Saturday, January 18, 2014

Is The EPA a Criminal Organization?

By Rich Kozlovich

On January 15 Anthony Watts published an article entitled, New FOIA emails show EPA in cahoots with enviro groups, giving them special access. All I have to say is “I'm Shocked....Shocked I Tell You!” Fortunately we can be assured this isn’t a conspiracy. Why? Because we know there's no such thing as a conspiracy. Everyone tells me that’s so, and everyone laughs a me when I suggest such a thing could possibly exist. So, who am I to think otherwise? Of course my views have been contaminated by reading a lot of history books over the years, but, let’s not be picky.

However, let’s just say – for arguments sake - there is such a thing as a conspiracy, and let’s just say – for arguments sake – the EPA is involved in a conspiracy – and let’s just say – for arguments sake - this really was a conspiracy; does it seem to anyone this would be a criminal act? It seems to me it would be a criminal act! If it's a criminal act who prosecutes the EPA? The Justice department that ran an illegal gun running program? But the Justice Department’s efforts to hide the truth on that issue it wasn’t a conspiracy either. Please keep that in mind. Not a conspiracy!

Lying to Congress is a different criminal act, which no one seems to be prosecuted for either - by the Justice Department. Amazing! It’s sure a good thing there’s no such thing as a conspiracy, or I might get, as Gabby Hayes might say;“a liiiiiiittle bit suspicious”!
However, if this was a criminal act why wouldn’t the nation's trade organizations demand an investigation in all things the EPA does, including regulations involving pesticides......say like.....oh just a shot in the dark.....irrational restrictions on pyrethroids for the structural pest control industry in order to reduce pesticide impact on the environment?

Of course structural pest control uses an infinitely smaller amount of pyrethroids than does agriculture or lawn care people or those who treat trees and shrubs, but the EPA knows any pyrethroids in the water comes from structural pest control. Whew! I'm glad the manufacturers won't have to worry about the big users - or should I say purchasers - of pyrethroids being restricted. Or how about their initial denial of Ohio's emergency section 18 request for the use of propoxur and their failure to follow up on any real toxicology research?

It seems to me that if what this article claims is true, then many seemingly irrational decisions by the EPA might be part of a conspiracy to benefit one group over another.   It also seems to me at some point some civil and criminal penalties would be applicable, that is, if this was a true conspiracy between the EPA and the morally defective, irrational and misanthropic environmental activists, or anyone else for that matter. Because if this was a conspiracy, it seems to me, the EPA would be a participant in a criminal act. Right!

But....we know......there’s no such thing as a conspiracy! Right!

Oh, by the way.  Does anyone know why the EPA continues to declare products carcinogenic based on rodent testing alone, when it is clearly known this is no longer the best science available, as required under the Information Quality Act?  Because the EPA claims their “Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of  scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.  One might have hoped that science and policy would go together at the world's most  powerful regulatory agency.”

Does that give you a confident warm and fuzzy feeling about the integrity of the EPA?  Or does it make you think the EPA should be abolished

No comments: