Midwest official ousted while battling Dow
A top Bush administration official was forced to resign from U.S. EPA after months of internal bickering with Dow Chemical over dioxin contamination surrounding its Midland, Mich., plant.

Mary Gade, who headed EPA’s Midwest office, told the Chicago Tribune the move came after two aides to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson took away her regional administrator powers and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman in Washington, said Gade was placed on administrative leave until June 1. He declined to comment further about the matter.

Dow has dumped the highly toxic chemical into local rivers for most of the last century. Company documents show Dow knew by the mid-1960s that dioxin could make people sick or even kill them. Citing years of independent studies, EPA says dioxin causes cancer and disrupts the immune and reproductive systems and can be harmful even at low levels.

Gade invoked emergency powers last summer when she ordered the company to remove three hot spots of dioxin near its Midland headquarters. She demanded more dredging in November, when dioxin levels in a Saginaw, Mich., park were revealed to be 1.6 parts per trillion, the highest amount ever found in the United States.

Gade came under fire from Washington officials after she sent contractors to test soil in a Saginaw neighborhood where Dow had found high dioxin levels.

Yesterday, she said of her resignation: “There’s no question this is about Dow. I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I’m proud of what we did.”

Cleanup in the Saginaw area remains stalled, mainly because Dow says the contamination does not threaten people or wildlife.

“There is all of this mystique about dioxin,” said John Musser, a Dow spokesman. “Just because it’s there doesn’t mean there is an imminent health threat” (Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune, May 2). — RB

On another note. My Division Director just told me that years ago, an EPA Office Director in my office literally flew to Europe to bring the catalytic converter to the United States to test its effectiveness in reducing the pollutants that cause particulate matter (the uber nasty stuff that exits tailpipes as really small droplets of pollution and embeds itself DEEP in your lungs and causes all sorts of ugly respiratory problems). The EPA and a coalition of states wanted to regulate these emissions and everyone was moaning about how it wasn’t possible. The political types in EPA and other federal agencies wanted to enact some rules that were not as stringent as the one they had been discussing b/c people were saying they couldn’t meet the emission reduction requirements. But this guy refused to back down. So who goes the distance to make it happen and save millions of people’s lives? Not the auto industry, not the car makers, not the Dept. of Transportation. Some dinky EPA Office Director. Crazy shit.

“Have tolls made significant reduction of traffic flows on bridges and other highways in heavily-traveled routes?”

My guess is not so much, but toll roads and bridges are often means from getting from one system of “free” (as in, paid via taxes) roads to another. If *everything* were tolled, the effects would likely be different. I think if people had to pay to drive on city streets where buses and other forms of public transportation are available, they would be more willing to consider public transportation.

Er, that’s exactly what they do already

If taxes associated with road maintenance were reduced or eliminated, I could support this. I definitely think it would have a beneficial effect on how addicted we are to fuel-based modes of transportation.

I do think Ian has a fair point (at least I think he’s being sarcastic ) about how it would disproportionately affect rich and poor, though.