ShareThis Page
Foundry vs. health |

Foundry vs. health

Letter To The Editor
| Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:55 p.m

The news story “McConway & Torley steel foundry under fire in trendy Lawrenceville” presents our neighborhood’s story as a battle between uppity hipsters and salt-of-the-earth steelworkers. In doing so, staff writer Aaron Aupperlee trivializes residents’ concerns and overlooks many key details.

Consider the fact that levels of manganese, a dangerous neurotoxin, recorded at the foundry are 150 percent higher than U.S. EPA IRIS safe inhalation reference concentrations. In fact, epidemiological data show that, relative to other Pittsburgh neighborhoods, the levels of ultra-fine particulate pollution in Lawrenceville put us at increased risk for neurological and cognitive problems in both children and the elderly, cardiorespiratory ailments and early mortality.

As for the foundry “voluntarily” limiting production and monitoring pollution, it began doing so after it reached an agreement with GASP (the Group Against Smog and Pollution), but these were requirements enforced by regulatory authorities and that enabled the foundry to avoid being reclassified as a major pollution source and the risk of being regulated out of business.

But you know, we silly hipsters demanding to not wake up in the morning with our eyes watering and lungs burning from inhaling carcinogens like benzene and neurotoxins like manganese are expecting the Allegheny County Health Department to follow its mandate and make sure our air is safe by regulating foundries in our county.

Timothy Verstynen


The writer is an assistant professor of psychology in Carnegie Mellon University’s Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition.

Categories: News
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.