I wanted to title this post: "EPA: Environmental Terrorists" because of their LACK OF RESPONSE on the Colorado mine disaster that is POISONING the Animas River, which ends up in Lake Powell before emptying out into the COLORADO River.
I didn't include that title because I still believe that there are many committed scientists and administrative staff who work for the EPA who want to protect the environment and human health.
The problem is they are NO WHERE to be seen.
Instead, we get to hear from lame and obviously cognitively impaired spokespeople who tell the media everything is fine for people downstream.
The Arizona Repulsive (aka Arizona Republic) reported on their front page yesterday that "Experts say polluted water likely won't harm state's drinking water" in the byline.
The first sentence of the story assures readers, "although officials urge caution, scientists say it likely will dilute to safe levels."
"...it likely will dilute to safe levels."??????????????
Hey EPA your own documents state that there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF LEAD, one of the contaminants that is destroying the Animas River now. Please see here: http://www2.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead
And then there is Cadmium. Wikipedia notes that OVEREXPOSURE occurs with only TRACE LEVELS:
EPA hasn't mentioned the mercury that no doubt is also flowing freely through the Animas River now. Mercury is used extensively in gold mining and is very, very TOXIC.
These elements do NOT dilute to safe levels.
In fact, the entire dilution story is a FRICKING LIE because many of the toxic elements released are going to bioaccumulate and biomagnify up the food chain.
Maybe the "experts" being interviewed ought to read the EPA's own literature.
I want to know why NOTHING is being done (no reports of any interventions) to capture at least some of the particles that have turned the river the color of chemical death.
It appears that the EPA solution is to simply wait for dilution.
Hey that sounds like their Fukushima response.
Hey Gina McCarthy I'm on to you. I know you were the one who was ultimately responsible for the poor state of RadNet monitoring during the Fukushima crisis. You were the one who allowed the monitors to be turned off and the data to be censored when operating.
It seems like it must have worked out for you ok because even the EPA's Inspector General report that critiqued your poor performance wasn't enough to get you fired. In fact, the very opposite occurred because you were promoted to run the entire EPA.
I have absolutely no respect and no tolerance for sociopaths that destroy institutions founded to protect human health.
An excerpt from my book, Fukushima and the Privatization of Risk:
The U.S. EPA Radnet system tasked with air monitoring failed. The Office of the Inspector General issued a report in 2012 that noted twenty percent of the EPA’s stationary radiation monitors were not functioning at the time of the Fukushima accident.[i] Additionally, other monitors had not had their filters changed and were therefore not able to provide accurate readings. The Inspector General report concluded that the EPA Radnet system had ‘relaxed quality controls.’
The declassified NRC transcripts of conference calls that occurred on 17 March 2011 reveal that the agency had projections of a 40 millisievert dose to the thyroid from radioactive iodine alone for a one-year old child in California: ‘The DITTRA result was four rem [40,000 microsieverts or 40 millisieverts] to the thyroid of a one year-old child based on one year integration of uptake.’[ii] Parents in North America were not warned about the dangers of radioactive iodine in dairy products.
In 2014, a coalition of environmentalists and churches wrote to EPA Administrative Director Gina McCarthy reminding her of a comment made by Ramona Trovato, Director of the EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, in April 1997: “to put it bluntly, radiation should not be treated as a privileged pollutant. You and I should not be exposed to higher risks from radiation sites than we should be from sites which had contained any other environmental pollutant” (cited in Group Comments on Radiation Regulations August 3 2014).[iii] Their letter points out serious contradictions in the EPA’s regulatory approach, including allowances for whole body exposure that “according to the EPA’s own official risk figures, produce cancer risks twenty to two thousand times higher than the EPA’s own acceptable risk range” (2). The letter notes that radiation’s risks have been obscured by opaque measurement units, such as the rem and Sievert, that express exposure in terms of dose rather than risk.
[i] J. McMahon (27 April 2012) ‘Inspector General Faults EPA Radiation Monitoring’, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/04/27/inspector-general-faults-epa-radiation-monitoring/.
[ii] U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (17 March 2011) ‘Official Transcript of Proceedings of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi ET Audio File’, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf