Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Does EPA stand for "Environmental Pollution Agency"?

In June, 2000, the EPA announced the end of 'over-the-counter' sales of Dursban (Chlorpyrifos). As reported by the University of Illinois Extension:
Exposure to chlorpyrifos may present some risk for children, according to the USEPA. Chlorpyrifos is an organo-phosphate pesticide that kills insects by damaging their nervous system. In studies, the nervous system of rat fetuses do not develop properly when exposed to even low levels of chlorpyrifos.

Of course, THAT was when the EPA was run by the Democrats who have demonstrated a priority for public health over corporate interests that seems to elude their Republican replacements.

When Mike Leavitt was announced as the nominee for the top Environmental Protection Agency job, this is what Utah environmentalists (Leavitt was previously Governor of Utah) had to say:
"Based on his Utah record, Governor Leavitt will bend over backwards at EPA to make sweetheart deals with American industries that jeopardize the American public's health. We're asking Senators to safeguard our environment and public health by opposing his appointment." said Zach Frankel, executive director of Utah Rivers Council.

That report continued:
"Governor Leavitt will likely gut the EPA by putting industry interests far above public health concerns thereby making the agency a toothless watchdog" said Jason Groenewald, Executive Director of Families Against Incinerator Risk.

Just "liberal hysteria"? Unfortunately not.

As reported today in the Washington Post, the EPA, based on new information from Dow Chemical, is considering to lift the ban on the use of Chlorpyrifos (DURSBAN) in termite control pesticides in new homes. This chemical was scheduled to be PHASED OUT at the end of the month.

The newspaper noted:
Jim Jones, who directs the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, said the agency still expects Dow to cease selling Dursban for home construction on Dec. 31 under an agreement the two parties struck in 2000. But he added that the administration will review the company's petition over the next month and a half to judge whether Dow will be allowed to resume marketing the pesticide for new homes.

"We wouldn't allow them to use it if it wasn't safe," Jones said.

Oh really? Since when does the EPA depend on the industry it is regulating for studies on whether the products they are selling are safe? And what about all of the other research that says it isn't?

What a contrast to all of this is John Kerry's views on the environment. As has been reported, John Kerry has stated:
"On Earth Day 2003, I announced a proposal to resume the battle against environmental injustice, in part by greatly elevating it priority for the EPA and other federal enforcement agencies and in part by creating environmental empowerment zones, in which the impact of federal decisions on the health of low-income and minority citizens would have to be taken into account before they are implemented.

I also called for a measure that will be critical not only in dealing with environmental injustice but also in dealing with environmental health issues generally: establishing a national tracking system for chronic diseases and environmental health hazards."

Source: A Call to Service, by John Kerry, p.159-60 Oct 1, 2003

Our nation, our environment, our world need John Kerry more than ever. If not in 2004, can we wait for 2008?



Blogger nascarblue said...


10:16 AM  
Blogger nascarblue said...

Take a look at some of Dubyas rapid destruction. As Robert Kennedy jr. says..""worst environmental president in our nations history"


10:19 AM  
Blogger BobsAdvice said...


You are right on. Kerry is one of the best voices for the Environment in the Senate.
George W. Bush has been the worst.

As the nation comes to grip with what they have gotten with this re-election, I believe they will was nostalgic for a better time. Maybe a time when Democrats ran the country and cared about the quality of the air, the quality of the water, the safety of our food, and the safety of the working environment.

Really all just middle of the road things.

Maybe even more important than the size of the tax-cut?


5:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home