Yesterday’s burning baby scare is today’s cancer scare

Since the sun came up, it’s time for another guess-what’s-going-to-give-you-cancer-now story.  The New York Times reports:

More than 30 years after chemical flame retardants were removed from children’s pajamas because they were suspected of being carcinogens, new research into flame retardants shows that one of the chemicals is prevalent in baby’s products made with polyurethane foam, including nursing pillows, car seats and highchairs.

The government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission tells us that the chemical – chlorinated Tris – “may pose a significant health risk to consumers,” putting it in the same category as “everything else on the planet.” 

But this story has an interesting twist.  Why is this flame retardant in all sorts of baby products?

The new research is being released amid a broader, and often bitter, debate about flame retardants and a California flammability rule that has become the de facto national standard.

The California standard, passed in 1975, requires that polyurethane foam in upholstered furniture be able to withstand an open flame for 12 seconds without catching fire. Because there is no other state or federal standard, many manufacturers comply with the California rule, usually by adding flame retardants with the foam, Dr. Blum said.

Seems seems that Big Scare #16,272 – that our babies will be incinerated – inadvertently caused Big Scare #55,319 – that our babies will get cancer. 

For what it’s worth, the article – subtly headlined “Chemical Suspected in Cancer Is in Baby Products” – does mention that the research is inconclusive.  In fact, they even go so far as to interview a chemistry professor, who tells the Times that the research is “interesting but hardly proof that the flame retardants were doing harm.”  Although the Times is very quick to point out that the professor “occasionally accepts research money or consulting fees from the industry.”

The whole article is a conglomeration of innuendo, implication, and bullshit.  The study on which the article is based only examined whether these chemicals were in products.  It didn’t explore the (quite important) issues of exposure or risk.  Which is evident when you read paragraphs like this:

The research does not determine if children absorbed the chemical, chlorinated Tris, from the products. But in an article to be published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the researchers suggest that infants who use the products have higher exposure to the chemical than the government recommends.

Having followed cancer reports quite closely over the past year, this is par for the course: We have no clue how dangerous this stuff is, but CANCER!

Oh, and then there’s a quote from a University professor who tells us that, “The laws protect the chemical industry, not the general public,” seven paragraphs after we were told that these “dangerous” chemicals are in baby products because of a law designed to protect the general public from the chemical industry.

At some point, cancer reporting has to move beyond “magic 8-ball,” right?

Profiles in prosecutorial discretion

Two subjects:

Subject A, a 30-year-old mother of 3, attempts to cross a road with her children.  She, along with two of her children, are struck by a repeat hit-and-run offender who had been drinking, using prescription painkillers, and was blind in one eye.  Her four-year-old is killed.

Subject B, a 26-year-old man, comes home after a night of drinking, grabs his Glock, and fires off a couple shots inside his condo building.  

Who belongs in jail?  Easy answer, right?

Subject A:

A Marietta mother may serve more time than the driver who hit and killed her 4-year-old son.

Raquel Nelson, 30, could be sentenced to up to 36 months at a hearing July 26, said David Savoy, her attorney. She was convicted Tuesday of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk and reckless conduct, said Savoy.

Jerry L. Guy, the driver who admitted hitting the child when pleading guilty to hit-and-run, served a 6-month sentence. He was released Oct. 29, 2010, and will serve the remainder of a 5-year sentence on probation, according to Cobb court records.

Nelson was attempting to cross at the intersection of Austell Road and Austell Circle with her three children when her son was struck by a car, said Savoy. The child later died from his injuries. Nelson and her younger daughter suffered minor injuries and her older daughter was not injured.

Subject B:

Manuel A. Guarch, 26, will not be arrested for improperly shooting his Glock pistol, but facing possible termination, he resigned. His girlfriend, Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney Heather Griffin, was demoted for her involvement in the episode.

“Mr. Guarch admitted that he discharged the firearm, however, he used care directing the shots to the corner of the garage away from any vehicles or persons or specific location with intent to harm,” Miami Officer Oscar Fernandez wrote in his report.

…

After consulting with Broward prosecutor Anita White, police officers concluded that circumstances “did not warrant an arrest” on a misdemeanor charge of illegally discharging a firearm in public.

Did I mention that Subject A is black and Subject B is a prosecutor.

Man, that Casey Anthony verdict sure did show how messed up our justice system is.

UPDATE:  Over at Huffington Post, Radley Balko chimes in with some additional details. 

Over the next month, as Guy was processed by Georgia's criminal justice system, Nelson buried and grieved for her son. But on May 14, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a long story under the headline, "Jaywalkers take deadly risks." The article mentioned Nelson and her son, pointing out that she hadn't been charged with any crime. Three days later, the Georgia Solicitor General's office charged Nelson with the three misdemeanors.

Ugh.

What does a guy named Mohammed have to do to not get hassled in an airport around here?

From the Washington Post: Dulles limo drivers who illegally solicit fares face undercover crackdown.

Unnoticed by most travelers, a little war plays out daily in the arrivals area at Dulles, home to more than 23 million passengers a year.

On one front, the “hustlers”: limo drivers who pretend to pick up passengers who supposedly had made reservations but are discreetly soliciting fares from fliers on the spot, without authorization.

On the other front, the undercovers: a squad of Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officers who pose as passengers wearing three-piece suits, toting luggage and speaking foreign languages.

Ahh, its the dreaded “soliciting fares without authorization.”  You know that’s what Casey Anthony did to her daughter, right?

Here’s what I can’t figure out: why is this illegal? The closest the article comes to explaining that is in this paragraph:

Police say they want to protect passengers from getting ripped off or riding with limo drivers who aren’t properly insured. They also aim to block illegal competition that could hurt two groups: the large number of limo drivers with prearranged reservations to pick up passengers (which is legal); and the Washington Flyer taxi service, a collection of three independent cab companies that holds the airport’s contract to collect travelers.

I guess #1 seems reasonable, except I’m not sure how prohibiting something helps make things more legitimate.  Y’know.  Drugs and everything.  And wouldn’t it be better to just prohibit ripping people off or uninsured drivers?

But #2 is just absurd.  Throwing the word “illegal” in front of something is a cop out.  Why are we prohibiting competition?  Don’t we government agencies specifically designed to prevent restraints on competition?  So we’re protecting limo drivers and cab companies at the expense of…

Most hustlers are immigrants who say they’re just trying to piece together a decent existence. Many times, they have a reserved pickup and don’t need to solicit. But they still skirt the law, even if it means risking their livelihoods and facing the opprobrium of fellow immigrants who play by the book.

Damn immigrants.  Don’t even know the American way: you have to be “authorized” to make a living.  But hey, two points for “opprobrium.”

And this is one sad, sorry man:

Officer Hehr, 58, a former Arlington County fire captain, talks of his work with the elan of a lawman describing a drug sting or other bad-guy takedown.

“Oh, God, we had a good day in May. Two undercovers got solicited. We caught six total. I witnessed one of them from my cruiser outside — I had my binoculars going,” Hehr said. “I saw one of my undercovers coming out with a solicitor. I watched the car doors open. Then my undercover calls my cell and says, ‘It’s me. Come get him.’ ”

At least this story has a happy ending:

Mohammad Shahid, 48, of Fauquier County said he has been banned from Reagan National for hustling — but he still takes his chances at Dulles, where he solicited a Washington Post reporter.

…

Drivers sometimes contest their bans in emotional appeals hearings at the airport. “Operators will come in with pictures of their kids and family,” said Chris Browne, the airport manager, who adjudicates the hearings.

Maybe I’m misreading the article and there’s some hidden danger here.  Or I skipped over the part where some unauthorized limo driver murdered all his fares and plunged his town car into the Potomac.  But this just seems really mean.  I mean, we have somebody (Republicans? Democrats? Does it even matter?) screwing immigrants explicitly to protect corporations, cops gleefully recounting their “busts,” undercovers dressed up in suits in the baggage claim area of an airport not looking for terrorists, but for limo drivers, and an entire article about ruining the lives of immigrants without the slightest clue as to how anybody is protected because of all this.  Maybe there’s a really good reason for all this, but you would think that would slip its way into what is otherwise a pretty depressing article.