allowing it to see and sniff you first; (5)  Don’t disturb a dog while she’s sleeping, eating, chewing on a toy, or caring for puppies; and (6) Don’t run from a dog, its natural instinct is to chase you.

Not surprisingly, having a dog in the home results in a higher incidence of dog bites. The more dogs, the more likelihood of bad encounters. Adults with two or more dogs in the household are five times more likely to be bitten than those living without dogs at home, according to the Centers for Disease Control.  That’s why it’s important to take precautions if you are considering getting a dog as a pet. Because so many dog bites happen to young children, the ASPCA recommends waiting until your child is at least 10 years old before getting a dog. When you do, the main safety lesson for children is to not chase or tease dogs they know and to avoid dogs they don’t know.

CNN reported not too long ago that Frank Mitloehner, an air quality specialist from the University of California at Davis, accused the authors of a 2006 report published by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (“FAO”), titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, of skewing scientific data to grossly exaggerate the impact of livestock farming on climate change and, at the same time, underplaying the impact of climate change caused by transport. As the debate over the legitimacy of certain climate change science continues to swirl in both scientific and academic as well as policy making circles, it is vitally important to avoid politicization of the science. Politics may be unavoidable when policymakers’ decisions on climate change will have a likely impact over time of tens of billions, but every effort should be made to keep the science on the straight and narrow. That is why this article and the underlying FAO report is disturbing. The 2006 report claims that meat production is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions world-wide (greater than impact of transport). The report goes on to claim that livestock farming occupies a whooping 30 percent of the world’s surface and that its environmental impact will double by 2050 unless drastic action is taken now. Who knew? Frank Mitloehner contends the U.N. reached its conclusions for the livestock sector by adding up emissions from farm to table, including the gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. The U.N. also downplayed climate change caused by transport by failing to add up emissions from well head to steering wheel, and only considered emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving. In fact, leading authorities agree raising animals for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., while transportation creates an estimated 26 percent. Mitloehner’s clarification must have brought about sighs of relief from U.S. beef associations, who were no doubt concerned about their member companies being tagged with responsibility for Hurricane Katrina’s damage in Louisiana and Mississippi and the loss of sea ice in Kivaluna in the Northwest! Meanwhile, environmentalists and campaigners including Paul McCartney, used the U.N.’s findings to urge consumers to eat less meat and save the planet with slogan: “Less meat = less heat.” Sadly, once an icon in children’s literature, Old McDonald’s Farm, is no longer the innocent “EIEIO” of toddler rhyme, but a potential malefactor with inadequate insurance coverage to boot.

The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (“CTLCV”) reported yesterday that United States Senator Chris Dodd and United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood made a special appearance at Connecticut’s capital yesterday to discuss the future of a high speed rail corridor connecting New Haven, Hartford and Springfield, Massachusetts.  The DOT Secretary advised the press that “Connecticut has its act together. This corridor has its act together.  I can’t say that everywhere I go.”  Building a high speed rail line up the New Haven / Hartford / Springfield corridor would serve to reduce traffic congestion on Interstate 91 and assist in making our regional economy more competitive.  In addition, a rail line on the Tri-City Corridor would provide residents of central Connecticut with better access to New York City, western Massachusetts, Vermont and eventually Boston.

Gotcha!  What is happening?  With morning coffee in hand, I tuned into my Google browser on my PC and saw TOPEKA instead of Google??   What was happening?  Under the search engine window, a note read, Not In Kansas: learn about our new name.  Clicking on the link to our new name, I was directed to a Google Press Release that read in part:

“Early last month the mayor of Topeka, Kansas stunned the world by announcing that his city was changing its name to Google. We’ve been wondering ever since how best to honor that moving gesture. Today we are pleased to announce that as of 1AM (Central Daylight Time) April 1st, Google has officially changed our name to Topeka……We didn’t reach this decision lightly; after all, we had a fair amount of brand equity tied up in our old name. But the more we surfed around (the former) Topeka’s municipal website, the more kinship we felt with this fine city at the edge of the Great Plains”

I explored further.  Had Topeka, Kansas really changed its name to Google?  As discussed in a CNN article earlier this month, the Topeka, er, Google formally made the name change.  The Mayor of Google described the benefits that he hoped would result from the name change, ie. that younger residents of Kansas’ capital city will benefit from faster Internet connections that he seeks for his city – which he describes as a place of many lakes and the site of a burgeoning market for animal-food research.   All of this put a big smile on my face.  It is comforting that big companies and big cities can relax and engage in some good-natured tomfoolery, if only on April Fool’s Day!

Connecticut DEP Commissioner Amey Marrella will be a guest on CT Public Radio’s “Where We Live,” Monday, March 29, 9 – 10 a.m. This is the show hosted by John Dankosky for discussion of important public policy issues in the state. Listen in to what the Commissioner has to say and call-in to talk with her or comment on the environmental challenges we face.  This is an excellent opportunity for all of us to get up-to-speed on the environmental issues, large and small, that the state is facing today. 

By 2012, Greenwich should have a new park and athletic field on a 9.7 acre waterfront site just off Sound Shore Drive in Cos Cob.  The site of the new park previously was the home of a coal-fired plant that provided electrical power for the New Haven rail line, which runs just north of the former power plant site, since 1907.  The power plant continued to provide power to Metro North trains until it ceased operations in the 1980’s.  The site was known s Studswell Point in the 17th century.  In the 1800’s, some of  America’s finest impressionist painters, such as Childe Hassam,  escaped the bustle and noise of New York City to stay at the historic Bush-Holley house in Cos Cob, a short distance from Studswell Point.  It is likely that some of those painters brought the site of the future park to life on their canvases.  The first step of the site cleanup was to remove highly toxic PCBs.  Thereafter, the power plant was demolished and removed from the property in or about 1999-2000 at a cost of six million dollars.  Greenwich bought the property in 1989 for $1.  The future park and athletic field still remains contaminated with fly ash, a residue of the coal used to power the former plant. Rather than remove the fly ash, the State Department of Environmental Protection has approved a plan for the site to be capped with a geo-textile fabric.  On top of the cap, another four feet of soil will be added for additional protection.  The new park and athletic field will be a boon to Greenwich.  In exchange for an abandoned, contaminated waste site, the Town will obtain a beautiful shoreline property that everyone will love visiting.

The Old Santa Fe Inn in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is one of the newest hotels in historic Santa Fe and most reasonably priced.  Only three blocks from the historic Santa Fe Plaza, the inn harkens back to an earlier time,  but at the same time provides every modern amenity to guests.  I highly recommend the inn the next time you plan a trip to the Southwest. 

According to this morning’s Greenwich Time, Greenwich Academy apologized to the Greenwich P&Z for cutting down about 100 trees near its tennis courts last October, an act which First Selectman Peter Tesei described as “flouting” the town’s regulations.  Worse, neighbors of the school in the complained that the trees had been an effective barrier and prevented headlights from vehicles from shining on Patterson Avenue residents. What could Greenwich Academy have been thinking?  Trees are one of Greenwich’s valuable resources. The Greenwich Tree Conservatory, which was established by concerned Greenwich citizens in 2007, was chartered to educate citizens and businesses on the value and benefit of trees and importance of stewardship.  The seed for the conservancy was planted in 2006 at a program at the Bruce Museum entitled, “Clear Cut: Coming a Neighborhood Near You?”, which was sponsored in partnership with the  Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (“CTCLV Ed Fund“) I would urge someone from GA to join the Board of the conservancy to demonstrate GA’s commitment to tree stewardship in the future.   Trees are routinely cut down by developers, even on town property, if it will improve the view from their multi-million dollar edifices. Although these developers routinely apologize and cry “Oops”, we hear little about the levying of fines for destruction of trees on town property.  In any event, what’s a $1,500 fine when cutting down the tree may create better water views that will increase the value of a property by tens of thousands of dollars?  We all need to suppport the efforts of Bruce Spaman, Greenwich’s Tree Warden.  Fines for the destruction of trees on town property such carry gravity-based fines.  In other words, the economic benefit to the  offender should be considered in coming up with an appropriate fine.