Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . why are you reviving this thread?

The forum isn?t a news re-print service; it?s a discussion board. Forum members aren?t restricted to speaking only when a newspaper article appears. Wocket asked me questions about media, so I replied. And several forum members asked for updates about particulate matter, so I provided those.

. . . There aren't any new news. . . Wait until something new pops up.

That?s untrue. Plenty of significant news occurred just last week:
(1) Estimated annual death rates from particulate matter were tripled by the California Environmental Protection Agency?s Air Resources Board (CA-EPA-CARB).
(2) CARB announced the scientific peer reviews that other forum members wanted.
(3) The City asked the Commonwealth to publish the particulate matter information that was omitted from ? but should have been included in ? the Columbus Center proposal.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I read the reports of the California assessment last week; these reports dealt with fine particulates, not ultrafine particles (UFPs), the latter being the subject of your crusade to create toxic zones along the Mass Pike.

There are existing standards, monitoring, and regulation of fine particulates. That is not the case for UFP.

You either misread reports or subvert them for your own purpose.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . these [California] reports dealt with fine particulates, not ultrafine particles (UFPs). . . There are existing standards, monitoring, and regulation of fine particulates. That is not the case for UFP.

For people who work and live along transportation corridors, dangerous particulate matter comes in three sizes: regular, fine, and ultrafine. Each has its own set of concerns.

? For regular and fine particles, the existing federal standards are regional in nature and thus ignore the harm within a few blocks of corridors like I-93 and I-90.
? For ultrafine particles, the inevitable federal standards are too little, too late for thousands of people affected by UFP-related illness and premature fatality.

The fact that last week?s tripling of annual estimated deaths was related to fine instead of ultrafine particulates doesn?t reduce the problems caused by inadequate standards or by missing standards.

. . . ultrafine particles (UFPs), the latter being the subject of your crusade to create toxic zones along the Mass Pike. . .

I am not working to ?create toxic zones along Mass Pike? as you wrote. The toxicity already exists; I?m just working to ensure that it is:

(a) measured and identified so that people who work and live inside the toxic areas are told the health risks;
and
(b) remediated as promised to hermetically seal the tunnels, and clean the air below before exhausting it into the project above and the adjacent communities. CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC made that promise on 10 May 2006 in exchange for having City property taxes waived for 19 years.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

For people who work and live along transportation corridors, dangerous particulate matter comes in three sizes: regular, fine, and ultrafine. Each has its own set of concerns.

? For regular and fine particles, the existing federal standards are regional in nature and thus ignore the harm within a few blocks of corridors like I-93 and I-90.
? For ultrafine particles, the inevitable federal standards are too little, too late for thousands of people affected by UFP-related illness and premature fatality.

The fact that last week?s tripling of annual estimated deaths was related to fine instead of ultrafine particulates doesn?t reduce the problems caused by inadequate standards or by missing standards.



I am not working to ?create toxic zones along Mass Pike? as you wrote. The toxicity already exists; I?m just working to ensure that it is:

(a) measured and identified so that people who work and live inside the toxic areas are told the health risks;
and
(b) remediated as promised to hermetically seal the tunnels, and clean the air below before exhausting it into the project above and the adjacent communities. CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC made that promise on 10 May 2006 in exchange for having City property taxes waived for 19 years.

My goodness, where to start?

A.) there is no such term as a "regular" particulate

B.) thus, there is no standard for "regular" particulates (particles). There are two particulate standards, one is for PM10, the 10 being 10 micrometers, or particulates smaller than 1/2,540th of an inch, and one for PM2.5, the 2.5 being 2.5 micrometers, or roughly 1/10,000th of an inch.

C.) particulate standards are national standards.

D.) Nearly all the non-attainment areas for PM10 are out west (NYC being an exception).

The nearest non-attainment area for PM2.5 is the greater NYC metropolitan area. The entire state of Massachusetts attains the PM2.5 standard.
__________________________________

I am unaware of how one could hermetically seal a tunnel (that is in use).
Hermetically meaning air-tight.

If you are so concerned about the toxicity of being near a major urban highway, why do you not also call for the Columbus Center parks to be eliminated as dangerous to one's health?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

I agree that only two federal standards exist, PM-10 and PM-2.5, with nothing yet for ultrafine particulate matter (smaller than PM-2.5). But it is because both existing standards operate regionally instead of locally that neither one addresses the public health risks at short distances (about 1,640 feet).

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn?t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.

If you are so concerned about the toxicity of being near a major urban highway, why do you not also call for the Columbus Center parks to be eliminated as dangerous to one's health?

Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.

You could replace "open space" with "the Columbus Center" and make the same argument using the exact same logic.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

I agree that only two federal standards exist, PM-10 and PM-2.5, with nothing yet for ultrafine particulate matter (smaller than PM-2.5). But it is because both existing standards operate regionally instead of locally that neither one addresses the public health risks at short distances (about 1,640 feet).

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn?t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.


Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.

Ned, the air quality monitoring stations for particulates within the City of Boston are at City Square, Kenmore Square, Harrison Ave, and North St. I believe most are proximate to a major urban highway. The particulate standards are being met.

There are some things that are physically impossible to do: one being a common vulgarity, another being to hermetically seal an operating tunnel.

Nobody in a contract, lease, or other legally binding instrument would promise to do the impossible, no matter what you assert. To assert they so promised only further undercuts your credibility (which, IMO, has been steadily sinking the more that you post).

My comment on the open space, i.e., parks, was that by insisting that such features be built along a major urban highway, these then lie within your so-called toxic zone, and people who would use the parks would, by your construct, be exposing themselves to a significant health risk.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

You could replace "open space" with "the Columbus Center" and make the same argument using the exact same logic.

Not exactly. It?s true that eliminating open space from air rights development does nothing to alleviate the corridor?s inherent toxicity, and it?s also true that eliminating air rights development altogether does nothing to alleviate the corridor?s toxicity. But it?s not true that eliminating Columbus Center would do nothing to alleviate the toxicity.

Air rights development in general presents opportunities to alleviate the toxicity inherent in the corridor. The solution isn?t project-dependent or project-specific; it can be employed by any proposal over any of the 23 parcels covering any of the 44 acres.

So if California won?t or can?t deliver the ?air-tight tunnels? it promised (or a functionally equivalent alternative), then other proponents can make use of the opportunity. But all competitors have been forever blocked since 1996, so California would have to officially step aside before anyone else could offer a solution.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn?t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.

Where exactly did California promised to hermetically seal the tunnel? I want an article or a report pointing out that California used the exact words "hermetically sealed" the tunnel.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Where exactly did California promised to hermetically seal the tunnel? I want an article or a report pointing out that California used the exact words "hermetically sealed" the tunnel.

On 5 May 2006, California pension plan representative Roger Cassin testified before Boston City Councilors:

?I tell you, all of the noise and fumes are sort of hermetically sealed below the site.?

Cassin made this statement as part of his public subsidy application testimony, in which California obtained waivers for state income taxes and also for 19 years of City property taxes.

City Hall videotaped his testimony before the Boston City Council Committee on Planning & Economic Development, in Docket 0524, on 5 May 2006. Cassin appears during minutes 8 through 23, and his ?hermetically sealed? promise is around minute 14.

Visit www.CityOfBoston.gov/CityCouncil/cc_Video_Library.asp?id=197.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Post #142 convinced me: I am now opposed to Columbus Center. Thank you for showing me the way, Ned, and I'm sorry it took so long.

Now we have to work on removing residents from all neighboring buildings who are living in these toxic zones. The UFPs that they are inhaling on a daily basis must slowly be making them all go crazy.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . The particulate standards are being met.

Yes, the current standards are being met, but neither standard addresses the public health risks at short distances because both standards operate regionally instead of locally. My point is not that current standards are not being met; my point is that the current standards do not address the risk.

. . .Nobody in a contract, lease, or other legally binding instrument would promise to do the impossible, no matter what you assert.

Companies routinely make promises that they can?t meet in legally binding instruments (contracts, leases, subsidy applications, etc.). Any experienced government procurement officer will tell you that. The practice is especially prevalent whenever firms think that their applications won?t be carefully checked. You can read such claims in Columbus Center?s own subsidy applications, and in the government agency reactions to them. Or just pull the videotape and watch California representative Roger Cassin tell his bold-faced, bald-faced lie in person to City Councilors.

. . . the open spaces . . . lie within your so-called toxic zone, and people who would use the parks would, by your construct, be exposing themselves to a significant health risk.

Yes, the open spaces are inside of the particulate matter toxic zones that encircle Columbus Center and spread into its adjacent communities. And yes, users of those open space would be exposed.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Now we have to work on removing residents from all neighboring buildings. . . The UFPs that they are inhaling on a daily basis must slowly be making them all go crazy.

The National Library of Medicine has thousands of studies explaining that the illnesses are not mental. They?re physical:

? 20% increase in all causes of mortality
? 50% increase in death from heart attack and lung cancer
? 44% more lung cancer deaths
? up to 50% more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adult women
? chronic lung problems in children 10-18 years old
? up to 100% more childhood asthma, and more frequent exacerbation
? up to 100% more early cancers for children living their first 5 years near highways
? up to 400% more teens who never reach 80% of adult lung capacity
? very high association between UFPs and cardiovascular disease
? 36% increase in low birth-weights
? 27% increase in premature births
? 300% increase in infant cardiac birth defects

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Yes, the current standards are being met, but neither standard addresses the public health risks at short distances because both standards operate regionally instead of locally. My point is not that current standards are not being met; my point is that the current standards do not address the risk.

Ned, you are confused. The standard is a national standard. Measurement of the attainment of a standard is done locally. For Boston, there are four monitoring stations for measuring the amount of particulates in the air. I realize that none are on Clarendon St., but at least three of the four stations are near a major urban highway (I don't know about North St.) with vehicle emissions streaming upward and outward.

Monitoring stations are typically located where concentrations of a pollutant are likely to be of concern. Hence, there is another air quality monitoring station on Long Island (in Boston Harbor) but it doesn't measure particulates. To the extent that a particular air pollutant is not considered a problem (potential or actual) in a geographic area, then it is not measured. In such circumstances, a local measurement can be extrapolated into a regional measurement, provided that the local site is where violations of a national standard are most likely to occur or attainment is likely to be difficult. If the state was monitoring particulates in downtown Scituate and not in Boston, you would have a legitimate beef.

______________________
With respect to Roger Cassin's "bold-faced, bald-faced lie" before the City Council, you have just done the same. The National Library of Medicine does not have thousands of studies on UFPs.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Columbus Center

Hey Ned, I'd gidadaheah if I were you. You're getting your ass kicked.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

If there's a monitoring station on North Street, it's probably for the Sumner or Callahan tunnel directly below.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . The standard is a national standard. Measurement of the attainment of a standard is done locally. For Boston, there are four monitoring stations for measuring the amount of particulates in the air. I realize that none are on Clarendon St., but at least three of the four stations are near a major urban highway (I don't know about North St.)

Yes, the current standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 are national, and yes, their current measurements are locally collected, and then regionally extrapolated. The problem still is two-fold:

? There is no federal standard for ultrafine PM, so no one is yet measuring what is already known to be harmful.
? The local collection points for the PM-10 and PM-2.5 standards aren?t close enough to the toxic zones of the two corridors, so the extrapolations into regional estimates, while helpful, are inadequate.

. . . If the state was monitoring particulates in downtown Scituate and not in Boston, you would have a legitimate beef.

Yes, and by the same logic, if the state conducts no monitoring at all ? as it does with ultrafine particulate matter ? that also is cause for a legitimate complaint, since the un-measured PM (ultrafine) is more harmful than the measured PM (PM-10 and PM-2.5).

. . . With respect to Roger Cassin's "bold-faced, bald-faced lie" before the City Council, you have just done the same. The National Library of Medicine does not have thousands of studies on UFPs.

Roger Cassin told City Council his hermetically sealed tunnels would remove pollution from the community while asking that his property taxes be waived for 19 years. But he already knew that pollution from the tunnels below would be exhausted into his project (UFP pollution penetrates windows, doors, walls, and ceilings), and into the surrounding community above. He had already published his written proposal describing and illustrating the exhaust vents.

Cassin asked to be given millions of dollars in exchange for promising Councilors a solution that?s impossible. I neither asked for millions of public dollars, nor promised to do the impossible. So, no, I did not do what he did.

Your difficulty in locating nanoparticle research does not mean that it doesn?t exist, only that you aren?t there yet. The National Library of Medicine has 12,000 studies on nanoparticles and health, and 11,000 studies on particulate matter and health. There probably are another 5,000 related agency and aerosol science studies that are not included in PUBMED. Among the over 20,000 studies, there are probably several thousand about primary pollution including mobile, and probably several hundred good studies that are specific to mobile ultrafines and their near source gradients.

As the total number of peer-reviewed studies grew, the exact count became less important, and what became most important is this: public health officials know, and have known for years.

So, the question that pro-development apologists are left with is: Even if there were only a few studies showing the harmful effects of UFP, why build projects that harm the public health, when it?s possible to build ones that don?t?

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned - you're lucky that Mr. Cassin is such a gentleman, and has his hands full at the moment, because many other businessmen would sue you for defamation.

You really should measure your words, this is a public forum.

While I am fairly certain that very few people here take any of your ramblings seriously since you've been discredited so many times on so many details, but please be careful when you attack a person's character - that's different than attacking a development (we all attack developments all the time, that's what's fun about this board)

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Yes, the current standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 are national, and yes, their current measurements are locally collected, and then regionally extrapolated. The problem still is two-fold:

? There is no federal standard for ultrafine PM, so no one is yet measuring what is already known to be harmful.

Not true. Ultrafine is measured, but not systematically. As for being harmful, everything is harmful. Life and living is not risk-free. You can die from drinking too much water.

? The local collection points for the PM-10 and PM-2.5 standards aren?t close enough to the toxic zones of the two corridors, so the extrapolations into regional estimates, while helpful, are inadequate.

I guess you don't get to Kenmore Square and are unfamiliar with the geography. The air monitoring station is at the green arrow. Would you prefer it be located on the median of the Turnpike?

Yes, and by the same logic, if the state conducts no monitoring at all ? as it does with ultrafine particulate matter ? that also is cause for a legitimate complaint, since the un-measured PM (ultrafine) is more harmful than the measured PM (PM-10 and PM-2.5).

Do you have citations in peer-reviewed literature that support your assertion that UFPs are individually more harmful, from a health standpoint, than exposure to PM10 and PM2.5?

..... (UFP pollution penetrates windows, doors, walls, and ceilings), and into the surrounding community above. .....

UFP pollution does not penetrate a non-permeable barrier.

....

Your difficulty in locating nanoparticle research does not mean that it doesn?t exist, only that you aren?t there yet. The National Library of Medicine has 12,000 studies on nanoparticles and health, and 11,000 studies on particulate matter and health. There probably are another 5,000 related agency and aerosol science studies that are not included in PUBMED. Among the over 20,000 studies, there are probably several thousand about primary pollution including mobile, and probably several hundred good studies that are specific to mobile ultrafines and their near source gradients.

You are obfuscating, and distorting. Your claim was that the National Library of Medicine had thousands of studies on UFPs. They do not. Studies on nano-particles are not studiers on UFPs. Studies on fine particulates are not studies on UFPs. You even now seem to state below that perhaps there are a "few studies"on UFPs.

As the total number of peer-reviewed studies grew, the exact count became less important, and what became most important is this: public health officials know, and have known for years.

What exactly do they know?

So, the question that pro-development apologists are left with is: Even if there were only a few studies showing the harmful effects of UFP, why build projects that harm the public health, when it?s possible to build ones that don?t?

The project is not a source of UFPs. The UFPs are a ubiquitous product of all those internal combustion engines traveling along Clarendon St and the Mass Pike. Why should a project such as Columbus Center be responsible for ridding the air of this pollutant? Whats wrong with an argument that your own condo association should put filters and scrubbers on the air intakes for your building to protect your health from UFPs? BTW, have you raised your UFP health concerns with residents who are buying or renting residences along Causeway St., in the North Station area. Given your so-called toxic zones, they are all in peril. Spaulding Hospital should have been closed long ago.

My comments in bold above.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . many other businessmen would sue you for defamation. . . please be careful when you attack a person's character

Actually, it was other forum members who pointed out that it is impossible to have an operational tunnel which California?s local representative Roger Cassin testified would be ?hermetically sealed.?

So, there?s no need to worry that he might have been defamed, libeled, or slandered, because he wasn?t; my message doesn?t meet any of the threshold definitions for those things.

I merely repeated what he said during his videotaped subsidy application, and what he wrote in his proposal. It is because both can?t simultaneously be true, and also because one is impossible, that his representations constitute a falsehood.

Accurately citing someone else?s falsehood, with proper credit, never constitutes defamation, libel, or slander.