The real tragedy and travesty could very well be that neither of them is aware or even cares…?

Perspective for your consideration …What does it look like when it’s fixed…?
EPA Toxic Chemical Testing is Flawed and Kept Out of Election…Written by Amanda Peterka …Published on September 20th, 2008…The EPA’s system for deciding whether or not some chemicals we use on an everyday basis are toxic and can cause cancer is severely flawed, and the agency isn’t really doing anything about it. It’s gone buried under all the talk about the election and the environment - neither of the candidates making any fuss about these EPA procedures.
Yikes! This means that we could have been using dangerous chemicals with health risks for NINE years, and we wouldn’t know it. This fact alone sets those alarm bells ringing, but the report goes on, narrowing down its findings into a few key points.
1. Too much emphasis on backlogs…A dedication to backlogged chemicals means those 540 chemicals aren’t kept up to date, and that new chemicals take a long time to merely get into the process, much less get processed.
2. Assessments take too long to complete…The average chemical takes EIGHT years to be assessed. Basically, allow a whopping six years for a chemical to go through the EPA system, and another two for findings to be reviewed by outside parties. Which would be OK if the assessments were actually completed at that time, but…
3. Assessments become outdated before they are even completed…Because the process takes so long, by the time a chemical nears finish, the whole process may have to start all over again! Take the chemical naphthalene - the EPA has been examining this chemical for more than six years for a possible connection to cancer, but in 2006, it went back to the drawing board because the assessment became outdated. And this is a common chemical found in jet fuel, moth balls, dyes and insecticides.
4. Third-party changes to the assessments aren’t disclosed…The report cites transparency, or lack thereof, as another flaw within the system. After an assessment is completed, the findings are sent out to be reviewed, but those comments are then kept closed.
5. Decisions take into account political motives…It used to be that science drove the whole operation. Now it’s a combination of science and political policy - which is a little scary considering it’s the science part that can affect our health, not the political part….And how do politics play a role in all this? According to an investigative report by CBS, it’s the White House that’s built up the review process that takes years to complete. Agencies from the Energy Department to the Defense Department are allowed into the process, and the Office of Management and Budget is cited directly in the report as trying to hush up the names of toxic chemicals.
With something this important to the everyday health of Americans, it seems this should enter the election arena, and definitely at a higher priority than the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom.
IT is fixed when …. “something this important to the everyday health of Americans, it seems this should enter the election arena, and definitely at a higher priority than the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom” …
Neither candidate campaigning to serve and protect us as the next President of the United States of America is choosing to make us aware of the potentially diabolical long term health implications in current EPA policy.
The real tragedy and travesty could very well be that neither of them is aware or even cares…?