EPA Not All Bad

E-mail to Congress:

I have previously taken a hard attitude against the EPA, because of their unrealistic position of considering carbon dioxide as an undesirable component of the atmosphere. This position is apparently based upon the basic philosophy and promotions of East Anglia University. Those promotions are loaded with sophisticated intellectual jargon and the invention of new terms, such as "greenhouse gas" and global warming. The EPA has apparently swallowed all of these claims, without any scientific consideration, such as relative reflectivity of carbon dioxide toward infrared compared to other atmospheric gases and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I previously had some respect for the scientific integrity of the EPA, but I see that they are now swayed unrealistically by the opportunistic, Marxist opinions of their boss, Pres. Obama.

But to give the Devil it's due, there is an article in the March 1 issue of C&EN entitled, "EPA Revisits Atrazine". My hat is off to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning the revisit. Atrazine is a widely used herbicide and traces from runoff have appeared in streams and groundwater. The EPA originally declared Atrazine "safe" with respect to expected human exposure concentrations. However, various other data on birth defects, premature births and low human birth weights have been developing.

The key point is that the EPA is now restudying Atrazine human toxicity at present usage levels, and is including in the study a first attempt at incorporating epidemiological data. This is rather difficult, as the C&EN article indicates, but EPA plans to persist. That being the case with respect to Atrazine, why do we glibly accept the claptrap with respect to the claimed dangers of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?