Posts Tagged ‘health’

« Older Entries
The In Box front page

Montreal boil water advisory for 1.3 million people

May 23rd, 2013 by Lucy Martin
Much of Montreal is under a boil water advisory. Photo: opethpainter, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Much of Montreal is under a boil water advisory. Photo: opethpainter, Creative Commons, some rights reserved

Update Friday 8 am.  The boil water advisory was lifted late Thursday evening after tests showed no dangerous bacteria, such as E. coli, in the affected water. Here’s more from the Montreal Gazette.

Update 4 pm. The boil water advisory for affected areas will continue to at least 9:30 or 10 pm, Thursday, when a further update on the situation will be available, according to the Montreal Gazette.

10:25 am. Approximately 1.3 million Montreal residents remain under a boil water advisory today. The Montreal Gazette reports the problem stems from a mishap at a water treatment plant that caused sediment to be stirred into the city’s water system.

The boil water advisory is considered precautionary and may be lifted between 5-8 pm tonight, once test results come back. But, as you can imagine, the situation is a tremendous inconvenience for institutions, businesses and individuals.

As the story is picked up as international news, the Globe and Mail writes that this incident contributes to doubts about Montreal’s ability to properly administer and deliver essential services:

“It’s another blow,” said restaurateur Alexandre Wolosianski after his staff raced out to Costco to buy 50 large containers of water to supply his bustling downtown eatery, the Dominion Square Tavern. In the morning, his cooks called him to report the tap water was yellowish. “Not many Montrealers are proud of their city right now. It already feels like our infrastructure is outdated. Now this.”

Many residents of smaller municipalities are used to dealing with the occasional boil water advisory. But when it affects systems this big, it’s quite a problem.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Ogdensburg wants news about the psych center; the state’s not talking

May 22nd, 2013 by Julie Grant
New York State Office of Mental Health Acting Commissioner Kristin Woodlock and her team listening to speakers from the North Country at today's meeting at the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center in Ogdensburg. Photo: Julie Grant

New York State Office of Mental Health Acting Commissioner Kristin Woodlock and her team listening to speakers from the North Country at today’s meeting at the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center in Ogdensburg. Photo: Julie Grant

There’s a lot of speculation out there about the future of the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center in Ogdensburg. The NY Office of Mental Health is considering closing a number of state hospitals, saying that at 24, New York has more than 3 times that of any other state.

Acting Mental Health Commissioner Kristin Woodlock visited Ogdensburg last week, as part of her “listening tour” of hospitals, and she got an earful from the community – including concerns about the possible loss of care for patients, and of more than 500 jobs.

Woodlock said a decision could come as early as Monday. But Monday came and went without word from the state, and people want to know what’s going happen.

The Watertown Daily Times speculates that “no news could be good news” for the Ogdensburg facility. Robert McNeil, chairman of the St. Lawrence River Valley Redevelopment Agency said, “I’m optimistic.” He said the Commissioner’s visit was a success, “There was a lot of good testimony there.”

I spoke with Ben Rosen, spokesman for the NY Mental Health Office, this afternoon.  He wouldn’t give any information about what or when we might hear from the state, despite the community’s anxiety.  It sounds like no news isn’t necessarily good or bad.  It’s just no news. We’ll keep you posted as soon as we hear anything…

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Did the EPA put jobs ahead of the environment?

April 5th, 2013 by David Sommerstein

Sen. Schumer with Alcoa workers in Massena Monday. Photo: Julie Grant

The Environmental Protection Agency has made official what we reported earlier this morning. The agency released a final plan for cleaning up PCB-contaminated sediment Alcoa released into the Grasse River until the chemical was banned in the 1970s. It adopts a much less expensive method for cleaning up most of the contamination – capping and containment instead of dredging and removal.

The official decision comes just days after Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, employed no small amount of bluster during a visit to Massena to pressure the EPA into doing what it just did today.

So was there a cause-and-effect? Let’s take a step back.

Alcoa said last week it would invest $600 million in its two plants in Massena and guarantee 900 jobs (actually about 200 fewer than there are currently!) for the next 30 years, in exchange for 480 megawatts of cheap hydropower.

But there was a catch. The deal would only stand if the EPA chose the cheaper cap-and-contain clean-up plan for the Grasse River. As NCPR’s Julie Grant reported, Schumer did not mince words:

Schumer says the company has limits on the amount it will invest in Massena and the Grasse River. Alcoa told him:

“We want to invest in this plant and upgrade it. But we only have a certain amount of money. And we have to put all of the money into the cleanup of the river, and doing the environmental cleanup, we don’t have enough money to invest in the plant.”

Schumer says the EPA has proposed one plan that would cost $245 million, and Alcoa has agreed to that.

“Today, I am urging the EPA to issue that Record of Decision. To support their plan, and get it done fast. I’d like them to get it done in April. Today is April first. And I’m not fooling.”

In other words, there is a balance between economic development and environmental cleanup, or as Schumer said, “you don’t want a decision where you say the environment is the only thing taken into account.”

Let’s not forget here that Alcoa notched $23.7 billion in sales last year and operates in 30 countries. Alcoa is really big.

The St. Regis Mohawks, who live at the downriver end of the Grasse River and whose cultural reality has been devastated and reshaped by PCB contamination, have blasted the EPA, saying it’s putting jobs over the long-term health of the river and the people who rely on it. As tribal chief Paul Thompson said in a press release:

The EPA has a record of poor stewardship in protecting our environment, with the General Motor’s partial clean-up, the Reynolds partial clean-up and now with the Alcoa partial clean-up. That is still our land and the EPA should be using our standards for clean-up, not what the Alcoa scientists say should be done.

One of the most recognized native environmental justice activists in the country, Katsi Cook, said in a statement sent to NCPR:

I am deeply concerned that Sen. Schumer’s call for EPA’s immediate action on a ‘less expensive’ Grasse River remediation focuses only on Alcoa’s modernization plan. We as a community must acknowledge the very real human health risks of PCBs and other toxic industrial chemicals. Those pollutants wreak havoc on multiple human systems. They never leave our bodies and will be passed on to future generations. That’s a terrible expense we can’t afford and should no longer tolerate.

The EPA has been studying exactly how to clean up the Grasse River for more than a decade. In its record of decision released today, the agency directly answers the question the tribe and other environmentalists are asking: why isn’t the main channel of the river being dredged of PCBs and that sediment being trucked away forever? The EPA basically says it wouldn’t work:

Although dredging of the main channel would remove additional PCB mass from the river, PCBs at high concentrations would nevertheless remain in the main channel after dredging. Most of the highly contaminated sediment in the main channel is present over bottom materials such as bedrock, glacial till, and/or marine clay, which prevent a dredge from effectively removing all of the contamination. As a result, and regardless of the type of equipment used for dredging, residual sediments with high PCB concentrations would remain behind after dredging and would still require either armored capping or main channel capping.

The EPA also says it has designed an armored cap to contain the contaminants that would withstand an ice jam. In 2003, an ice jam scoured a trial cap put in place in the Grasse.

So the EPA chose the $245 million plan that will take 6 years, instead of the estimated $1.3 billion plan that the EPA says could take three times as long – and may not even achieve its goals.

Was the EPA feeling pressure from Alcoa and North Country lawmakers to approve the cheaper plan? That’s for you to decide.

But one thing that I take away is that the Mohawks and the EPA think fundamentally differently about these cleanups. The EPA says its remedies and monitoring will happen “in perpetuity”.

But the Mohawks are looking way further into the future than a government agency’s notion of “perpetuity”. Mohawks fully expect to outlast the EPA and anyone else on that land. They were there before Europeans arrived, and they believe they’ll remain there when others move on. As the now-famous phrase goes, they’re thinking seven generations into the future, probably further than that.

And they want the chemicals to be gone, not covered up.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Does hiding cigarettes do any good?

March 23rd, 2013 by Lucy Martin

Open display of cigarettes would be banned by Bloomberg’s proposal. Photo: Daniel Ansel Tingcungco, CC some rights reserved

Right on the heels of an attempt to ban sales of large sodas, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing a requirement that stores conceal cigarettes from plain view.

The big-soda ban was struck down just before it was to go into effect, by a State Supreme Court Judge who called it “arbitrary and capricious”. That ruling is being appealed.

One of the factual background lines tossed about in most of the U.S. coverage on the cigarette proposal goes like this: “The ban on displaying cigarettes follows similar laws in Iceland, Canada, England and Ireland”.

Hiding cigarettes from customer sight is something anti-smoking advocates tend to applaud. It’s endorsed by the World Health Organization. Iceland tried it first, back in 2001. But what sort of impact does it have, if any?

Canada’s ban was introduced on a province-by-province basis. Ontario passed a “hide ‘em” measure in 2008. Since the countries mentioned have different forms of socialized medicine one can argue more justification exists for social policies which lower health care costs.

As it happens, I saw the retail display ban go into effect at my local village store, about four years ago. Big surprise: most store owners here resented the cost and bother of installing the panels that hide the smokes.

This is a bit dated, but here’s an information page from a convenience store interest group that discuses “direct economic hardship for C-Stores retailers” if such bans are enacted, because of the cost of changing displays and the possibility that even more customers will simply buy cigarettes illegally. (More about that notion in a moment.)

Retail display bans went ahead in Canada amid much grumbling but very little defiance. The local store I know best made lemonade out of those lemons by selling ad space for local realtors and such over the plain, boring panels.

I could only find one store owner in Nova Scotia who challenged the new rules. According to the Hant Journal, tobacco store owner Bob Gee was charged with failure to fully conceal products in his store and he:

…turned to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to refute the charge, claiming it violates his freedom of expression through advertising, and won the first stage of his constitutional challenge in 2010.

That case is still in court with a ruling anticipated in May of 2013.

I went looking for studies or evidence the retail conceal ban had any effect, but that’s been a bit challenging so far. Some say yes, hiding cigarettes makes a difference in decreasing smoking. Others say, no, it does not, or there is no causal evidence, just various factors that may over-lap.

This 2012 article from the Guardian discusses the ban in England and the debate about evidence in the case of Canada. The article quotes Prof David Hammond from the University of Waterloo in Ontario:

“I can tell you that smoking prevalence was lower among Canadian youth after display bans were implemented,” he said.

“In addition, the number of cigarettes per day reported by both youth and adult smokers was significantly lower after display bans were implemented. These differences remained significant after statistically adjusting for changes in cigarette price, which are strongly associated with smoking behaviour.”

I thought the best summary of anti-conceal arguments in a single article was made by Patrick Basham in the Daily Caller:

One problem with display bans is that they undermine two consumer beliefs that are key to a legal tobacco market: the belief that tobacco is a legal, regulated product and the belief that consuming tobacco from the illicit market is a crime. In jurisdictions where tobacco must be hidden under the counter, the distinction between legal and illegal retailers is blurred, so consumers are more likely to go to illegal, untaxed retailers for their tobacco needs.

The Canadian Convenience store site I mentioned above says that 22% of cigarettes consumed in Canada come from the smuggled/illegal supply chain. If those sales climb, that would result in more revenue lost to store owners and taxes lost to the government. Health advocates can say this is not about sales or tax revenue, this is about people’s lives. And yet the government is happily taking a cut of those sales by way of heavy taxes on this still-legal product.

Basham’s objectivity on this topic has been slammed by those who say he’s biased and has ties to the tobacco industry. But even if he has taken sides, some of the arguments he raises are ones that concealment supporters will have to rebut.

For the anti-smoking advocate, all smoking is a net negative. So discouraging the habit is pretty much a good thing, period.

But even looking for net effect doesn’t answer the whole question. After all, there is ample evidence that many legal products can harm health. For some, “can harm health” is enough justification to intervene. For a different crowd, “free choice” and “personal responsibility” matter more than empowering the state to be everyone’s nanny.

I don’t know. This tends to get personal in the end. On the one hand, I’ve never smoked, I drink very little soda and I am virtually a teetotaler. That makes some of these debates purely theoretical for me.

On the other hand, I eat an inordinate amount of chocolate and I suspect it’s only a matter of time before some do-gooder thinks society needs to do an intervention on my behalf in the sweets department. At a certain point, questions of personal liberty do come into this picture.

There’s a famous (and deadly serious) quote from Martin Niemöller about “when the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist…” You know how it ends: “When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

It might feel good to get on the Bloomberg team when the Arugula Agents are locking up Big Gulps and Twinkies. But what if – someday – the suppression effort targets your favorite indulgence? (Don’t assume this is cut and dried. There is an adamant school of thought, for example, that says cow’s milk is unsuitable for human consumption.)

Sometimes I think if cigarettes really are that bad, just ban them already. Except we’ve all seen how many problems that causes. Prohibition is largely considered a failure.

Many say education is the answer. And it’s certainly important. Yet, what if 30% of the population pays attention and makes good choices but 70% chooses to eat mostly “junk” food, and pays a price in negative health? Much as I lean toward personal freedom, the costs of poor choices – freely made – might bankrupt us all.

Do you think proof something harms health is enough reason to regulate (or prohibit) legal items we eat, drink or smoke?

Or would you rather make those decisions yourself – regardless of possible harm or cost?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 60 Comments »

Adirondack Health in Saranac Lake announces layoffs

March 21st, 2013 by Brian Mann

Adirondack Health CEO Chandler Ralph called the reductions in staff and work hours “discouraging” (PHOTO: AMC)

One of the North Country’s largest employers says it will cut 18 full time employees and cut the hours of another 15 full- and part-time staff.

The move at Adirondack Health follows on the heels of lay-off and cutbacks at other medical facilities around the North Country.

It represents a painful loss of high-wage, high-benefit jobs.

In a statement, CEO Chandler Ralph blamed the cutbacks on Medicaid losses and on declining in-patient numbers at Adirondack Health Facilities.

Ralph says the organization faced a $1.2 million dollar “reduction of revenue” in 2013.

“While these revenue reductions are certainly discouraging, this is not the first time we have faced a challenge of this magnitude,” said Chandler Ralph, President & CEO of Adirondack Health. “Our experience has taught us we have the resources and talent to develop new and innovative solutions to continue providing high quality healthcare to the residents and visitors of our region.”

The move comes as nurses at Adirondack Health distributed a letter urging the organization to delay a vote on proposed downsizing or elimination of emergency room services at a satellite hospital in Lake Placid.

The Board of Directors of Adirondack Medical Center must delay a planned vote this evening to close or convert the hospital’s emergency department to a 12-hour urgent care center without the opportunity for public comment.

AMC did not offer the community an opportunity to provide input on this crucial matter, which will limit access to vital emergency medical services.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments »

A North Country college campus bans tobacco

December 27th, 2012 by Brian Mann

This morning we’re airing an interview with John Mills, president of Paul Smiths College, about his move to ban all tobacco products on campus by August 2014.

Paul Smiths has a reputation for attracting future timber and forest product workers who take pride in their blue collar, rough-around-the-edges vibe.

For a lot of students, that lifestyle includes a can of chew or a cigarette.  But Mills says the culture on his campus was actually inspiring non-smokers to take up the habit.

“Some of our data indicated we were creating smokers,” according to Mills, “and that really bothered me.”

Banning a known carcinogen  that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year may seem like a no-brainer.  The move drew strong praise from the Adirondack Tobacco Free Network.

But some students are incensed at their school’s attempt to dictate a legal behavior in their private lives.

“I mean if you want to smoke, I think they should be able to.  They’re paying a lot of money to come here,” said Paul Smiths student Peter Murphy, a non-smoker who thinks his school has gone too far.

So what do you think?  Are Paul Smiths — and the hundreds of other college campuses adopting these rules — defending public health and further reducing nicotine addiction?  Or are they meddling in a high-handed way in lives of their student-customers?

Your comments welcome.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 51 Comments »

USDA relaxes school lunch rules

December 10th, 2012 by David Sommerstein

Photo by Julie Grant.

The federal government is responding to criticisms that its school lunch rules are too strict.  In a letter to members of Congress on Friday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the USDA will do away with calorie limits on meat and grains:

This flexibility is being provided to allow more time for the development of products that fit within the new standards while granting schools additional weekly menu planning options to help ensure that children receive a wholesome, nutritious meal every day of the week.

Vilsack also defended the rules.  He wrote they’re ensuring twice the amount of fruits and vegetables in school lunches, and a “substantial” increase in the use of whole grains.

The new regulations became a campaign issue in the 21st Congressional district race between Bill Owens and Matt Doheny.  NCPR’s Julie Grant reported that neither candidate was happy with them.

In a press release today, Owens – who was elected to a second full term – praised Vilsack’s decision, saying, “USDA set guidelines for school lunches that just didn’t work for many students, parents and school administrators.” Owens said he would talk further with local school food service directors to see if any further changes are needed.

Julie’s story got at the heart of some of the consequences when bureaucracy meets reality in the case of school lunches.

In Potsdam, David Gravlin used to make homemade soup nearly every day: “We do butternut squash and apple, we do tomato, macaroni and beef, chicken noodle, we did a pumpkin soup. We probably did 30 different soups at different points.”

But when you ladle tomato, macaroni, and beef soup, there’s no guarantee you’ll get a serving of tomato, a serving of macaroni, and a serving of beef. So schools can’t serve soup anymore.

You can read a copy of the letter sent by Secretary Vilsack to members of Congress here.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

BREAKING: Trudeau Institute hires new CEO

October 1st, 2012 by Brian Mann

Dr. Ronald Goldfarb (Source: Trudeau Institute)

Trudeau Institute, the bio-research lab in the Adirondacks, announced this morning that a new CEO and president has been hired.  Dr. Ronald Goldfarb took the top job in Saranac Lake effective today.

The last CEO, Dr. David Woodland, resigned in July 2011, following clashes with Trudeau’s board.

Board president Benjamin Brewster hailed Goldfarb as “an accomplished biomedical researcher” and said that he had experience bringing “new technology to market.”

According to Brewster, the decision to hire Goldfarb was unanimous.

“In addition to working closely with our faculty members to continue building Trudeau’s reputation in immunology, Ron will focus on revenue diversification strategies to ensure Trudeau’s successful transition into a new era,” he said, in a prepared statement.

Here are more details from the press release and you can find more information about Trudeau’s recent financial and management troubles here.

Dr. Goldfarb, who has more than 30 years of experience in cancer research and development in both academic and industrial settings, most recently served as President, CEO and Chief Scientific Officer of Sopherion Therapeutics, a privately-held biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, which he co-founded in 2002.
Prior to launching Sopherion, Dr. Goldfarb held a number of senior management positions heading large and complex programs in cancer research and drug development, including: Director of the Institute for Cancer Research at the University of North Texas Health Science Center; Deputy Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; and managing Cancer Research and Drug Discovery in the Department of Immunology & Infectious Disease for Pfizer Inc.
Dr. Goldfarb has chaired multiple federal and state oncology peer-review panels/study sections for the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Veterans Affairs Administration, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the University of California. He has also served as a member of the Veterans Affairs Merit Review Council, as well as on the scientific advisory boards of five biotechnology companies, including three of which he served as chairman.

Dr. Goldfarb also has held faculty appointments at the University of North Texas Health Science Center as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Molecular Biology & Immunology and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine as Professor of Pathology. He has published more than 135 papers; edited or co-edited five books or special-edition journal volumes in cancer, tumor immunology and cancer therapy; and has served as associate editor for two cancer
journals and as a member of the editorial boards for three cancer journals. He is the holder of U.S. and international patents in anti-cancer drug discovery and was awarded for Outstanding Service to the Cause of Cancer Control from the American Cancer Society in 2002.

Dr. Goldfarb earned a B.A. in biological sciences in 1970 from Herbert H. Lehman College of the City University of New York (formerly Hunter College in the Bronx) and a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology from SUNY Downstate Medical Center.

Dr. Goldfarb expressed his excitement about assuming the role of the Institute’s CEO: “I am extremely excited to have the opportunity to enhance the operation of the Trudeau Institute, which has a long history of world-class excellence as a premier center for immunology research.”

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

NFL crisis: What happens if someone dies on the field?

September 25th, 2012 by Brian Mann

Monday night’s big NFL game between the Packers and the Seahawks drove a stake through the heart of anyone still trying to pretend that a group of third-tier referees could officiate a sport that involves guys the size of appliances who move like gazelles.

One ref signals one call, the other signals something entirely different, and the fans see a fiercely contested match-up decided, wrongly, by the guys in zebra stripes.

If you’re new to the whole mess, these replacement refs have been brought in because of a hardball labor dispute.  And after this week’s debacle, ESPN concluded that the back-up officials are “hurting the NFL.”

In this clip, from NPR, you’ll hear color commentators at Monday night’s game worrying about the health of the sport’s brand.  That’s creepy.

The real worry here should be the health and welfare of the athletes.  If modern NFL players run like gazelles, they hit like wrecking balls.

This is a sport that faced close scrutiny before the season began, due to increasingly horrific research into the ravages of concussions and other head trauma.

Hundreds of former players are already involved in a class-action suit, accusing the league’s owners and official of “deceit and deception” in their handling of brain injury on the field.

This is dangerous stuff.  Even with highly trained, experienced referees on the field, preventing devastating injury or death is a high-wire act, a constant negotiation between the violence of America’s most popular sport and the whistle-thin veneer of rules and officiating.

Now that the high school and junior college referees are managing the grid-iron, it’s easy to see things spiraling out of control.

The fact that the NFL is holding a season at all under these conditions shows the level of contempt the league feels for players.  Can you imagine NASCAR asking drivers to hit the track without proper safety precautions?  No way.

Even mixed martial arts — which, by the way, has a better safety record than the NFL — would balk at throwing fighters into the ring without giving athletes the protection of proper officiating.

So it’s a good thing that right now people are carping about games being lost and the brand being damaged.  In the days ahead, we could be talking instead about young men being paralyzed, or killed, or their careers shattered by avoidable injuries.

Frankly, when it comes to caring for athletes, the NFL already operates in an ethical gray zone that is shading ever darker as new research about mental health emerges.

To pull back from the brink, the league should make the safe choice for players:  Put experienced refs back on the field, or call off the season until the labor dispute is over.

The time to make that call is now, not after we see an athlete carted off the field on a covered stretcher.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Morning Read: Doheny, Owens engage on Medicare

September 21st, 2012 by Brian Mann

The last couple of days, we’ve seen a real engagement in the NY21 race on the issue of Medicare.  Our Julie Grant went in first, with a story focusing on the national Republican Party’s ad campaign on the issue.

Her piece lays out clearly some of the broad philosophical and policy differences that surround this complex debate.

The story advanced when the Doheny camp put out a statement laying out their their idea about reforming Medicare, which prompted stories like this one from Brian Amaral in the Watertown Daily Times.

The back and forth on the entitlement that is both popular and costly highlighted a basic philosophical difference between the candidates on the senior health insurance program: Mr. Doheny believes in increasing the role of private insurers, while Mr. Owens does not.

Chris Morris at the Adirondack Daily Enterprise also weighed in, responding to Doheny’s position statement.

In his commentary, Doheny said he wasn’t putting forth a plan.  “Instead, these are some ideas I’d like to see incorporated in any bipartisan effort put before Congress,” he said.

Doheny said patient choice is important. He said recipients who like the current “fee-for-service system” should be able to keep using it, but he added that Medicare should also welcome competition. He said it’s been proven that market forces keep costs from escalating.

This is clearly an issue that the Owens camp wanted to have raised in this campaign — they’ve been sending out press releases regularly accusing Doheny of wanting to “privatize” Medicare. I expect this will come up again in next week’s debates.

In the meantime, these stories will give you a clearer sense of what the politicians are talking about, and what they really mean.  Check them out and then chime in with your views on Medicare and reform efforts below.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

« Older Entries