Member Rara Avis
Must I really watch each and every word I use so that it doesn't give you a viable reason to try to discredit what I say? And why would you do that to others when you yourself speak in similar terms and labels? Are your labels and terms better simply because they are yours? Then after all your implications that I am "overboard" and "ranting" you say you will not say anymore. Well, I guess you made your point and put your foot down.
BTW~ The term "will" that I used was used in the respect of the ones that will die (as in in the future anyone that does die) not as in there will most certainly be deaths from this.
Since you quoted the statement I made that had the word "will" in it, here are the ones you missed:
"In the meantime itís projected that 10-15 years from now those same children will probably be suffering from some form of cancer and most probably dying from it."
I donít mean that as all encompassing.
"The ones that didnít lose all hope and maybe even their sanity when they lost everything they had worked their entire lives for and/or on top of all that lost their family members as well."
~ you quoted this by saying: "So now anyone who had to live in the trailers have lost hope, eventual sanity, everything they have worked for, and the death of their families?"
I did not say the ones that lived in the trailers were the ones that had lost hope, and MAYBE even their sanityÖÖÖbut was referring to the vicims of KatrinaÖ
can I ask why you choose to take some things out of context by leaving out the word maybe?
Now this just really confuses someone of my apparent ignorance:
"Should and probably doesn't do much to strengther your statements" That's what you said. Right after you said: "So now the trailers WILL make your children sick and possibly kill them?"
"will" is too emcompassing and "should" and "probably" doesn't strengthen my statements. *sigh* I guess I just fail all the way around.
I am willing to bet that if I had said everything that was in agreement with you, Michael, you wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit my opinions or statements.
As for the answers to the trailersÖ.IN MY OPINION, MAYBE, a better answer would have been to use the trailers for a very short time until the brainstroming people came up with a better solution. Yes, I know, but it MIGHT have helped.
This is from the article I linked:
Doctors cannot conclusively link her asthma to the trailer. But they fear she is among tens of thousands of youngsters who may face lifelong health problems because the temporary housing supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency contained formaldehyde fumes up to five times the safe level.
The chemical, used in interior glue, was detected in many of the 143,000 trailers sent to the Gulf Coast in 2006.
But a push to get residents out of them, spearheaded by FEMA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not begin until this past February.
Members of Congress and CDC insiders say the agencies' delay in recognizing the danger is being compounded by studies that will be virtually useless and the lack of a plan to treat children as they grow.
"It's tragic that when people most need the protection, they are actually going from one disaster to a health disaster that might be considered worse," said Christopher De Rosa, assistant director for toxicology and risk assessment at the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the CDC. "Given the longer-term implications of exposure that went on for a significant period of time, people should be followed through time for possible effects."
Formaldehyde is classified as a probable carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no way to measure formaldelhyde in the bloodstream. Respiratory problems are an early sign of exposure.
Young children are at particular risk. Thousands who lived in trailers will be in the prime of life in the 10 to 15 years doctors believe it takes cancer to develop.
From one of the links Karen provided:
CBS News has learned that health concerns in FEMA trailers could reach well beyond serious respiratory problems; several deaths may linked to toxic levels of formaldehyde gas, reports Keteyian.
Earl Shorty, a resident of Louisiana, moved into a FEMA travel trailer in one compound with his wife, Desiree, about a year ago.
"Within four months after we moved in here, she just started coughing and she would get weak," Shorty told Keteyian.
Earl says his wife didn't smoke and that every time she left the trailer the coughing would stop. Eventually, she became too weak to go out. On July 2, she took her last breath at a local hospital.
"She was just looking at me and she said, 'Babe, I'm scared,'" said Shorty. "That's the last thing I remember her telling me, that she was scared."
Formaldehyde, sometimes found in building materials used in manufactured homes, can cause respiratory problems and possibly cancer in high doses. FEMA provided more than 120,000 trailers to victims of the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and many thousands of people still occupy them, especially in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.
Last year, the Sierra Club tested 31 travel trailers in Mississippi and found that virtually all ó 94 percent ó had levels of formaldehyde above that limit.
CBS News discovered an internal FEMA document that cites cancer as a potential job hazard for those just inspecting the trailers.
"too bad ignorance isn't painful"