ShareThis Page

GASP's fight right

| Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the news story “Environmental group poised to sue plant operator over Neville Island air pollution” : Pittsburgh has become a global city, famously livable, even “the new Portland,” except for one problem — our air quality.

With all the focus lately on LEED-certified buildings, rails to trails, and job creation, why can't we address this major problem — one that deters businesses looking to relocate that care about employee health?

Why aren't more citizens outraged at the ongoing transgressions of the Shenango Coke Works, located just 5 miles from Point State Park and across the river from Bellevue, Ben Avon, Avalon and Emsworth?

I have been a resident of Bellevue for the past 13 years and the air quality problem hit home when my then-young son developed asthma. That's when I learned I had relocated to a community with one of the highest asthma rates in the state.

I applaud GASP for taking legal action and demanding that the coke works address compliance deficiencies. Significant structural repairs and process improvements are the only way to stop the pollution.

If we do not force obvious contributors to our poor air quality to address the source of their emissions, we not only impede our own business-sector growth but we will all continue to suffer the health consequences and resulting productivity loss.

Angela Garcia


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.