Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
It's about time: The current flood control project near the mouth of Bull Creek in Tarentum actually is a result of the 2004 Hurricane Ivan deluge. This project was a Murphy's Law nightmare of government regulation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Boat Commission. Upstream residents can be thankful we haven't seen Ivan-esque weather during the nine years of bureaucratic bumbling.
Kiski sediments testing: The EPA is conducting tests to see if the sediment in the Kiski River contains nuclear and/or chemical pollution from the former Nuclear Materials & Equipment Corp. disposal site along the river in Parks Township. These tests should finally provide conclusive answers as to whether pollution leaking from the site reached the river.
Spare the tongue, too?: A new Pitt study, published in the journal Child Development, suggests that harsh verbal discipline of 13- and 14-year-old kids can lead to, among other things, self-esteem problems. “Indeed, harsh verbal discipline appears to be detrimental in all circumstances,” says Pitt researcher Ming-Te Wang. Of course, one researcher's “verbal abuse” of an adolescent is another parent's wake-up call to a young teen in desperate need of a reality check. Wussifying discipline will only create greater problems.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Public records: Updates needed
- Saturday essay: For the birds
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- Sunday pops
- Islamic State threat: Lessons from 9/11