Sponsors

Cottages May Be No Safer Than [FEMA] Trailers Email Print

With hurricane season beginning on June 1, the Disaster Accountability Project will be reporting this week and next on inadequacies in government preparedness. This is the first report of the series, published on the DAP Blog and cross-posted with permission.

The Sierra Club recently tested five "Katrina cottages" being used in Mississippi and found all to contain higher levels of formaldehyde than is recommended for long-term exposure by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Normal levels of indoor formaldehyde run between 10-20 parts per billion but three of the five cottages contained over 100 parts per billion. This level is even higher than the 77 parts per billion average tested in the 516 trailers this year by the CDC.

While the larger floorplan and windows should help dissipate the gas, a Mississippi news station found faulty ventilation designs in some cottages.

Costing around $40,000 each, the Katrina Cottages are considered a more livable and cost effective alternative to the cramped trailers. FEMA has been collecting prefabricated structures (including cottages) since 2006, however no one knows how many have unacceptable levels of formaldehyde. FEMA has not had any Katrina Cottages officially tested.

Despite respiratory health complaints and a pending lawsuit  with over 17,000 plaintiffs, FEMA officials are still considering trailers to be a viable option if rentals and hotels cannot accommodate displaced populations.

It is unacceptable that in the third hurricane season after Katrina, FEMA cannot guarantee a supply of safe and secure alternative housing following a major crisis. The continued use of older trailers and the possible risks posed by cottages puts already marginalized hurricane victims in even greater danger. Experts propose that pre-contracting of engineer-approved designs could reduce many of these problems. Since we spent $2.7 billion  on post-Katrina housing structures couldn't we ask for better return on our tax dollars and a little peace-of-mind for disaster recovery?

The Secretary of Homeland Security has indicated that the federal government is prepared for hurricane season.  However, safe and adequate emergency housing is a vital element of being "prepared" for any disaster, and the federal government is responsible for providing emergency housing to the extent that state, local and tribal governments are unable to meet demand.  Based on the continuing problems with federally-funded housing for survivors of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, the Disaster Accountability Project finds the  federal government NOT prepared for hurricane season.


KEYWORDS: , , , , , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Progressive Democrat Issue 168 | Mass Care not ready for the masses >
 Display:
I think these conclusions are being oversimplified.  I don't think WLOX who performed the Sierra Club testing can be compared to the CDC test results (different test methods, methodology, etc).  Also, it appears that the cottages are built to local codes -- so if there are problems in the cottages it may be that all houses and all codes need more formaldehyde provisions.  We need better science in this discussion and I think a lot of the news reports are rushing to conclusions that aren't based in scientific fact.

by scienceman on 06/01/2008 10:27:35 AM EST

 Display: