Home Hazards and Legal Regulations

By Eric Stevenson

While we often think of homes as places safe from the dangers of the outside world, they can contain invisible pollutants that can threaten the health of their residents.  Over time, laws and regulations have been put in place to help protect New Hampshire citizens from these hazards.

Asbestos is a thread-like mineral that was once widely used for its heat-resistant properties.  Unfortunately, when asbestos crumbles, as happens when the materials that contain it get damaged or broken, it releases tiny fibers into the air that can lodge in the lungs of anyone who breathes them in.  Over time, these fibers can cause lung scarring, asbestosis, or mesothelioma.  This type of cancer affects the lining of the chest (or, less commonly, the lining of the abdomen) and is nearly always fatal.  It often goes undiagnosed for years because mesothelioma symptoms can take between 20 and 50 years to appear after asbestos exposure, and they can mimic the symptoms of other, less serious diseases.

In 2005, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services took over responsibility for asbestos issues from the Department of Health and Human Services.  The Revised Statute Annotated Chapter 141-E, approved in October of 2008, outlines the state’s regulations for management and control of the substance, including exposure standards and limitations.  Because of the cold climate, New Hampshire homes built before the 1980s may contain asbestos around heating elements and in insulation.  The greatest risk is posed during renovation or demolition of these homes, and contractors and other workers, as well as residents, must be aware of the dangers.  Before a building is renovated or demolished, it must be thoroughly inspected by someone who is certified to identify asbestos-laden materials.

If your home is not being renovated or undergoing construction, materials that contain asbestos should be left alone if they are in good condition.  However, if they have begun to deteriorate, they should be removed.  Owners of single-family homes are not required to report these materials as long as they are not selling the home, but they must dispose of them properly.  While New Hampshire law does not require you to use a licensed abatement contractor for this task, it is nevertheless highly recommended.  A list of such contractors can be found here.

Another potential home hazard is radon gas, a byproduct of the breakdown of uranium in the earth’s crust.  After smoking, radon gas is the second highest cause of lung cancer.   Like asbestos, radon is a pollutant that can infiltrate the air in your home, causing numerous health problems.  Unlike asbestos, radon is not linked to renovation or demolition, but rather to specific geographical areas and the composition of their rocks and soil.   A map showing the areas with the highest concentration of radon gas can be found at the NH Department of Environmental Services website here.  The gas can enter your house through cracks in the floors and walls, gaps between joints or around pipes, or through the water supply.    

In 1999, the EPA formally established a maximum contamination level for radon in the home, recommending that action be taken if the amount exceeds 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).  Specifically in New Hampshire, radon gas is addressed in the Revised Statute Annotated Chapter 125-F that prohibits uranium mining and sets a regulatory program in place to deal with the radon gas.  Any New Hampshire resident can request a radon testing kit, though supplies are limited.  If the level in your house is high, you may need to have special ventilation systems put in place to reduce it.  The cost for reducing radon in the air is between $1,000 and $2,000, and the cost for reducing it in the water supply ranges from $3,500 to $5,000.

The health consequences of these toxins are serious.  Mesothelioma life expectancy is around 10% five years after diagnosis, and the life expectancy for lung cancer is not much better, depending on the type.  It pays to be aware of the possible presence of asbestos and radon gas in your home and the legislation in place to regulate them.

BEWARE VICTORY!

Advisory Note to the GOP

You know the old saw: “Beware of what you wish for.” We Republicans wished for a sweeping victory. We got it, nationwide. Now we need to govern.

Yet, “to govern” presents a high hurdle. For the problems to be faced and resolved are not only complex, they are wickedly so. The odds of failure over the next two years are high. As an economist, let me say that the odds are also high that the economy will be little better two years from now than now. Incomes will still be low and unemployment still unacceptably high.  For the economic grist for the GOP campaign mill -- “cut spending, reduce taxes” -- is not up to the challenges of our troubled economy. Thus, it is likely that another wave of resentment to “throw the bums out” will emerge during 2012. The “bums“, however, would be Republican bums, as in ‘06.

So what’s to be done so the Republicans can take some credit for economic revival, jobs’ creation and unemployment reduction over the next year or so? After all, we were largely correct in our claims that Osama’s “stimulus” has failed. Pure government spending, as if government is a productive sector, is largely waste from the standpoint of what are the three prime drivers of economic growth and development -- entrepreneurship, innovation and productivity. Yet, there is potential that government spending might have positive impacts to the extent that it: (1) is not “pure” but rather directed to spurring the latter three and (2) provides incentives to private sector investment spending.

Several guidelines, advisories or suggestions emerge from this line of thinking, as follows.

ü      Think long term. Try to put aside the inevitable temptations of Members of Congress  to look for stimuli in the form of “quickies”. This advisory implies major job-creating public infrastructure projects in the areas of transportation, science and technology, water, renewable energies and the environment.

ü      Raise productivity: With the help of people from business, labor and the inter-disciplinary research community, formulate and implement a strategy to foster productivity improvements.

ü      Spur entrepreneurship and innovation: For example, see my “Strategy to Increase Entrepreneurship and Innovation…” Note that 64% of net new jobs arise from science or technology-based enterprises no more than five years old.

ü      Consider a carbon “tax” [actually, a fee on emissions of carbon pollutants]: This is a market-perfecting device that provides real incentives for accelerated development of renewable energy sources. “Real” means prices that account for the external costs of our over-dependence on carbon fuels. Remember what happened in the ’70’s when the price of oil declined? -- Conservation efforts were canned and renewable energy projects went by the boards. Our dependence on foreign oil has been increasing ever since. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives like that in New England have demonstrated that a few cents’ increase in electric power bills provide millions of dollars’ worth of investment in renewable energy. Part of the fee’s yield could also help to reduce governments deficits.

ü      Remove regulatory impediments to entrepreneurship and innovation at all levels. 

These sorts of initiatives call for significant communication, cooperation and collaboration [3Cs] between the executive and legislative branches of our government, giving new life to bipartisanship. Without such new life, those of us who look forward to a new Congress to “get things done” will be sorely disappointed. The most significant threat, however, would be to the economy. As a commentator in “Moneynews” remarked online on election day in an article entitled “Gridlock in Congress Will Threaten Economy“:

              “A standoff between the Obama administration and emboldened Republicans will probably block any new help for an economy squeezed by slow growth and high unemployment.”

If the old political power and ego games reign in the new Congress, we all lose. There is a lot more at stake than Congressional egos. Let us hope that the 3Cs approach can prevail.

The new Republican-dominated Congress, for example, should be open to supporting President Obama’s new $50 billion dollar “Stimulus II” package -- to the extent that its transportation and any other infrastructure projects help to improve productivity as well as provide jobs.

The 3Cs, therefore, amount to a basic guideline for the new Congress. The great American majority of “We the People” expects their elected and unelected officials to work together for the good our country. That is the main challenge. That is primarily “What’s to be done.”

            PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist, 11/3/10. Send questions or feedback to pjbearse@gmail.com or by way of a call to 382-8079.



HB368 - VOTE THE BILL ITL - RE HOMESCHOOL BILL UNNECESSARY REGULATIONS!

Dear House Education Committee Members:

HB368, which seeks to add more unnecessary regulation and reporting requirements for homeschool educators should be voted “ITL”.

According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, last week a "subcommittee voted 2-1 to recommend that computer literacy, and all subjects except the constitution in RSA 193-A: 4, be taught every year

Stop wasting everyone’s time on unnecessary legislation and strengthen weak areas such as going after the Fed’s on Special Education Funding!

Dick

Richard H. Olson