RNC Joins Lawsuit to Ban Illegal Ballot Drop Boxes in a Key Swing...
New Bill Would Issue Additional Requirement to Vote
'If We Have to Stand Alone': Netanyahu Delivers Message As Biden Blocks Aid
New Video 'Directly Contradicts' the Biden DoD's Conclusions About Abbey Gate Bombing
Biden Threw $7.5 Billion at EV Chargers in 2021. Here's How Many Have...
Biden Just Did What He Declared an Impeachable Offense Back in 2019 When...
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is Calling on Governors of All Stripes to Come Together...
Trump Has Some Choice Words for Biden Over His Move to Stop Arms...
A Bill Is Finally Here to Revoke Visa for Pro-Hamas Protesters
RFK Shows Support for Abortions Up Until Birth
House Democrats Call on Biden to Secure the Border
Trump Blasts 'Crooked Joe Biden' for Halting Aid to Israel
Two New Polls of a Critical Swing State Show the Same Candidate Leading...
Poll Confirms Most Voters Don't Support Pro-Hamas 'Protests,' but Here's Who Does
Here’s How a California Superintendent Responded to Rampant Antisemitism in Her School Dis...
Tipsheet

EPA's "Killer" Ideology

A new inspector general's report covering the EPA is profoundly dismaying.

It states that the EPA has conducted tests on humans -- in many cases without fully disclosing all risks, even deathly ones -- in order to justify more onerous air regulations.

Advertisement

In some cases, consent forms for tests of pollutants (1) did not contain the information about the upper range of the pollutant exposure to which humans would be subjected; (2) nor did it offer information about the known increased of death even from short-term exposure for those already suffering from cardiovascular disease (p.21). Another group of studies failed to include language about the long-term cancer risk resulting from exposure to diesel exhaust, the substance being examined.

Perhaps this was simple negligence. But it raises an ugly specter: That someone at the EPA was so eager to get results that would justify more stringent air regulations that officials simply failed to warn subjects adequately -- including those most prone to the dramatic, adverse health consequences that could be used to advance the administration's agenda. After all, to make an environmentally-friendly omelet, perhaps you just have to break a few human eggs, right?

(HT: Daily Caller)

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement