The musings of one Andrew Langer - defender of liberty, passionate protector of individual rights, foodie. (Note: Said Musings of Andrew Langer are his own, and the views represented herein are likewise his views, and not the views of any other people, entities, foodstuffs, etc [unless otherwise specifically and explicitly noted].)

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Here's Something Fun! - No, Two Things...

So, a couple of weeks ago a close friend accused me of not promoting myself enough. Now, now - I'm serious, stop shaking your heads (yes, I was surprised, too).

Anyhow, just found out that my interview on "Small Business Trends" made their "Top Ten Small Business Audio Downloads" for January!!!!

Here's the link:

I'm quite honored - but then again, I'm sure you all helped make that possible. Thank you!

And now I've had to update this - just found out that a letter I sent to the Columbian in Washington was printed:

Analysis stirs anxiety
There is a problem with an environmental analysis done by The Associated Press and discussed in a Jan. 18 opinion by Mark Stephan, "Cowlitz County air quality questioned." The AP study took the nation's Toxics Release Inventory data, and calculated per capita exposure to facility releases to divine the public "risk." This approach leads to incorrect conclusions.

Assume you have Facility A in Town Y with a population of 30 people. Next, consider Facility B in City Z with a population of 300,000 people. Facility A releases 60 pounds of chemicals annually. Facility B releases 300,000 pounds. According to the AP study, town Y residents are exposed to two pounds of chemicals per capita, while city Z residents are exposed to one pound each. The AP concludes that Y's residents' risk is twice that of Z's residents.

Risk assessment doesn't work that way. It's determined by type of chemical, distance from exposure, dose and duration, among other things.

As manager of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, I find this type of misinformation dismaying and stirs up needless anxiety. Sound environmental policy must address real problems, using sound policy tools, like comparative risk assessment. But the moment we sound the alarm to attack a phantom risk, the nation's ability to abate real risks is compromised.

Andrew M. Langer


And to those wanting to take issue with my prose in that letter - again, it had to be cut and edited for space considerations in the paper.

- Andrew


Post a Comment

<< Home