+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Bush Administration Hides Data on Toxic Superfund Sites From Public

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

    Key Superfund Data Is Being Withheld From the Public
    By T. Christian Miller
    The Los Angeles Times
    Friday 16 June 2006

    The EPA won't release some data on 140 Superfund locations. Senate Republicans say their rivals may want to reinstate a cleanup fee.

    Washington - Senate Democrats on Thursday accused the Bush administration of withholding key details about toxic waste sites that present risks of exposure to nearby residents.

    At a congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the Environmental Protection Agency had designated as confidential the details of about 140 Superfund sites where toxic exposure remained uncontrolled.

    Boxer and other Democrats said the secret data included information about how much money and time it would take to clean up the dangerous sites,including one site where the EPA predicted it would take 26 years to close off access to toxics.

    "This isn't a question of left or right," Boxer said, waving a document marked "Privileged" by EPA officials to prevent its release to the public. "This is a question of right and wrong."

    The EPA said that it had blocked only information related to law enforcement and that the public had access to all relevant health-risk data for the sites, seven of which are in California.

    "There is far more information available for each [high-priority] site than has ever been available before," said Susan Parker Bodine, the assistant administrator responsible for the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up toxic waste sites such as chemical dumping grounds and contaminated factories.

    Republicans said Democrats were trying to manufacture a political issue,
    and noted that Senate tradition had long prevented the release of sensitive
    information.

    They also said they feared that Democrats were seeking to reinstate a controversial tax in which chemical manufacturers and other companies were
    forced to pay a fee to contribute to cleaning up waste sites, even if the firms played no role in creating the mess.

    "This tax would fall on businesses already paying for their own cleanup or that had never created any kind of a Superfund site," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate environment committee. "It would put a burden on those companies."

    Democrats have routinely accused the Bush administration of restricting access to information designed to protect the public. One Republican-sponsored bill moving through Congress would limit data available on toxic substances released into communities, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has blocked information on flooding dangers in Florida.

    Thursday's hearing of the Superfund and waste management subcommittee was the first in four years. The Superfund program was created almost three
    decades ago in response to environmental disasters such as Love Canal, a
    neighborhood in Niagara Falls, N.Y., where chemical contamination forced the
    removal of 800 families and led to $200 million in remediation costs.

    The cleanup effort has drawn criticism ever since, from environmentalists who claim it is underfunded and too slow, and from industry officials who say it is costly and punitive.

    Bodine said that the agency had made significant progress, but that larger, more costly projects - including many of the 140 sites at issue at Thursday's hearing - take more time to remediate.

    Those sites are areas where the public still faces some possible exposure to toxic substances - such as a building near buried radioactive waste that was not surrounded by a fence. A skateboard park built over the site, however, was protected by a layer of dirt.

    Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he was disturbed by some of the answers from Bodine, who at times appeared flustered and at a loss for words
    under the Democrats' questions. New Jersey, with 20, has the highest number
    of sites with uncontrolled exposure.

    The EPA's decision to withhold information is "nonsense, and everybody knows it's nonsense," Lautenberg said. "It's deceptive."

    California Sites

    Seven California sites on the national Superfund list still present a risk of exposure to residents. The Environmental Protection Agency has refused to release details on such areas.

    * Ft. Ord, Marina
    * Lava Cap Mine, Nevada City
    * McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co., Stockton
    * Montrose Chemical Corp., Torrance
    * Omega Chemical Corp., Whittier
    * Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine, Clearlake
    * United Heckathorn Co., Richmond

    Source: EPA

    *******************
    Last edited by sojustask; 06-17-2006 at 06:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Bush Administration Hides Data on Toxic Superfund Sites From Public

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

    Key Superfund Data Is Being Withheld From the Public
    By T. Christian Miller
    The Los Angeles Times
    Friday 16 June 2006

    The EPA won't release some data on 140 Superfund locations. Senate Republicans say their rivals may want to reinstate a cleanup fee.

    Washington - Senate Democrats on Thursday accused the Bush administration of withholding key details about toxic waste sites that present risks of exposure to nearby residents.

    At a congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the Environmental Protection Agency had designated as confidential the details of about 140 Superfund sites where toxic exposure remained uncontrolled.

    Boxer and other Democrats said the secret data included information about how much money and time it would take to clean up the dangerous sites,including one site where the EPA predicted it would take 26 years to close off access to toxics.

    "This isn't a question of left or right," Boxer said, waving a document marked "Privileged" by EPA officials to prevent its release to the public. "This is a question of right and wrong."

    The EPA said that it had blocked only information related to law enforcement and that the public had access to all relevant health-risk data for the sites, seven of which are in California.

    "There is far more information available for each [high-priority] site than has ever been available before," said Susan Parker Bodine, the assistant administrator responsible for the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up toxic waste sites such as chemical dumping grounds and contaminated factories.

    Republicans said Democrats were trying to manufacture a political issue,
    and noted that Senate tradition had long prevented the release of sensitive
    information.

    They also said they feared that Democrats were seeking to reinstate a controversial tax in which chemical manufacturers and other companies were
    forced to pay a fee to contribute to cleaning up waste sites, even if the firms played no role in creating the mess.

    "This tax would fall on businesses already paying for their own cleanup or that had never created any kind of a Superfund site," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate environment committee. "It would put a burden on those companies."

    Democrats have routinely accused the Bush administration of restricting access to information designed to protect the public. One Republican-sponsored bill moving through Congress would limit data available on toxic substances released into communities, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has blocked information on flooding dangers in Florida.

    Thursday's hearing of the Superfund and waste management subcommittee was the first in four years. The Superfund program was created almost three
    decades ago in response to environmental disasters such as Love Canal, a
    neighborhood in Niagara Falls, N.Y., where chemical contamination forced the
    removal of 800 families and led to $200 million in remediation costs.

    The cleanup effort has drawn criticism ever since, from environmentalists who claim it is underfunded and too slow, and from industry officials who say it is costly and punitive.

    Bodine said that the agency had made significant progress, but that larger, more costly projects - including many of the 140 sites at issue at Thursday's hearing - take more time to remediate.

    Those sites are areas where the public still faces some possible exposure to toxic substances - such as a building near buried radioactive waste that was not surrounded by a fence. A skateboard park built over the site, however, was protected by a layer of dirt.

    Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he was disturbed by some of the answers from Bodine, who at times appeared flustered and at a loss for words
    under the Democrats' questions. New Jersey, with 20, has the highest number
    of sites with uncontrolled exposure.

    The EPA's decision to withhold information is "nonsense, and everybody knows it's nonsense," Lautenberg said. "It's deceptive."

    California Sites

    Seven California sites on the national Superfund list still present a risk of exposure to residents. The Environmental Protection Agency has refused to release details on such areas.

    * Ft. Ord, Marina
    * Lava Cap Mine, Nevada City
    * McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co., Stockton
    * Montrose Chemical Corp., Torrance
    * Omega Chemical Corp., Whittier
    * Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine, Clearlake
    * United Heckathorn Co., Richmond

    Source: EPA

    *******************
    It would need to be monitored, because as with the case of fluoride being dumped into city waters, the big companies would find some way to market and make a profit off the waste instead of disposing of it properly. The people always suffer from what they are unaware of. Fluoride is a waste by-product that shouldn't be in our water systems at all. Some negatives from ingesting fluoride;
    -causes human skeletal system to become brittle over time (fluorosis)
    -increases body's intake of aluminum, increasing chances of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's (also body is exposed to other heavy metals as well)
    -slows down the metabolism by interfering with the thyroid

    It is against the law to dump fluoride on land in excess of 0.2-0.3 ppm. Some cities are as high as 1.5ppm, but most are around 1.0 ppm. This is just one example of a toxic by-product that was successfully marketed as "safe" for people and an answer to fighting cavities in poor people who couldn't afford dental care. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fluorosis is now the problem, and not dental caries. The source of most fluoride? Smoke stack scrubbers from the aluminum or phosphate fertilizer industries.

Similar Threads

  1. Bush to be honored by the Obama Administration
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 06:43 PM
  2. Ridge says no politicizing by Bush Administration
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 08:12 PM
  3. Bush Administration taken by surprise...
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2007, 07:15 AM
  4. Jeb Bush Hides in a Closet in PA
    By FreedomFromLies in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-09-2006, 04:13 AM
  5. Slogan for the Bush administration
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 07:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •