EPA Denies Ignoring Human Harm, Expects Us to Believe It
Ah, the classic 'BS headline' defense. Seems the Environmental Protection Agency, guardians of our air and water (and apparently, corporate profits), is 'outraged' by suggestions they'd ignore human beings when crafting pollution rules. One might wonder why such suggestions even gain traction. Perhaps it’s because the EPA has a rather storied history of, shall we say, 'selective' protection. This
is, after all, the same agency that, post-Flint, Michigan, had to be strong-armed into updating its lead and copper rule after decades of known public health crises ( EPA.gov ). So, when the EPA insists it 'will continue to consider factors such as public health,' the rhetorical question practically writes itself: consider them how? As in, 'We considered public health and decided the financial
burden on industry was more important than children's neurological development'? It's a bit like a fox denying it's guarding the henhouse—while clutching a bag of feathers. The public has seen this script before, and the plot twist is usually worse for public health.