RichardR
14th May 2003, 07:30 PM
Article by Peter Waldman of The Wall Street Journal: (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/epabans.html)
The Bush administration has imposed a gag order on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from publicly discussing perchlorate pollution, even as two new studies reveal high levels of the rocket-fuel component may be contaminating the nation's lettuce supply.
The lettuce studies, one published today by a nonprofit environmental group and one in final preparation by an EPA laboratory in Athens, Ga., address a crucial question in the current process of developing a federal drinking-water standard for perchlorate: whether Americans are ingesting the chemical from food sources in addition to drinking water. The answer, according to both studies, strongly suggests they are, which means that any eventual drinking-water standard will have to be that much stricter to account for the other sources of perchlorate exposure.
(snip)
The Pentagon and several defense contractors, who face billions of dollars in potential cleanup liability for perchlorate pollution, vehemently oppose that EPA health-risk assessment, arguing perchlorate is safe in drinking water at levels 70 to 200 times higher than what the EPA says is safe. In January, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, (R., Okla.) chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, weighed in on the industry's side with a long list of questions and criticisms of the EPA's report. The White House recently proposed a bill in Congress, in the name of military "readiness," that would effectively exempt the Pentagon and defense industry from much of their potential liability for perchlorate cleanup.(My emphasis)
Clearly, no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from these studies. But can anyone suggest a good reason why EPA scientists should not be allowed to comment on the results so far?
The Bush administration has imposed a gag order on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from publicly discussing perchlorate pollution, even as two new studies reveal high levels of the rocket-fuel component may be contaminating the nation's lettuce supply.
The lettuce studies, one published today by a nonprofit environmental group and one in final preparation by an EPA laboratory in Athens, Ga., address a crucial question in the current process of developing a federal drinking-water standard for perchlorate: whether Americans are ingesting the chemical from food sources in addition to drinking water. The answer, according to both studies, strongly suggests they are, which means that any eventual drinking-water standard will have to be that much stricter to account for the other sources of perchlorate exposure.
(snip)
The Pentagon and several defense contractors, who face billions of dollars in potential cleanup liability for perchlorate pollution, vehemently oppose that EPA health-risk assessment, arguing perchlorate is safe in drinking water at levels 70 to 200 times higher than what the EPA says is safe. In January, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, (R., Okla.) chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, weighed in on the industry's side with a long list of questions and criticisms of the EPA's report. The White House recently proposed a bill in Congress, in the name of military "readiness," that would effectively exempt the Pentagon and defense industry from much of their potential liability for perchlorate cleanup.(My emphasis)
Clearly, no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from these studies. But can anyone suggest a good reason why EPA scientists should not be allowed to comment on the results so far?