Red-Flag Phrases

The issue of toxic substances fires me up and certain phrases really make me hot. They are a red flag, or should be to the folks who make their home in the San Fernando Valley, the main thrust of the article Oct. 8 concerning 9 million pounds of toxic emissions reportedly filling up the air in the Valley yearly.

“Health implications are uncertain,” companies “estimated their toxic air emission” and “Some . . . chemicals are regulated . . . others are not.” Words like implications, estimated, and others bother me a lot. Just what are the implications to our health and environment? What other companies and chemicals are going unchecked? Who is accountable for the accuracy of these self-interested estimates?

As a resident of the Valley, and as a neighbor of the Marquardt Co., number eight on your list of largest emitters, I have begun investigating these questions and it is my hope others will be doing the same.

I found that often these companies are “legally discharging,” to say nothing of storing and handling, toxic materials under “interim status permits,” which allow them to operate until the proper agencies can get around to fully assessing their facility. Interim status can mean for years.

And what do these assessors review--the companies’ own disclosures. Often, without public pressure brought to bear on them, an environmental impact report or health risk assessment is not automatically done. This seems a smelly situation to this neighbor.

Get hot, my fellow San Fernandoians. It seems that the call for accountability falls not on these companies, not on these agencies, but on us. We as a community must demand closer scrutiny and regulation of the toxic substances being emitted into our environment.

Congress has legislated the “right to know.” The L.A. Times has done some homework in compiling data and getting it to us. The question remains: So now we know . . . . Now what?

RAMONA O’NEIL, Van Nuys