Are they even trying anymore?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725133.900 .
Another loophole is that the protection will only apply to testing that aims to determine the toxicity of a chemical. Tests where the main purpose is to measure levels of exposure, absorption or metabolism of the chemical apart from its toxic effects on a subject will be allowed without any of the basic safeguards.
PEER director Jeff Ruch says the EPA's proposals mean industrial chemicals would be subject to fewer safeguards than medical drugs."
You know, at first the EPA seemed to at least want to give the appearance of caring. Nice euphemistic terms like "Healthy Forests Initiative" and "Clear Skies Initiative" at least made you feel warm and fuzzy while they were quietly eroding environmental protections. Now it appears they aren't even bothering with keeping up appearances.
Now I'm not a treehugger. I don't live in a geodome home, I don't grow my own organic food, heck I don't even drive a hybrid yet. But is there anyone out there who is really wanting less protections against toxic waste exposure? Are there any parents out there with signs campaigning "bring on the three eyed fish! We like chemical waste!" The fact we live in a society where things like this occur on a daily basis and the cacophony of protest isn't drowning the news is mind boggling to me. Ah well, I guess I better turn on the TV and watch some more Holloway news. Thank god our population is so vigilant against Aruban murderers.
"One of the loopholes is that protection standards will only apply to unpaid participants. So if the EPA monitors children whose rooms are sprayed with pesticides, but pays their parents, those children will not be protected.
Another loophole is that the protection will only apply to testing that aims to determine the toxicity of a chemical. Tests where the main purpose is to measure levels of exposure, absorption or metabolism of the chemical apart from its toxic effects on a subject will be allowed without any of the basic safeguards.
PEER director Jeff Ruch says the EPA's proposals mean industrial chemicals would be subject to fewer safeguards than medical drugs."
You know, at first the EPA seemed to at least want to give the appearance of caring. Nice euphemistic terms like "Healthy Forests Initiative" and "Clear Skies Initiative" at least made you feel warm and fuzzy while they were quietly eroding environmental protections. Now it appears they aren't even bothering with keeping up appearances.
Now I'm not a treehugger. I don't live in a geodome home, I don't grow my own organic food, heck I don't even drive a hybrid yet. But is there anyone out there who is really wanting less protections against toxic waste exposure? Are there any parents out there with signs campaigning "bring on the three eyed fish! We like chemical waste!" The fact we live in a society where things like this occur on a daily basis and the cacophony of protest isn't drowning the news is mind boggling to me. Ah well, I guess I better turn on the TV and watch some more Holloway news. Thank god our population is so vigilant against Aruban murderers.
posted by monocot at 9:49 PM
View blog reactions
1 Comments:
Not too long ago, I did some research as to how bad President Bush's environmental policies really have been over the last five years.
I discovered that, he's not limited himself to lowering the standards in the U.S. on water quality and air quality as well as upping the allowed amount of toxicity in the soil so they can cut the costs of soil remediations.
Nooo...he's got to aid his friend LIKE KBR and HUNT OIL to destroy South American rainforests by plowing oil pipelines through.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0730-01.htm
The brainwashing of the mainstream media has been complete.
Post a Comment
<< Home