Children closest to harbor trade road...

Children closest to harbor trade roadways suffer more respirato...

There are 16 comments on the Long Beach Press-Telegram story from Nov 4, 2009, titled Children closest to harbor trade roadways suffer more respirato.... In it, Long Beach Press-Telegram reports that:

A new study on the health impacts of pollution caused primarily by trucks, trains and ships servicing the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles finds children living closest to harbor trade corridors suffer from respiratory ailments significantly higher than previously thought.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Long Beach Press-Telegram.


Ontario, CA

#1 Nov 4, 2009
Mm mm mm, the left keeps pouring it on. The bottom line, if the parents believe the studies, then they should move.
Karl Stone

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Nov 4, 2009
I can't think of a more ignorant response to the article, or to any problem, as the one stated above. Running from a problem never solves it. The parents who believe the studies should speak up and stop assuming that others will speak up for them, or that reform will take place without pressure from Port adjacent communities.
Robert J G Jackson Sr

United States

#3 Nov 4, 2009
Could it possibly be that the people doing these studies had preconceived results, and the studies were adjusted, and statistics used in order to prove that predetermined result? Is polution on these corridors a problem? Of course, Does that mean that Long Beach should adopt the Los Angeles plan for Port trucking and disallow owner operators from servicing the Port? No. All of this is merely a union ploy to eliminate owner operators. Whose money paid for these studies, and just how closely were the Teamsters among other unions involved in producing the results? Those owner operators have every right to their share of business at the port. Since when is the government in the business of mandating anyone to be an employee rather than an owner, or that they must join a union in order to work? That line of thought is simply unAmerican, despite the Teamster's claims to the contrary. They will continue to come up with reasons for us to tell the independents that they can no longer operate at the Port. For shame.

Long Beach, CA

#4 Nov 4, 2009
Easy to say. Just move. If you invest in a house, that is not such an easy fix. Further, many of us bought houses in Long Beach when we had a Navy Yard-- hardly the polluting neighbor our "green port" is. The parents and the community have been speaking up for quite some time. But somehow, folks don't want to realize what a menace the port activities are to our health. And, don't go thinking if you live in the Peninsula or Belmont Shore you are immune. Those ships in the horizon are spewing all kinds of nasties in the air. The port would like us all to think a few truckers trading 20+ year old trucks will do the trick. Here's a flash. You must take us for imbeciles. We were here before you expanded and made everyone sick. You need to do WAY more than you are doing. Other countries manage it. You need to stand up to the unions and put the health of the community first. Only then will you be considered "green".

Norwalk, CA

#5 Nov 4, 2009
And how much did this "study" cost the taxpayers?

It doesn't take a multi-million dollar study to tell us that folks living near the port and alongside freeways/rail lines are going to suffer higher levels of respatory illness.

The end product of these studies can be summed up in two words..."Well duh!"

Maybe next time, the bureaucrats could apply the millions to a solution, rather than another "study" with a forgone conclusion.

Orange, CA

#6 Nov 4, 2009
It appears the "secondhand smoke" on the beach issue promoted by the corrupt Long Beach politicians is finally being exposed as the "smoke screen" that it really is.

Hudson teach

Long Beach, CA

#7 Nov 4, 2009
Ronald wrote:
It appears the "secondhand smoke" on the beach issue promoted by the corrupt Long Beach politicians is finally being exposed as the "smoke screen" that it really is.
Just another reason why we are so lucky to teach at Hudson! We have SO many cases of kids with asthma at our school. There is no doubt that our kids suffer because of the air quality. Not to mention us teachers who work there.

Orange, CA

#8 Nov 4, 2009
Hudson teach wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another reason why we are so lucky to teach at Hudson! We have SO many cases of kids with asthma at our school. There is no doubt that our kids suffer because of the air quality. Not to mention us teachers who work there.
Hudson teach.

I agree. In less superstitious times, moms knew the value that "the dirt effect" had upon the health of their children. It is well known that, since tobacco smoking declined among parents, the incidence of immune deficient ailments among children, such as asthma, has soared. Because most of our city has been concreted over, children no longer go outside to play in the dirt.

Tobacco smoke tends to result in the building of strong immune systems in children because exposure to tobacco smoke results in an immune response. Substituting beneficial tobacco smoke with deadly carcinogenic vehicle exhaust emissions and other deadly port and freeway related emissions that saturate our air does nothing to help the problem. It aggravates it.

While our children are raised in too sterile an environment while indoors - further impeding the development of natural immunity - they must eventually go outside. There is simply no way they can avoid breathing the deadly air that corrupt politicians have allowed to saturate the area.

Del Amo Teacher


#9 Nov 4, 2009
Hudson teach wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another reason why we are so lucky to teach at Hudson! We have SO many cases of kids with asthma at our school. There is no doubt that our kids suffer because of the air quality. Not to mention us teachers who work there.
Del Amo ES and Dolores ES (LAUSD) are connected with Hudson in an air quality study which is ongoing. It is not a ploy. It is a serious concern and a new campus is being built in the same vicinity. There is a term used to sum up the medical concern: highly sensitive to the toxic cocktail. To the cynical: Read for knowledge before passing judgment.
LB Employer

Riverside, CA

#10 Nov 5, 2009
What a pooirly written article, Chris. May I suggest you correct the following facts:
1. Husing pointed out in his study that transportation jobs was the largest job driver in Southern California, and without the port and the jobs it drives, Southern California would have a far higher unemployment rate (oh, we're already have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation).
2. Harbor Truckers with health benefits: Most harbor trucking companies do have health benefits. As a condition of the Clean Truck Program, each Harbor trucker had to make sure the drivers that contract with them. Most turned it down.
3. The POLB and ATA settlement leaves .the trucking "industry to largely self-regulate compliance with the truck turnover plan". I guess you've not taken the time to read the settlement, or any of the info on it. The lawsuit, and the settlement did not address the turnover plan. It moves on with our without the lawsuit.
4. The ports continue to offer "subsidies and low-interest loans to drivers" to replace their trucks. They money for the few trucks that have been subsidized has largely come from clean truck fees the importers/exporters are paying (less a large admin cost). The industry does NOT need the subsidies. Make the law, enforce it and it will be complied with. There are about 6000 new clean trucks in the harbor. Most were not funded with subsides and low interest loans.
5. The Ports have now spent nearly $10 million in legal fees to defend an illegal employee mandate that does nothing more than repay labor for the money funneled to support the very politicians pushing the employee mandate.

Please check your facts, Chris before you write these articles. The PT editors should be embarrassed.
Robert J G Jackson Sr

United States

#11 Nov 5, 2009
honu is quite correct. How much did it cost us to find out that living near the port or the freeways causes health problems due to pollution? How ridiculous. LB Employer lays out the facts. Any effort to mandate union membership is a government effort to give favors to unions support their campaigns, which ultimately will cost you and I money.Mandating the elimination of independant truckers is absurd, and against the principles upon which this country was founded. Read the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers. There is no suggestion that government should be deciding business outcomes. There is no suggestion that government should be taking ownership positions in business.
Clayton Boyce ATA

Plano, TX

#12 Nov 5, 2009
This is an incredibly poor job of reporting and appears to be an op-ed paid for by the Teamsters to push their agenda of having Los Angeles and other city governments use taxpayer funds to help the Teamsters business plan by outlawing owner-operators who own a business can't join a union.

Here's why:
1. The "new study" was published by the American Journal of Public Health, whose website states: "The goals of both the online and the print versions of the Journal, published monthly by the American Public Health Association, are … to work in concert with the 3 main priorities of the American Public Health Association, namely to develop universal coverage, eliminate health disparities, and rebuild the public health infrastructure." The creators of the report are not disinterested scientists. The Journal advocates for universal health care coverage and part of its argument is that the drivers should have health insurance paid for by trucking companies, even though an owner-operator can buy their own health insurance with their own company's revenue, just as a trucking company would do.
2. The reporter sought out for comment a union spokeswoman, Coral Lopez, but did not seek any rebuttal from trucking companies or the owner-operators who do not want to give up their businesses and become union company drivers. I was a newspaper journalist for 18 years and this kind of journalistic malpractice deserves a reprimand from the editor.
3. The reporter keeps seliling his (and the Teamsters') idea that only by banning owner-operators can the air in the ports be cleaned. Apparently the reporter does not read his newspaper's editorials, which eight months ago declared, along with all other major newspapers in the L.A. area, that the Teamsters' and environmental groups' claims in this regard are false. And both L.A. and L.B. ports on Oct. 1 announced that their clean air programs are ahead of schedule, despite neither having a ban on owner-operators.
4. The article presents a conclusion that is unchallenged by balancing comments but is total nonsense. It is NOT true that clean air can be sustained only by banning owner-operators so that port trucks work for companies who then presumably could afford new trucks. The fact is that only new trucks will be allowed in the ports. If then owner-operators can't afford new trucks, they will be banned from the ports and out of the port drayage business. There is absolutely no need for taxpayers' money to be spent on lobbying to change the law so the Teamsters can ban owner-operators.
5. The first paragraph of the story places trucks first in the line of "primary causes" of port pollution when the story far down admits that ships and boats cause most of the pollution (70 percent). Trucks cause only 10 percent, not the 20 percent claimed in the story. Further down in the story the reporter stops talking about ship pollution entirely, as if air pollution from ships stops at the water's edge.
6. The study and its claims are already long outdated because it is based on the presence of pollution that has already been drastically reduced and will be nearly eliminated by 2012.
7. The claim that the Long Beach settlement agreement allows the trucking industry to self-regulate clean truck program compliance is a false statement copied from a pro-union press release. The Port of Long Beach demanded and maintains complete power to ban any truck that does not comply with the clean truck program and has a mechanism to check a truck's compliance quickly and efficiently.
8. The last paragraph of the story is an outrageous attempt to bamboozle taxpayers and keep them from realizing that the Port of L.A. is spending millions of taxpayers dollars to defend an indefensible regulation and pay a lobbyist to get Congress to change federal law to help the Teamsters.
D7 Enthusiast

Long Beach, CA

#13 Nov 5, 2009
Worthless study by academies. Plenty of people live along I-10, I-210, I-5, I-605, SR-91, etc. Tell me one neighborhood in the entire LA/OC/Riverside counties that is not within 5-mile from a freeway? LB residents are no special than other parts of the region. Your kids are not any more in danger health-wide than ours.
South Bay

Hawaiian Gardens, CA

#14 Nov 6, 2009
Mr. Boyce, for a guy who is out in Louisville Kentucky, you seem really concern about the health and environment of folks who actually live near the San Pedro Bays, in Southern California. Are you really concerned about the health of our children and our port drivers?
No. You are concerned about the health of corporate PROFITS. That’s understandable, that’s the nature of the American Trucking Association. See you had over 25 years to turn over trucks, but it took a bunch of health, environmentalists, community, labor and people of faith to put the pressure. We can’t breathe in our communities in the South Bay.
But you wouldn’t understand.
1. The only thing you have is simply discrediting the American Journal of Public Health, because apparently they know nothing of the public health and they support universal health care. Ask yourself Mr. Boyce do you think low waged misclassified independent contractors) can afford health insurance? Really?
2. You are saying that all drivers will become union company drivers, overnight, that’s funny.“Trucking companies”,“owner operators” or “independent contractors” who should we ask? Seems like a mess, no?
3. Do you really think “independent contractors” can maintain these expensive trucks? If they can’t even afford the fuel, feed their families, or buy new tires, they resort to re-treads or cutting groove lines into their truck tires. The same tires that our cars run over on the 110 and 710 freeways. 25 years of hell for a lot of folks here in the South Bay. Today’s clean trucks will be tomorrow’s dirty trucks.
4. I agree with you Mr. Boyce, taxpayers’ money should not be misspent. Such as using tax payer money to pay for truck grants and have the trucking company turn around and lease the same truck, bought with taxpayer’s money, and then leased out to 2 different drivers. I like that we can agree on that.
5. Remember the Clean Air Action plan, Mr. Boyce, about plugging ships onto the electric grid?
6. Global recession? Trade down significantly, do you see a connection? 2012, these clean trucks will be dirty trucks, not to mention broke port truck drivers. The port plans to grow a massive port, more trade down the road, bigger 710 freeway, and more trucks. Humm, more pollution?
7. I had to laugh at this one, I would laugh more, but I can’t breathe, since the air is so damn dirty. Here’s a quote,“By allowing both employee drivers and independent owner-operators in our program, we’re letting the industry determine how it can best achieve our environmental standards.” Richard Steinke.

Long Beach, CA

#15 Nov 8, 2009
Great article, its clearly time for a change. Kids are getting sick, we cannot stand for this

Denver, CO

#16 Nov 9, 2009
Fascinating group... this article points to the Long Beach Press Telegram, which cites an article from the American Journal for Public Health.

But the debate is here, where the least information resides... fascinating.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Preventive Medicine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mumps Outbreak Tied to Vaccine Shortfalls (Mar '17) Mar '17 Hide the Kids 1
News Pasadena will spend $1.5M to combat smoking amo... (Nov '16) Nov '16 Raymond Cyst 1
News Remote and poor Australians at greater risk of ... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Dawson 4
News Many gay and bisexual men unaware that PrEP med... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Xstain Spot Remover 1
News Wellness Committee of Thousand Oaks Presents "1... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Udo 1
News E-cigarettes don't help people quit smoking (Apr '16) Apr '16 Setton U Strait 2
News 10 Ways to Lower Cholesterol (Jan '12) Sep '15 carterbn 7
More from around the web