Report Inappropriate Comments

To Michael 2012

You missed Mr. Langseth's Point.

Given they have to vacate the field and move to a new location, this is the opportunity to move the kids out of an area known to contain high levels of toxins contaminants. The same distance away from the runway workers have the option to wear respirators and ear protection.

The airport (a corporation) proposed to name the new location after a state employee who is a Health Care Commissioner. By ethical public policy, health care commissioners typically advocate for kids health. Here we have a state employee and State Health Commissioner WHO HAD THE POWER TO MOVE THE KIDS TO A SAFER LOCATION AND INSTEAD CHOSE TO APPROVE PLANS TO PLACE KIDS IN AN AREA OF KNOWN INCREASED HEALTH RISKS WITH HIGH LEVELS OF TOXINS, when she could have had them moved to a safer location. That location would have to be more than 1 kilometer or more from the runway. New studies are indicating even further distances.

Dr. Hittner approved this to save the airport money, and now families and the insurance companies (she deals with as a health commissioner) will pay for kids increased levels of environmental illness. Is this economic development in RI? Get the kids sick so their families will spend more money for health care.

Naming the field after her also subordinates the Winslow family. The fields already have a name and this is a cheap way to get around the airport's slighting the Winslow family,.

She is the one who could protected the children here.

Mr. Langseth is just expressing his opinion, to make more people aware of what does seem an odd juxtaposition, one who is a physician and health care insurance administrator should advocate for better health condition, will have a toxic playing field where children become ill named after her as her legacy.

It is her issue.

From: A conflict in naming playing fields?

Please explain the inappropriate content below.