CDC Tests Confirm FEMA Trailers Toxic

nittanyalum · #1 02-14-2008, 06:46 PM

CDC tests confirm FEMA trailers are toxic

Agency to relocate Gulf Coast residents because of formaldehyde fumes

NEW ORLEANS - More than two years after residents of FEMA trailers deployed along the Mississippi Gulf Coast began complaining of breathing difficulties, nosebleeds and persistent headaches, U.S. health officials announced Thursday that long-awaited government tests found potentially hazardous levels of toxic formaldehyde gas in both travel trailers and mobile homes provided by the agency. [emphasis mine]

Complete article here.

skylark · #2 02-14-2008, 07:05 PM

Things like this make me ashamed of our administration. I just can't imagine how it would feel to be completely ignored for weeks or months after a disasterous hurricaine and then to find out that the meager help your own country was able to provide you probably has put you and your family's health at risk. I honestly just can't imagine how angry I would be.

UGAalum94 · #3 02-14-2008, 07:06 PM

So after he made the hurricane, Bush sent in poisoned trailers and made people live in them for more than two years? Diabolical.

I do think the efforts to avoid the testing or minimize the results of the testing are completely horrible. It's the only part that I see as being nefarious, FWIW, but it's significant.

It's hard to figure out why the people in health and testing would have played along, considering the strong advocacy and backup they could expect from the media.

I mean, if I had reason to believe that people were being poisoned, I don't think I'd allow that information to be suppressed with people's health at stake, and I don't regard myself as particularly courageous when it comes to speaking truth to power.

skylark · #4 02-14-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So after he made the hurricane

No one alleges that he caused the hurricaine. I think that when the government is going to give help so little and so late, that it could at least make sure that the help it gives doesn't create new problems. It isn't like this is something where the risk itself of formaldehyde (sp?) wasn't known at the time.

UGAalum94 · #5 02-14-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Things like this make me ashamed of our administration. I just can't imagine how it would feel to be completely ignored for weeks or months after a disasterous hurricaine and then to find out that the meager help your own country was able to provide you probably has put you and your family's health at risk. I honestly just can't imagine how angry I would be.

Who was ignored for weeks or months? It's bad enough that exaggerating really isn't necessary.

I agree that I'm baffled why it would take two years to build permanent housing or to make the determination that replacing the housing in some communities didn't make sense ( and therefore get people to relocate to someplace where housing could logically be built.)

But as I've mentioned before, I'm not sure it's a federal responsibility.

UGAalum94 · #6 02-14-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

No one alleges that he caused the hurricaine. I think that when the government is going to give help so little and so late, that it could at least make sure that the help it gives doesn't create new problems. It isn't like this is something where the risk itself of formaldehyde (sp?) wasn't known at the time.

So you would have left them in tents?

It's not like a better option was available and they ignored it.

What would you have had them do? If you don't have an answer, then maybe we should lay off the judgment a smidgen.

Now, I sure would have had them handle the testing differently, but even so, if you don't have 38,000 hotel rooms available, what would you do?

Seriously, what would you have done? Where would you have put them? Where should all those families go now?

skylark · #7 02-14-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Who was ignored for weeks or months? It's bad enough that exaggerating really isn't necessary.

Wow. I thought everyone heard about the extreme delays:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/na...gewanted=print

And as far as leaving them in tents, no, of course not. I think that the federal government had a hand in deciding the type of trailers that were purchased and/or built and shouldn't have cut costs by putting people in trailers made out of risky materials that they themselves wouldn't feel safe in. At some point you have to ask yourself, if the government was helping out individuals from a more wealthy area of the country, would the government have put them in such housing (and took so long to get it there)? I sincerely don't think so.

skylark · #8 02-14-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Seriously, what would you have done? Where would you have put them? Where should all those families go now?

Seriously, I think there isn't a perfect solution, but no one is arguing for perfection. I think if the government had made FEMA relief more of a priority (which I think it would have done had the people needing help been white wealthy families) that we could have done better than that.

UGAalum94 · #9 02-14-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Wow. I thought everyone heard about the extreme delays, but maybe Fox News ignored it altogether:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/na...gewanted=print

And as far as leaving them in tents, no, of course not. I think that the federal government had a hand in deciding the type of trailers that were purchased and/or built and shouldn't have cut costs by putting people in trailers made out of risky materials that they themselves wouldn't feel safe in. At some point you have to ask yourself, if the government was helping out individuals from a more wealthy area of the country, would the government have put them in such housing (and took so long to get it there)? I sincerely don't think so.

Yes. Not everyone affected by the hurricane was poor.

I don't think there was any effort to spare expense in this case.

There's NO way you can say that the people affected by Katrina were IGNORED for weeks or months, which is what you said.

ETA: Did you read the article? Did you note the issues with state and local governments? Did you note the contrast between residents in Louisiana and Mississippi? You think Mississippi is that much richer?

UGAalum94 · #10 02-14-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Seriously, I think there isn't a perfect solution, but no one is arguing for perfection. I think if the government had made FEMA relief more of a priority (which I think it would have done had the people needing help been white wealthy families) that we could have done better than that.

You can think it, but it doesn't make it reality.

What can you come up with for non-perfect solutions? What solutions do you think would have appeared had the folks been richer and whiter?

UGAalum94 · #11 02-14-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Did you not read the article? Or do you just think the New York Times is an unreliable source?

Read the article. Much of the breakdown was a levels below the federal. ETA: have you read it? And you're still trying to argue that the Feds ignored the problem?

Plenty of trailers in Mississippi. Interesting.

skylark · #12 02-14-2008, 07:53 PM

Why do you keep thinking that I didn't read the article? You know, you're looking at Mississippi's number 6 MONTHS after the hurricaine... I wouldn't be too proud to point out that their trailer situation was BETTER than it was in New Orleans because it wasn't like it was great. It wasn't like after 6 months they were at 100% or anything.

Sure it was better. LESS of a disaster. Not like it is anything to brag about.

skylark · #13 02-14-2008, 07:55 PM

And I'd also like to say that it isn't as if I think that race and class are the ONLY reasons there was a delay. I'm not THAT into conspiracies... I just think they were factors.

Sheer incompetence played a role, as well.

skylark · #14 02-14-2008, 07:59 PM

Because you're trying to argue that Mississippi was so great and thus defeats my argument: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publ...cle_2905.shtml

Like I said before... sure maybe they got more trailers to Mississippi, but that only makes is slightly LESS of a disaster.

UGAalum94 · #15 02-14-2008, 08:00 PM

No doubt the response could have been better, but I don't think anyone could have done it perfectly.

I didn't hold MS up as a model of perfection; I offered it as a contrast to show that some of the messing up wasn't at the level of this administration ignoring the problem.

And it's relatively easy for us all to say, trailers with formaldehyde are terrible, but it's pretty hard to offer a better alternative that could have been deployed at that scale. (The bureaucratic delay is ridiculous, but it looks at least 50% state or local level to me.)

Apparently FEMA says they won't be doing trailers in the future, so it will be interesting to see what the alternative is.

ETA: Did I argue that Mississippi was so great? Or did I just argue that it was less dysfunctional than Louisiana in this instance? And I think the real issue that you see in rebuilding Mississippi doesn't have much to do with the federal gov't, unless you just support giving people straight up handout of hundreds of thousands each. A big part of the problem is not being able to get insurance to rebuild in places that it really doesn't make sense to rebuild if you're an insurance company looking at the flood plain and the land. The stuff that came back fast tended to be self-insured.