Chemical safety bills
Ten years ago my organization, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, launched a campaign with public health partners nationwide to overhaul the nation’s broken chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The goal was to pass a law that protects families from toxic chemicals in consumer products linked to cancer and learning disabilities. Today, chemical safety reform is finally on the brink of passage. But will it do more harm than good?
The U.S. House and Senate have developed very different versions of reform, and both bills have problems. But under the bill the House passed last month, states would still have authority to continue acting on the worst toxic chemicals while we wait for federal action. But the Senate version, which is awaiting a floor vote, would prohibit states from acting on “high priority” chemicals for four to five years while the EPA reviews them. In all this time, the chemical industry could keep using the worst chemicals and states would have no power to stop them.
The Senate should take up the House bill as a framework for passing reform. Maine should retain the freedom that has led to our greatest victories against harmful chemicals, such as protecting kids and pregnant women from BPA, arsenic or flame retardants in everyday products. I thank Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King for not supporting the Senate bill yet, and I ask them to continue rejecting pre-emption of Maine’s right to protect our people.
Emma Halas-O’Connor
Portland
Bernie Sanders 2016
During the past three weeks, I’ve received more than 400 new “friend” requests on Facebook. Most of these are from folks who, like me, are supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders for president in 2016.
What is most significant about these “friend” requests is their demographic diversity: They are from all parts of the United States and represent nearly every segment of American society, even individuals who might otherwise be considered polar opposites. They are all ages, from teenagers to millennials to senior citizens, students and teachers, atheists and fundamentalists, military veterans, farmers, union workers, artists, people of color, as well as whites.
Our pages are giving voice to a powerful new grassroots movement Sanders has championed for decades, a movement that resonates with millions and is growing stronger every day, as we see Sanders as the only honest, viable candidate for 2016.
The mainstream media offer scant coverage of our movement, an indication of their bias. And the Democratic Party elite treats Hillary Clinton as though she were the anointed candidate without challenge. But they’re not fooling the public because Bernie’s message rings true, as evidenced by massive turnouts for Sanders events in Wisconsin, Maine, Arizona and even in Texas.
MJ Crowe
Belfast
More guns, more violence
In the past month, I have read news of the arrest of a man responsible for a rash of fatal shootings in northern Maine; a lone gunman who shot four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee; a man in Boothbay Harbor who shot his wife, his son and himself because of financial difficulties; the conviction of James Holmes for the mass shooting spree he committed in a Colorado movie theater; and the legal loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun despite having a criminal record before he killed nine black parishioners in a South Carolina church.
I listen to the argument that Americans should be allowed to own guns to defend themselves against such crazies and criminals, and I try to keep an open mind. Yet I am left wondering why I so rarely read stories of gun owners who successfully have defended themselves or prevented violence because they had a gun.
Unless the press is burying all the stories of everyday citizens who have thwarted bad guys with their guns, it seems to me our lax gun laws are leading to more homicides in this country than they are helping people defend themselves, a conclusion also reached by researchers at Harvard University.
More guns in a society equal more gun violence.
Sarah Baldwin
South Thomaston
Confederate battle flag
What is our community responsibility when bigotry arises. Do we remain silent? Or do we stand together and gently educate those hopefully misinformed individuals engaged in the offending behavior?
If safe, those who know these individuals, their families could encourage them with facts: Out of the 80,000 Mainers who fought in the Civil War, 8,341 died. Though legal, why would we wish to see the flag of the side that lost and supported slavery flying?
The flag resurged in the 1960s as a symbol opposing the Civil Rights movement. Does it belong on our public roads? How do children who are black living here or visiting feel when they see the flag? If someone is white, how would they feel if they were black?
Are we comfortable seeing a flag designed by William T. Thompson, who stated: “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race”?
Diane Smith
Cushing
A boon for the North Woods
I think a national park to the east of Baxter State Park would be a real asset. It would feed off Baxter State Park. I drove a tourist bus in and around Acadia National Park for 15 years. I have yet to find anyone who complained about the park being there.
Business people operate their enterprises in towns surrounding Acadia each summer, and in winter operate their businesses in Florida. They know people will visit these two places and spend money there. Some 3 million visitors go to Acadia each year.
No, a national park will not gobble up nearby land. It will not ruin the forest industry. It will support area towns and produce jobs, perhaps not as high-paying as the closed mills paid, but the closed mills are not producing high wages now.
The region needs a dream that includes the future, which can include money coming to Greater Millinocket from tourists visiting a national park.
A national park also would protect part of the North Woods from over development and ensure there still will be woods in the North Woods.
Milton Gross
Searsport