Monday, June 8, 2009


You knew this was coming, I seem to have little respect for this government agency, mostly because it seems so bong in politics, but instead of bashing them outright, perhaps a few questions are in order.
Why are emission from bakeries regulated, but mercury from power plants not?
Why is nitrogen seen as the bad guy, when it is food?
How long after the Bangladesh disaster, was arsenic levels changed?
How come PCB's are a probable carcinogen?
How come the EPA water regulation for municipal water is so much tougher than the FDA's for bottled water?
And what does it mean to return nitrogen levels in the Sound to 1500 levels, when they have not significantly changed since they have been measured?
I offer no answers, only questions.


kate said...

also, why are chemicals innocent until proven guilty instead of the other way 'round? I second your opinion of this agency that's more concerned with politics than with public safety.

Whitemist said...

I thought about what you said for a while and you may be disappointed in my response.
Everything on this earth is made of chemicals, that's the hard part, the worst part is that some of the worst chemicals are all natural, not man made at all.
Good examples are lead or arsenic or digitalis, all extreme poisons. A stranger one is copper, an essential nutrient, but at higher levels toxic. More difficult are the different toxins produced by molds. All very toxic and some carcinogenic.
The issue of politics is however, where we agree.
They regulate what is politically comfortable. You will not see a movie such as was made on the CDC's fight to recognize AIDs as more than a "Gay" issue.
It seems really strange that I take this stance since portions of the EPA actually respect my own work.