New Book Exposes How EPA Distorts Science To Fit Its Political Goals

[toxicmedia]

Lol...OK it was solved 30 years ago because you say so. But you say a lot of things that don't mean shit. Besides...how can we have solved the environmental issue if you claim the environmental issue is fake?

We solved a thing you say is fake? Interesting.

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

What's your point?

We get our city water out of the Colorado River, upstream from Lake Powell. I'm damned sure not going to walk 1/4 to the river and grab a drink out of it. Too much harmful bacteria in it from all of the mountain stream feed it (ever heard of giardia?).

There are few larger rivers in the world that are safe to directly drink from.

You evidently know very little about the subject.

See post #40

 

[bripat9643]

Lol...OK it was solved 30 years ago because you say so. But you say a lot of things that don't mean shit. Besides...how can we have solved the environmental issue if you claim the environmental issue is fake?

We solved a thing you say is fake? Interesting.

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

If you can't see it....it's not toxic.

Birth defects are just God's little imperfections...even if they are 5000 times the national average

Where are birth defects 5000 times the national average?

Based on your IQ?......wherever you live!

In other words, there are no such places.

Thanks for proving you're an imbecile.

 

[bripat9643]

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

There are plenty of lakes and streams that you couldn't drink from 200 years ago.

Yeah well back then it was because of bacteria, and you could boil the water.

You can't boil the lead and mercury out of water

Name one lake or stream that you can't drink from because of lead or mercury.

 

[bripat9643]

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

There are plenty of lakes and streams that you couldn't drink from 200 years ago.

You know this how? From drinking It yourself? Or are relying on those lying scientists?

I can't know because I've never been to a lake or a stream? Is that your position?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

There are plenty of lakes and streams that you couldn't drink from 200 years ago.

You know this how? From drinking It yourself? Or are relying on those lying scientists?

I can't know because I've never been to a lake or a stream? Is that your position?

I just want to know if youre relying on personal experience, word of mouth or the word of the scientists you claim are full of shit?

 

[bripat9643]

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

There are plenty of lakes and streams that you couldn't drink from 200 years ago.

You know this how? From drinking It yourself? Or are relying on those lying scientists?

I can't know because I've never been to a lake or a stream? Is that your position?

I just want to know if youre relying on personal experience, word of mouth or the word of the scientists you claim are full of shit?

Nice dodge, asshole. Just answer my question or shut the fuck up.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Watching Liberals Defend the EPA while they smear Nixon is beyond ironic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

If you can't see it....it's not toxic.

Birth defects are just God's little imperfections...even if they are 5000 times the national average

Where are birth defects 5000 times the national average?

Think about the word nation and that should clue you in.

It's really quite simple.

As time goes by...people forget why they passed laws about firing guns in the city limits.

Or why they passed laws about lead paint and asbestos in schools.

And it's all fun till someone puts an eye out

Oh the horror of the snow flake crowd..


We rode bicycles with no helmets, rode in cars with no seat belts and some of us played with mercury..

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you thought EPA regulations had anything to do with science, this article will disabuse you of that notion. The EPA manipulates "science" to achieve power.

New Book Exposes EPA's Distorted Science | The Daily Caller​

The Environmental Protection Agency has based its most onerous air pollution regulations on junk science meant to further political goals, says the author of a new book.

Lawyer-statistician Steve Milloy’s new book, “Scare Pollution,” shows readers how EPA has distorted the science behind air pollution regulations to hamper politically incorrect industries, from coal to logging to manufacturing.

“I have worked on EPA science controversies for 25 years,” Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA doesn’t use science so much as it abuses it for its political ends.”

Milloy is referring to EPA regulations that rely on the shaky claim that fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, kills people. That claim alone has allowed EPA to claim billions of dollar worth of supposed benefits from regulating coal plants, factories and automobiles.​

I'll bet you can amuse us immensely if you try to make the argument that the author, Milloy, does NOT have 'political goals'.

Define "political goals." Yes, he wants to prevent environmental wackos from destroying this country. I guess you can call that a "political goal." Now prove that so-called "climate scientists" don't have "political goals."

Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, whose close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[1][2]

 

[Wyatt earp]

The water was clean and the brown cloud disappeared. What needed cleaning?

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

Can you name a lake or river that was too polluted to swim in in 1990?

I don't think it matters if you can swim in it...what should matter is if you can drink out of it.

There are plenty of lakes and streams that you couldn't drink from 200 years ago.

Yeah well back then it was because of bacteria, and you could boil the water.

You can't boil the lead and mercury out of water

Ever hear of evaporation? its something climatologist just recently discovered..

 

[bripat9643]

If you thought EPA regulations had anything to do with science, this article will disabuse you of that notion. The EPA manipulates "science" to achieve power.

New Book Exposes EPA's Distorted Science | The Daily Caller​

The Environmental Protection Agency has based its most onerous air pollution regulations on junk science meant to further political goals, says the author of a new book.

Lawyer-statistician Steve Milloy’s new book, “Scare Pollution,” shows readers how EPA has distorted the science behind air pollution regulations to hamper politically incorrect industries, from coal to logging to manufacturing.

“I have worked on EPA science controversies for 25 years,” Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA doesn’t use science so much as it abuses it for its political ends.”

Milloy is referring to EPA regulations that rely on the shaky claim that fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, kills people. That claim alone has allowed EPA to claim billions of dollar worth of supposed benefits from regulating coal plants, factories and automobiles.​

I'll bet you can amuse us immensely if you try to make the argument that the author, Milloy, does NOT have 'political goals'.

Define "political goals." Yes, he wants to prevent environmental wackos from destroying this country. I guess you can call that a "political goal." Now prove that so-called "climate scientists" don't have "political goals."

Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, whose close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[1][2]

Same old leftwing propaganda: attacking the person rather than the argument.

Milloy is right about both second hand smoke and AGW.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you thought EPA regulations had anything to do with science, this article will disabuse you of that notion. The EPA manipulates "science" to achieve power.

New Book Exposes EPA's Distorted Science | The Daily Caller​

The Environmental Protection Agency has based its most onerous air pollution regulations on junk science meant to further political goals, says the author of a new book.

Lawyer-statistician Steve Milloy’s new book, “Scare Pollution,” shows readers how EPA has distorted the science behind air pollution regulations to hamper politically incorrect industries, from coal to logging to manufacturing.

“I have worked on EPA science controversies for 25 years,” Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA doesn’t use science so much as it abuses it for its political ends.”

Milloy is referring to EPA regulations that rely on the shaky claim that fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, kills people. That claim alone has allowed EPA to claim billions of dollar worth of supposed benefits from regulating coal plants, factories and automobiles.​

I'll bet you can amuse us immensely if you try to make the argument that the author, Milloy, does NOT have 'political goals'.

Define "political goals." Yes, he wants to prevent environmental wackos from destroying this country. I guess you can call that a "political goal." Now prove that so-called "climate scientists" don't have "political goals."

Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, whose close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[1][2]

Close ties


Translation ~ he buys a carton of cigarettes a week and fills his car up with gasoline.


So in your mind how many people would of stopped using fossil fuel in the 1960s?

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you thought EPA regulations had anything to do with science, this article will disabuse you of that notion. The EPA manipulates "science" to achieve power.

New Book Exposes EPA's Distorted Science | The Daily Caller​

The Environmental Protection Agency has based its most onerous air pollution regulations on junk science meant to further political goals, says the author of a new book.

Lawyer-statistician Steve Milloy’s new book, “Scare Pollution,” shows readers how EPA has distorted the science behind air pollution regulations to hamper politically incorrect industries, from coal to logging to manufacturing.

“I have worked on EPA science controversies for 25 years,” Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA doesn’t use science so much as it abuses it for its political ends.”

Milloy is referring to EPA regulations that rely on the shaky claim that fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, kills people. That claim alone has allowed EPA to claim billions of dollar worth of supposed benefits from regulating coal plants, factories and automobiles.​

I'll bet you can amuse us immensely if you try to make the argument that the author, Milloy, does NOT have 'political goals'.

Define "political goals." Yes, he wants to prevent environmental wackos from destroying this country. I guess you can call that a "political goal." Now prove that so-called "climate scientists" don't have "political goals."

Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, whose close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[1][2]

Same old leftwing propaganda: attacking the person rather than the argument.

Milloy is right about both second hand smoke and AGW.

I didn't read her last part

She still trying to parrot the "second hand smoke " myth?


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you thought EPA regulations had anything to do with science, this article will disabuse you of that notion. The EPA manipulates "science" to achieve power.

New Book Exposes EPA's Distorted Science | The Daily Caller​

The Environmental Protection Agency has based its most onerous air pollution regulations on junk science meant to further political goals, says the author of a new book.

Lawyer-statistician Steve Milloy’s new book, “Scare Pollution,” shows readers how EPA has distorted the science behind air pollution regulations to hamper politically incorrect industries, from coal to logging to manufacturing.

“I have worked on EPA science controversies for 25 years,” Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA doesn’t use science so much as it abuses it for its political ends.”

Milloy is referring to EPA regulations that rely on the shaky claim that fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, kills people. That claim alone has allowed EPA to claim billions of dollar worth of supposed benefits from regulating coal plants, factories and automobiles.​

I'll bet you can amuse us immensely if you try to make the argument that the author, Milloy, does NOT have 'political goals'.

Define "political goals." Yes, he wants to prevent environmental wackos from destroying this country. I guess you can call that a "political goal." Now prove that so-called "climate scientists" don't have "political goals."

Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, whose close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[1][2]

Same old leftwing propaganda: attacking the person rather than the argument.

Milloy is right about both second hand smoke and AGW.

Your thread is about attacking the persons not the argument you fucktard.

 

[OnePercenter]

The EPA will be downsized and it's about time. They've gotten to big and powerful and gone well beyond their purpose.

Canadian nepotism?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The water is clean and a brown cloud disappeared. Lol...so much science!

If you can't see it....it's not toxic.

Birth defects are just God's little imperfections...even if they are 5000 times the national average

Where are birth defects 5000 times the national average?

Think about the word nation and that should clue you in.

It's really quite simple.

As time goes by...people forget why they passed laws about firing guns in the city limits.

Or why they passed laws about lead paint and asbestos in schools.

And it's all fun till someone puts an eye out

Oh the horror of the snow flake crowd..


We rode bicycles with no helmets, rode in cars with no seat belts and some of us played with mercury..

Congrats! People used to cracking a hole in your head to release bad Ju Ju too. Then we got smarter.

 

[toxicmedia]

10 Water Pollution Facts for the U.S.

1. Over two-thirds of U.S. estuaries and bays are severely degraded because of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution.
2. Water quality reports indicate that 45% of U.S. streams, 47 percent of lakes, and 32 percent of bays are polluted.
3. Forty percent of America’s rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming or aquatic life. The lakes are even worse -- over 46% are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
4. Every year almost 25% of U.S. beaches are closed at least once because of water pollution.
5. Americans use over 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides every year, which eventually washes into our rivers and lakes.
6. Over 73 different kinds of pesticides have been found in U.S. groundwater that eventually ends up in our drinking water - unless it is adequately filtered.
7. The Mississippi River, which drains over 40 percent of the continental U.S., carries an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico every year. This resulting pollution is the cause of a coastal dead zone the size of Massachusetts every summer.
8. Septic systems are failing all around the country, causing untreated waste materials to flow freely into streams, rivers, and lakes.
9. Over 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, groundwater, and industrial waste are discharged into U.S. waters annually.
10. The 5-minute daily shower most Americans take uses more water than a typical person in a developing country uses in a whole day.

 

[toxicmedia]

Here is American Rivers' list of the 10 most endangered U.S. rivers:

1. Colorado River (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming)

2. Flint River (Georgia)

3. San Saba River (Texas)

4. Little Plover River (Wisconsin)

5. Catawba River (North Carolina and South Carolina)

6. Boundary Waters (Minnesota)

7. Black Warrior River (Alabama)

8. Rough & Ready and Baldface Creeks (Oregon)

9. Kootenai River (British Columbia, Montana and Idaho)

10. Niobrara River (Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming)