"The chemical safety law was passed after Congress and the chemical industry reached a consensus that toxic chemical threats — or at least the fear of them — were so severe that they undermined consumer confidence in products on the market."
Yes, dear Americans, the Congre$$ cares more about the imagery of consumer confidence and the money generated rather than your actual health. That's why they are called public $ervants.
"Chemical industry insider now shapes EPA policy" by Eric Lipton New York Times October 21, 2017
WASHINGTON — For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.
The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders, and other serious health problems.
Flint was just the tip of the iceberg, 'eh?
So scientists and administrators in the EPA Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.
The revision was among more than a dozen demanded by the appointee, Nancy B. Beck, after she joined the EPA’s toxic-chemical unit in May as a top deputy. For the previous five years, she had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association.
The changes directed by Beck may result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFOA and other so-called legacy chemicals no longer sold on the market, the Office of Water’s top official warned in a confidential internal memo obtained by The New York Times.
The EPA’s abrupt new direction on legacy chemicals is part of a broad initiative by the Trump administration to change the way the federal government evaluates health and environmental risks associated with hazardous chemicals, making it more aligned with the industry’s wishes.
It is a cause with far-reaching consequences for consumers and chemical companies, as the EPA regulates some 80,000 different chemicals, many of them highly toxic and used in workplaces, homes, and everyday products. If chemicals are deemed less risky, they are less likely to be subjected to heavy oversight and restrictions.
The effort is not new, nor is the decadeslong debate over how best to identify and assess risks, but the industry has not benefited from such highly placed champions in government since the Reagan administration.
The cause was taken up by Beck and others in the administration of George W. Bush with some success, and met with resistance during the Obama administration. Now it has been aggressively revived under President Trump by an array of industry-backed political appointees and others.
Yes, the nostalgia for Obama's EPA.
Related: EPA fracking report offers few answers on drinking water
Only took 'em six years and $29 million to say they do not know.
Of course, the Bush damage is minimized because he is one of America's grandfathers (ugh!). The fact that he and Cheney were oil and gas men..... you know. Be in bad taste while shoveling $h!t (which can also be burned for fuel, you know).
Beck, who has a doctorate in environmental health, comes from a camp — firmly backed by the chemical industry — that says the government too often directs burdensome rules at what she has called “phantom risks.”
Other scientists and administrators at the EPA, including Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, until last month the agency’s top official overseeing pesticides and toxic chemicals, say the dangers are real and the pushback is often a tactic for deflecting accountability — and shoring up industry profits at the expense of public safety.
Since Trump’s election, Beck’s approach has been ascendant, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former EPA and White House officials, confidential EPA documents, and materials obtained through open-record requests.
In March, Scott Pruitt, the EPA chief, overrode the recommendation of Cleland-Hamnett and agency scientists to ban the commercial use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, blamed for developmental disabilities in children.
The EPA’s new leadership also pressed agency scientists to reevaluate a plan to ban certain uses of two dangerous chemicals that have caused dozens of deaths or severe health problems: methylene chloride, which is found in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene, which removes grease from metals and is used in dry cleaning.
“It was extremely disturbing to me,” Cleland-Hamnett said of the order she received to reverse the proposed pesticide ban. “The industry met with EPA political appointees. And then I was asked to change the agency’s stand.”
The EPA and Beck declined repeated requests to comment that included detailed lists of questions.
The conflict over how to define risk in federal regulations comes just as the EPA was supposed to be fixing its backlogged and beleaguered chemical regulation program. Last year, after a decade of delays, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that would push the EPA to determine whether dozens of chemicals were so dangerous that they should be banned or restricted.
The chemical safety law was passed after Congress and the chemical industry reached a consensus that toxic chemical threats — or at least the fear of them — were so severe that they undermined consumer confidence in products on the market.
But now the chemical industry and many of the companies that use their compounds are praising the Trump administration’s changed direction, saying new chemicals are getting faster regulatory reviews and existing chemicals will benefit from a less dogmatic approach to determining risk.
“US businesses, jobs, and competitiveness depend on a functioning new chemicals program,” Calvin M. Dooley, a former representative who is president of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement. It was issued in June after Beck, his recent employee, pushed through many industry-friendly changes in her new role at the EPA, including the change in tracking legacy chemicals such as PFOA.
--more--"
Related(?):
"A judge tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson on Friday granted the company’s request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial. Nelson said there wasn’t convincing evidence that the company acted with malice and the award was excessive."
I already apologized for that and will no longer be talking about it.
And what was the National lead on Monday?
"EPA says 3 scientists won’t discuss climate change in R.I." by Lisa Friedman New York Times October 22, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.
John Konkus, a spokesman and former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that EPA scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.
Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change.
What about the poisoned products? Seems like those would be having a more direct impact on environment and health than some esoteric argument over a phenomena that may not even be happening.
Oh, right, carbon tax.
Many said they were surprised by the cancellation, particularly since the EPA helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued Monday.
The move highlights widespread concern that the EPA will silence government scientists from speaking publicly or conducting work on climate change. Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, has said he does not believe human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet.
“It’s definitely a blatant example of the scientific censorship we all suspected was going to start being enforced at EPA,” said John King, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who chairs the science advisory committee of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program.
“They don’t believe in climate change, so I think what they’re trying to do is stifle discussions of the impacts of climate change,” King said.
Monday’s conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region’s tourism and fishing industries. Rhode Island’s entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Pruitt, will be among the speakers.
Scientists there will unveil the report on the state of the bay, which EPA scientists helped research and write. Among the findings will be that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea levels, and fish in and around the estuary.....
I had to stop there because I needed to go do some shopping for common household products, etc.
--more--"
Related:
"The Washington-based nonprofit group seeking access to private e-mails of retired Vermont attorney general William Sorrell is looking for information to prove that Sorrell conspired with other Democratic attorneys general colleagues to conduct a politically motivated investigation into Exxon Mobil’s position on climate change....."
Then there is the pollution problem:
N.Y. firm would pay at least $13.3m in Buzzards Bay oil spill settlement
Can you really put a price on the environmental degradation?
Also see:
Oklahoma hit with as many as 4 tornadoes
One hit a casino!
Imagine the odds on that!
"Ellen Mecray, director of eastern regional climate services for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, “It’s been much warmer than normal this fall. We also have rainfall at about 50 to 70 percent of the expected precipitation we were hoping for this fall.”
Samantha Borisoff, a climatologist with the Northeast Regional Climate Center, warned that if precipitation continues to be low for the next couple of months, the drought could linger into the spring. “We’re getting into the season where the ground will start to freeze, so anything that falls isn’t going to get into the ground,” she said. “One of the good things about it right now is that we’re coming out of the growing season, so that should hopefully mitigate some of the agricultural impacts of the drought.” Still, she encouraged people to conserve water. “We should always be paying attention to conserving water and using it wisely,” she said. “Droughts can happen here, and they will happen here.”
I'm glad there are three days of rain coming.
I think we are all getting jerked off.
