Is living in Eden, Vermont, and environs dangerous to one’s health?

Possibly, is the apparent verdict of Dr. Wendy Davis, Vermont ‘s Health Commissioner, though she never put it quite that bluntly.

Nonsense, was the verdict Monday and Tuesday of hundreds of people who live thereabouts.

So it was that first in Eden and then in nearby Lowell, Davis, her counterpart Lara Pelosi of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and other state and federal officials confronted a whole lot of angry people, some of them shouting profanities while they scorned and ridiculed the scientists and executives.

Most of the angry people didn’t understand science or statistics. But they understood that they didn’t like the Health Department study finding an “association” between living near an abandoned asbestos mine and incidents of asbestosis, a chronic and sometimes fatal inflammatory disease.

It wasn’t just the report that they didn’t like. They didn’t like the Health Department, or the DEC or the federal Environmental Protection Agency or any other outsider who threatened to disrupt their lives and lower their property values. Seemingly without opposition, they agreed with Leslie White of Eden who said, “we’re getting the short end of the stick.”

They may be right. Even if the statistical analysis in the report turns out to be as inconsequential as its critics contend, having a state agency raise questions about the health of the neighborhood can only hold down property values.

Worse, the analysis might not be overstated. The sample on which the asbestosis-to-region “association” was based is tiny-five asbestosis deaths in the area over ten years, and two of them were men who worked at the mine.

But asbestosis is a rare disease. The population of the 13 towns is less than 17,000 people; statistically no deaths from the disease would be expected in the target area. Even the three who did not work in the mines caught the attention of the health statisticians. Beneath the local insistence that the report is a fraud could very well lie the concern that it is not. No wonder people are upset.

What transpired in the Northeast Kingdom was part theatre, part group therapy, and part culture clash. The angry locals were (with a few exceptions) articulate. But they were also proudly local, many of them proclaiming how long they and their families had lived in Orleans County, and they made no secret of how unimpressed they were by state and federal officials regardless of their credentials.

Credentials, if anything, seemed a disadvantage. The mood of both crowds was, “we don’t believe you,” though nobody actually said that, and “go home,” which somebody did.

Without doubt, the Health Department bears full responsibility for its credibility problem. The first version of the report it issued last November also found an “association” between living in one of the 13 towns within ten miles of the mine and incidents of lung cancer.

Whoops! That was wrong. The statisticians counted death certificates from Newport City, which , unlike the Town of Newport, is not inside the 10-mile radius. When the Department noticed the error, it issued a corrected version of the report last month. But talk about handing ammunition over to prospective adversaries. Nobody even had to ask, ‘How can you believe anything these folks say?’ for the question to hang in the air.

So intense were the sentiments against the officials and the report that the audiences applauded when questioners said they suspected that the whole enterprise-the findings of both environmental degradation and health hazard-was just a ploy so the state workers could keep their jobs and make money. When Pelosi responded to one question by pointing out that “nobody’s going to get rich,” one man shouted “bullshit” from his chair, to general approval.

Dr. Davis apologized for the mistake, saying she was “extremely sorry.” Not good enough for Leslie White, who said, “I think there needs to be more than apologies. You broadcast this all over the state. It affects us very personally, and it has been very unfair.”

It does affect them personally, financially and otherwise. The health officials may have caused the biggest backlash with their “association” findings. But it’s the state and federal environmental officials who talk about having the mine declared a Superfund site.

Asked to reply to a woman who said Superfund designation would mean “our property values going down,” Megan Cassidy of the EPA said that once Superfund work is completed in an area, its property values often go up, a de facto and not particularly candid way of saying that in the meanwhile, they’re likely to go down. On Superfund projects, “meanwhile,” can be a decade or more.

For the most part, the state and federal officials stood there and took their punishment, some of which was deserved, opting not to argue even when the questioners were confused and their comments downright wrong.

There was a fair amount of denial. Both at the microphones and in the corridors, many locals talked about how their relatives had worked in the mine for years and never got sick. One man went so far as to say, “I firmly believe that more people have been killed in Teddy Kennedy’s car than have died of asbestosis.”

Actually, no. In addition to the five deaths in the target area, 14 other Vermonters-of the nearly 600,000 who live in the rest of the state-died of the disease during the ten-year period of the study.

Dr. Davis made sure to point out that this ten year period is more than ten years old, that the report “spoke to historical exposure,” and that whatever danger may linger is probably diminished. The report, she insisted, did not establish a causal connection between the asbestos and the disproportionate number of deaths and illnesses. It was not a final report, she said, but a warning to do further studies, which are under way.

But she would never say-in fact, during a press briefing she decidedly refused to say-that local residents have nothing to worry about. Asked what she would tell parents of young children in the area, she replied, “I can’t say that there’s no risk.”

Nor would the DEC or EPA officials downplay the potential environmental dangers of the abandoned mine site, which is immense. It is a 1,540-acre project lapping the Eden-Lowell town lines. The mining went on for almost 90 years before it stopped in 1993. At least 29 million tons of asbestos tailings remain. Some of the asbestos has already leeched into nearby streams and wetlands. Unless the site is stabilized, they warned, more contamination is possible.

All this would be cost perhaps $200 million. Both the state and federal governments have sued the former mine owners, but no one thinks they have anything like $200 million in assets.

Right now, though, most of the controversy and most of the questions center around that Health Department report. With only a handful of deaths and only 14 reported hospital discharges involving asbestosis, did the Department make much out of little? Considering that, according to the Department’s own statements, the report is tentative, largely a signal to conduct further study, should it had been released at all?

Questions to be considered tomorrow.

OK, let’s just talk some politics today. First of all, it’s fun. Second, today is going to be light-hearted in preparation for tomorrow’s heavy and detailed examination of the Eden asbestos mine hullabaloo. And finally, because the 2010 race for governor of Vermont has begun.

Jeb Spaulding

Already? Oh, it’s not so already. In the words of one possible Democratic candidate, State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, “if we were one of 48 states that had four-year terms, this would not be early. The next election date here is same as in all those other states.

True, enough, and in most of those 48, potential candidates are doing just what the ones in Vermont are doing-talking to potential supporters and contributors, thinking about (if not actually talking about) setting up an organization, keeping a wary eye on possible opponents.

(The only other state with a two-year term for governor is neighboring New Hampshire. It’s possible that little is going on there, but only because incumbent Democrat John Lynch is so popular that it seems he might be governor for life).

We know that the 2010 election campaign is on because State Sen. Doug Racine has already said he is running. Not thinking about it. Not setting up an exploratory committee. Not weighing his options. Running.

“People were calling me,” said Racine, who lost a close race to Gov. Jim Douglas in 2002. “(former Gov. Phil) Hoff invited friends to his house and people urged me to do it, so I said I will do it.”

Having told a living-room full of political types, Racine knew the story would leak to reporters within days. So he leaked it himself. The race is on.

By announcing his decision early, Racine both outflanked his potential Democratic primary opponents and did them a favor. He got his name in the news and becomes-however fleetingly-the front-runner. On the other hand, by going first, he got the game started; now the others don’t have to worry about seeming excessively ambitious if they put together campaigns.

At least the other two possible candidates contacted for today’s exercise didn’t bother to be coy.

“It’s hard not to think about it when two or three people a day come up and ask you to do it,” said Spaulding. “So I’m thinking about it.”

So is Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, who said that while it was “too early to begin all-out campaigning,” she would decide by this summer. Many Democrats expect Senate President Peter Shumlin to run, and perhaps Auditor Tom Salmon. Now and then one also hears the names of former State Senator Matt Dunn and Democratic operative Chuck Ross, who was an early supporter backer of Barack Obama.

There could be more. Lots of candidates attract…lots of candidates. After all, if there are five or six people running in the primary, the winner might need no more than 20 percent or so of the vote. All sorts of politicians think they can do that. So do all sorts of non-politicians.

The Democrats, then, are starting out a lot earlier and with many more possible candidates than they did two years ago, when at first nobody would run, and then finally nobody did run, though in this case nobody was also known as Gaye Symington. No reflection on her character or intelligence; she was just one of the worst statewide candidates ever. Not just in Vermont ever, either. In the whole country ever.

This crop looks better, though it’s hard to say which one would be strongest or how the field would shape up. Spaulding seems to be, in his own words “slightly more centrist” than the others, perhaps meaning he’d be most likely to win the general election if he could win the primary, in which liberal voters dominate.

But Racine indicated that he, too would try to appeal to centrist voters.

“I lost my race in the middle,” he said. “There are a lot of folks out there sort of in the middle.”

Markowitz is feisty, popular, and is likely to be the only woman, also a probable advantage in the primary. Racine and Shumlin are well-known, but in part because they’ve lost races for, respectively, governor and lieutenant governor.

Of course, with lots of candidates starting early, Democrats could have the opposite problem from the one they faced last year-a fiercely contested race for the nomination that would weaken the eventual winner in the general election.

But that’s politics; you escape one problem only to jump into another. On balance, the Democrats are better off this way. If nothing else, while they all try to pre-empt each other, they might just pre-empt Anthony Pollina, the Progressive and/or independent who edged Symington out for second place last year and has indicated he might run again.

Democrats can’t keep Pollina from running. But one of his advantages last time was that while they dithered, he ran, perhaps hoping that the Democrats would not field a candidate at all. Lacking a similar advantage for 2010, he might think twice about getting into a three-way race he couldn’t possibly win.

Not that the Democrats are likely to win a three-way race, either. In fact, as long as Douglas continues to get majorities, nobody can beat him in a two-way race. With a 55 percent victory in the face of a general Democratic blow-out last year, Douglas is the Heavyweight Champeen of Vermont politics.

But with one exception, he only a beat a few palookas. Symington, the hapless Scudder Parker in 2006, and the befuddled Peter Clavelle in 2004. Only Racine gave him a tough fight. Indeed, Racine might have won had an independent candidate, Cornelius Hogan, not (probably) drained more votes away from him than from Douglas

Racine led in the polls right up through the final weekend, and when he lost the polling firm was scorned and ridiculed. Perhaps unfairly. Racine had a plurality, never a majority, and he was badly outspent at the end, with Douglas ads on the air right through Election Day afternoon. Besides, undecideds were moving Republican all over the country, and Vermont was no exception. Douglas probably got almost all the late deciders.

Markowitz, Racine and Spaulding all said any Democrat had to assume that Douglas would run again. They think he might be vulnerable. “A certain amount of fatigue” sets in with any politicians after several years, Spaulding said. Racine said there was dissatisfaction even with what he called Douglas’s “base” in the business community, because “he hasn’t delivered on economic development plans.”

Confidence? Or bravado?

There remains, to be sure, the possibility that Douglas won’t run for a fifth term. In that case, Vermonters would get a glimpse of a political organization in worse shape than the Vermont Democratic Party: the Vermont Republican Party.

Who needs support from the Legislature?

Not Gov. Jim Douglas, according to Gov. Jim Douglas, at least not yet, at least as reported in Sunday’s Free Press. What he has, Douglas claimed, is the support of the people for his plans to control school spending and to alter Act 250.

Because the people will greet his ideas, “warmly,” he said, soon enough the “legislators will come to understand how serious this is.”

How does he know this? He doesn’t, of course. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong. The Democratic leaders of the Legislature who greeted his proposals coolly think the public agrees with them. They don’t know, either.

This assumption and proclamation of public support without the slightest evidence that the assumer/proclaimer in fact has public support is common in Vermont. Not that it’s all that rare elsewhere, but at least in some of those elsewheres assumers and proclaimers can cite some poll numbers. There seems to be relatively little polling here, perhaps because the state is too small to make it worth any polling firm’s while to conduct many surveys.

Polling, to be sure, is not without its flaws, one of which is that pollsters keep measuring the public opinion of issues on which there is no public opinion. One of Douglas’s proposals, for instance, is to replace “de novo” reviews with “on-the-record” reviews when the Environmental Court reviews the Act 250 decisions of district commissions.

Were a pollster to call a random sample of Vermonters and ask respondents whether they favored that change, there is no doubt what a majority would reply: “WHA????”

Of course, the pollster could explain what it all means. But depending on the polling firm’s politics, not to mention its integrity, the explanation could be worded to produce a result favorable to one side or another.  The pollster as disinterested observer/scholar performs a useful service to the public. The pollster as partisan/ideological hack does not.

Absent any polls, it’s close to impossible to know whether Douglas’s conviction that Vermonters agree with him is discerning or delusional. But it does seem likely that he has a slightly better chance to convince people to follow him on the education issue than on his plea for what he and some reporters and headline writers continue to call “permit reform.”

(DIGRESSIONARY NOTE TO REPORTERS/EDITORS/TV AND RADIO NEWS DIRECTORS: HONEST JOURNALISTS CALL NOTHING “REFORM,” DEFINED BY THE DICTIONARY AS “IMPROVEMENT BY ALTERATION.” WHETHER THE ALTERATION IS IMPROVEM ENT OR DEGENERATION IS PRECISELY WHAT IS AT ISSUE.

The reason is that school financing and the property tax that supports so much of it is certainly a situation, and arguably a problem, in Vermont. By almost all standards-cost per pupil, cost per capita, cost per dollar-Vermont spends more on its public schools than most other states. Whether this is a “problem,” at all, or whether Douglas’s proposed solution is the right one, is presumably one of the things the Legislature-and probably the public-will be debating over the next few months.

But it’s highly questionable whether Act 250-the 1972 law that controls large-scale development-is even a situation, much less a problem. Underlying Douglas’s push to change it is an assumption that the law as it stands suppresses economic growth in the state. “We must recognize that a ‘working landscape’ requires Vermonters to be actually working – not simply admiring the view,” he said in his Inaugural speech last week, suggesting that, by stifling enterprise, the law keeps people unemployed.

But not only is there no credible evidence that Act 250 smothers economic growth in Vermont; there is no credible evidence that economic growth is in fact smothered. For years, the state’s economy has grown as fast as-often faster than-the rest of New England. Median income rose steadily, more businesses move into the state than out of it, and unemployment remains well below the national average.

Which is not to say that nothing can be done to get the economy to grow faster. It’s even possible that weakening Act 250 would be a step in that direction. Possible but unlikely. In 2007, more than 99 percent of the 428 Act 250 permits sought by developers were approved, 81 percent of them within four months. Less than two percent of the permits issued on the district level were even appealed to the state Environmental Court.

(OK, these figures come from the Vermont Natural Resources Council, an environmental group, requiring a grain of salt. But while VNRC’s analyses are suspect, its numbers are probably accurate. First, it says it got them from the state’s Natural Resources Board. Second, it would be inane for VNRC to put out bogus figures; it would be caught, and discredited).

Since this examination was made on Sunday, it was not possible to get comment from the other side of the debate, which is basically the real estate and construction industries. But in the past they have pointed out that the law deters some developers from even applying for permits.

Let’s think about that for a minute. You’re a developer with a project that can make you some money. Yes, you have to go through this permit process. But knowing (and if you have half a brain in your head you do know) that the chances of getting the permit are better than 99-to-1, would you (assuming again, that half-a-brain) decide not to apply for it?

Only if you thought there was a good chance you wouldn’t get it. And you would only think that if the project did in fact involve substantial environmental damage.

Which means: That the law seems to be working exactly as intended, stopping projects that would, for instance, destroy wetlands, endanger critical wildlife habitat,  pollute the water, etc.

As intended, and presumably as wished for by the people of the state. Of course, that was in 1972, and perhaps they’ve changed their minds. Absent a poll, we don’t know whether they have, but it seems doubtful.