Powered by Google
Home
Listings
Editors' Picks
News
Music
Movies
Food
Life
Arts + Books
Rec Room
Moonsigns
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personals
Adult Personals
Classifieds
Adult Classifieds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
stuff@night
FNX Radio
Band Guide
MassWeb Printing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Work For Us
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Webmaster
Archives



sponsored links
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PassionShop.com
Sex Toys - Adult  DVDs - Sexy  Lingerie


   
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

TOXIC POLITICS
A hazardous-biolab primer
BY DEIRDRE FULTON

At a hearing that blasted the safety record of Boston University’s medical labs earlier this week, one question dwarfed all the others: if the Boston University Medical Center (BUMC) can’t safely run the lower-level lab that was the site of a tularemia outbreak last year, how can the center be expected to manage a proposed BioSafety Level 4 lab, where scientists would handle much more dangerous organisms?

Activists who were already worried about proposed construction of the lab in Roxbury came away from the hearing unassuaged, since that question remained unanswered after more than four hours of testimony in Boston City Council’s Ianella Chamber on Monday.

The committee hearing, called by the council to address the tularemia incident at BUMC, as well as several Massachusetts Water Resource Authority violations at the center, wasn’t supposed to be a referendum on the biolab. But that’s what it was.

These latest violations serve only to deepen the schism between those who trust BU to handle lethal biological agents at the proposed new lab and those who do not. After this week’s scuffle, here’s how things look.

The battle lines were drawn ages ago and it’s difficult to imagine any development that would prompt people to switch sides.

Monday’s hearing sent people scurrying into their respective corners. Activists, who waited through hours-long testimony for an opportunity to speak about their safety fears, appeared agitated, impatient, and frustrated. "I want somebody to take responsibility — for them to admit that this kind of facility is too much for them to handle," said Klare Allen, a Roxbury resident and outspoken lab opponent who wore a surgical mask (a reference to potentially dangerous airborne pathogens) around her neck. "Never once did they apologize. I think it’s bullshit."

Meanwhile, lab supporters were reassured by the testimony. One Roxbury man, who spoke during the public-comment period, said he felt safer after hearing about revamped security measures from BU and the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC). As for the health violations and tularemia situation, he says, "I don’t think it has any bearing on the Level 4 lab."

Councilor Jimmy Kelly — an ardent lab supporter — put in his two cents, reminding everyone to "keep things in perspective." Only three workers were affected, he explained, and their symptoms were much like those of a winter flu. He added: "There were probably 50 or more people in this building who suffered similar symptoms.... Life goes on." (Until the disease isn’t tularemia, has more severe symptoms, is fatal, and is contagious — then life potentially wouldn’t go on.)

The BPHC is a stand-up institution.

The commission called BU to task for lax lab-monitoring and for the failure to immediately report the cases of tularemia — a non-contagious disease known as rabbit fever — in three of its lab scientists. And its report offered a fair analysis and strict safety recommendations for BU.

But, as City Councilor Chuck Turner pointed out once in questioning and again after the hearing, "regulations are only as good as the people who are willing to comply with them."

And three cheers for BPHC communicable-disease specialist Dr. Anita Barry, who offered the most straightforward remark of the evening, and the most telling: "I would never say that there will not be human error."

BU has really bad luck.

First, scientists in the lower-level lab operated under the impression that they were working with a less-dangerous form of tularemia — an extremely rare and unlikely mistake. To this day, no one knows the source of the virulent strain; BU, the BPHC, and the national Centers for Disease Control are all investigating, but BPHC officials told the council they may never know the full answer. In addition, no one can offer a truly compelling explanation of why BU didn’t immediately notify both the public and the agencies in charge of approving the biolab project of the tularemia infection.

Then, last Sunday, a two-alarm fire blazed in a lab that stored hazardous materials — which happened to be located right down the street from the proposed biolab site. The lab is not owned or operated by BU, but the fire illustrated the vulnerability of such facilities, and was an unlucky coincidence.

The biolab debate pits union workers against community activists.

Many of the biolab supporters, who wore circular stickers reading I SUPPORT THE BIOSAFETY LAB, also wore jackets or caps emblazoned with the name of their union.

"It’s work to the city," said Kevin, a 46-year-old South Boston resident, a member of the Laborers Union who declined to give his last name. He conceded that the safety concerns are troubling. "But they’re gonna put it somewhere," he continued. "Why not reap the benefits here? I want it to come here because it’ll put people to work, not just construction-wise, but in every field."

Having to take a stand against her union brothers and sisters puts people like longtime Carpenters’ Union member Elizabeth Skidmore, who lives only a mile from the proposed lab site and opposes the lab, in a difficult position.

Tularemia is a difficult word to pronounce.

It’s too-leh-ree-mee-eh. Let’s hope BU’s next mistake is easier to pronounce, but just as difficult to transmit.


Issue Date: April 1 - 7, 2005
Back to the News & Features table of contents
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
 









about the phoenix |  advertising info |  Webmaster |  work for us
Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group