The Greeley Tribune, Aug. 22, on the effects of the oil and gas industry on residents:
We were happy to read about a recent Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment study regarding the overall health of Weld County’s citizens.
According to Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer for the health department, some of the fears surrounding the long-term effects of the oil and gas industry on the overall health of citizens are unfounded.
According to the study, despite Weld having 22,088 active wells - as compared with just 316 in Boulder County, 257 in Larimer County and 52 in Denver County - health incidents of asthma, cancer, birth defects, infant mortality and low birth weight were within normal ranges. In fact, Weld came in noticeably behind Denver in both birth defects and, to a lesser extent, low birth weight.
No, we’re not saying “Drill baby drill.” As Wolk said, “If you’re smoking and inhaling a cigarette, it’s a lot different than if you’re standing 50 feet away from somebody who’s smoking.”
His point is, you don’t want an oil or gas well coming up through the middle of your elementary school or living room. However, the new study does show reasonably restrictive regulations seem to be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Bill Jerke, executive director with Fostering Unity and Energizing Leadership Colorado, mentioned Weld has supported at least 10,000 wells for more than 30 years. That means they aren’t just measuring short-term issues. It’s measuring major health issues that would be cropping up by now if they were serious.
We’re also not saying they should simply stop doing research and call it good. Keeping an eye on things moving forward is important.
University of Colorado research professional Lisa McKenzie expressed concerns with the limitations of the health department’s study. And McKenzie did a study herself, which raised concerns about the number of birth defects found in children who live near natural gas wells. But when the dust settled, both Wolk and McKenzie agreed that study was limited in its focus, leading to very narrow results.
“Research is a slow process, and it oftentimes takes place in steps, so you do the less expensive, simpler studies first, and if those are indicating there might be potential for health defects, that provides justification for the larger studies,” McKenzie explained. “So it’s progressive.”
McKenzie got numbers that warranted a closer look - which she has received funding to follow up on from the American Heart Association.
We’re happy to see that, too. The more information we can gather on the potential hazards of the industry, the better.
For the time being, however, it looks as if Colorado’s already-stringent laws regulating the oil and gas business have been working pretty well while walking a nearly impossible tightrope of business rights, property rights and the overall health of citizens, the environment and, of course, the economy.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2bUSvss
___
The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel, Aug. 17, on improving mental and behavioral health services:
Two advocacy groups are highlighting the lack of mental and behavioral services in the state - especially in rural Colorado.
The issue is well understood among public health officials and mental health providers, but not so much among the general public, even though the impacts of this shortage are painfully obvious.
Mesa County, for example, faces a suicide rate that is consistently higher than the rest of the state and nearly triple the national rate. Statewide, the rate of fatal drug overdoses is well above the national average. Same with alcoholism and alcohol-related deaths.
There’s a statewide push to integrate mental health and behavioral issues with primary care - to detect and diagnose illnesses before they reach the crisis stage. That’s important because mental illness is largely treatable.
But waiting to treat people at the point where they require hospitalization for a psychiatric disorder or substance-abuse issues is a two-fold problem: It’s far more expensive and we don’t have adequate facilities.
Thankfully, Mind Springs Health - the only mental health network serving western Colorado - is looking to double the number of psychiatric beds on the Western Slope from 32 to 64.
As it stands now, the 10-county region served by Mind Springs is far short of the national average of 20 psychiatric beds per 100,000 people. The expansion of Minds Springs’ psychiatric hospital in Grand Junction will bring the Western Slope ratio up to 16 beds per 100,000.
St. Mary’s Hospital is contributing $2.5 million to the construction fund. But make no mistake, it’s not a simple act of charity. The lack of psychiatric beds means St. Mary’s often functions as a holding area for people who would be better treated in a psychiatric facility.
“We very much see this as an investment and not a gift,” said Brian Davidson, the hospital president at St. Mary’s.
Mind Springs has a formidable fundraising challenge before it can begin construction, but it’s addressing an important need.
In the meantime, Healthier Colorado and Mental Health Colorado are pushing to improve front-end deficiencies in the system. They’re promoting universal screening and early detection, integrating the delivery of mental health service into the primary care system and publicizing shortages in the mental health workforce.
Hopefully all of these efforts eliminate the stigma that often stops people from getting the help they need early in the game - before tragedy strikes or they land in jail.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2bURAZi
___
The Durango Herald, Aug. 23, on vaccinating Colorado’s children:
The school year has begun, and with that, parents have been stocking up on the usual school supplies and clothing for the coming year. What too many have neglected, however, is the most important preparation kids can have - current and complete vaccinations.
For any parents behind on that score, or simply unsure, now is the time to ensure the kids have all their shots. New notebooks, pencils and erasers are fine, but they offer no protection against some of the biggest threats children face.
State law requires everyone attending a Colorado school or licensed child care center be vaccinated against a series of diseases. Included are hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox.
Unfortunately, the law also allows for exemptions, not only for valid medical reasons but for “personal or religious beliefs.” Actual religious objections are rare, meaning the overwhelming number of exemptions are simply personal. That is to say they are based, not on science, medical knowledge or historical experience, but on rumor, hysteria and minor celebrities’ bogus assertions.
The most egregious of these is the supposed link to autism. That claim stems from one report that has been shown to be fraudulent and the simple coincidence that the symptoms of autism often appear at about the same age children are vaccinated. Any tie between autism and vaccines has been repeatedly debunked by legitimate researchers.
What has been proven - repeatedly, obviously and for all to see - is the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing disease. But memories are short and a diminishing number of Americans have personally known victims of polio or someone who lost a loved one to what are too often dismissed as “childhood diseases.”
When vaccination rates fall below 95 percent the population loses its herd immunity, which protects susceptible individuals. According to the Center for Disease Control, for the 2013-14 school year only 82 percent of Colorado kindergartners were vaccinated for measles.
That is unacceptable. Colorado tightened its rules on exemptions somewhat beginning this year, but more must be done. And the most important step is the simplest: Get all children vaccinated.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2bOu6CP
___
The Denver Post, Aug. 20, on support for Colorado’s open records law:
It should come as little secret to regular readers that governments often work to confound the public’s right to know when asked to make available information that might embarrass or cause them legal troubles.
In too many disputes over access to information under the Colorado Open Records Act, citizens, advocacy groups and media organizations don’t proceed, fearing high court costs and attorney fees. Even in cases where a government body is acting improperly by denying records or violating open meetings laws, the only alternative is to go to court.
That’s a real problem in a state that recently earned an abysmal rating from the Center for Public Integrity for its open records environment. And as The Denver Post’s John Frank wrote recently, other attempts to bolster transparency during this year’s legislative session didn’t go very far.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, and our state’s lawmakers ought to stand with the public and demand far better.
Last week, Jeff Roberts, who directs the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, noted that at least 26 states offer alternate methods of settling disputes over open records - without going to court.
The coalition commissioned research that looked across the country to see how states handle such disputes. Its findings are revealing.
In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich recently signed into law a bill that allows residents to challenge governments without resorting to lawyers. For a $25 filing fee, an agent of the Ohio Court of Claims will attempt mediation. If that bringing together of parties doesn’t solve things, the court is to issue a binding order, or refer the matter to regular litigation.
The intent of the new law is to speed things up and increase accountability, which everyone will say they are for - until you file an open-records request.
“This bill is intended to facilitate faster, easier and less expensive access to government for taxpayers,” said Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, when the legislation was introduced. “It’s about keeping government open, accountable and accessible to our citizens.”
In Iowa since 2012, attorneys for a public information board settle most public records disputes, often in less than 24 hours.
In Connecticut, a freedom of information commission hears complaints, has the power to order disclosure of public records and nullify decisions made during meetings that violated open meeting laws.
Such measures do cost money; Ohio’s new law is expected to cost $650,000. And certainly it is regrettable that taxpayers should have to pay for a service that makes available what governments should have provided on their own.
But the mere existence of such a mediation board should go a long way toward spurring loose records that by law should be made available.
Open records laws are meant to serve the public’s right to know, and thereby create goodwill and trust between citizens and their public institutions. Given Colorado’s poor track record in this area, we hope Coloradans will demand more from their lawmakers next session.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2bziIt5
Please read our comment policy before commenting.