It's Going to Be a Great Year
What the Hell Is Going on in Iran?
This Might Have Been the Creepiest Line in Zohran Mamdani's Mayoral Address. And,...
A German Woman Reportedly Wanted to Livestream How Safe It Was to be...
Here's the Image That Led to an Awkward Moment for This ESPN Host...
Investigating Fraud Is Now ‘Harassment,’ According to Democrat Prosecutors
The Minnesota Congressional Delegation Is Demanding Answers and Accountability From Tim Wa...
'Locked and Loaded:' President Trump Issues Warning to Iran As Anti-Regime Protests Enter...
Hospital Horror: Afghan Migrant Arrested After Brutal Attack on UK Nurse
Kathy Hochul Just Did a Major U-Turn on Taxing Tips
Does the Minnesota Fraud Scandal Go All the Way to the Somali Government?...
Peace Through Strength: Venezuela’s Maduro Suddenly Ready to Negotiate
The ‘Warmth’ of Collectivism Comes With a Body Count — Conservatives Respond to...
Journalist Who Exposed $100M Somali Daycare Fraud Says He’s Now Getting Death Threats
While America Watched the Border, the Cyber Front Exploded
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