Hysterical, power-hungry EPA will require all property owners to have “no detectable level of lead dust in the air” – an impossible feat

Lead exposure is a serious health concern, especially for children, whose developing brains are drastically affected by the heavy metal. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going a step too far in regulating the heavy metal on private property.

According to new rules released by Biden’s EPA — homes, apartment buildings and child care facilities must test completely negative for lead. Under most circumstances, this is completely implausible. Lead particulate matter is ubiquitous is air measurements across the world.

Instead of taking realistic steps to mitigate the risk of heavy metal exposures, this new rule gives the EPA unlimited power and uses hysterical measurements to seize control over private property.

All air and soil contain detectable levels of lead, but there’s no reason to panic

Under the new rules, any detectable level of lead dust in a building would be considered a “lead hazard” and property owners would be ordered by the EPA and the courts to clean up the building. If remediation efforts are not good enough (and they won’t be in most cases), then the building may be condemned or torn down.

This is what happens when hysteria takes over the regulatory agencies: they virtue signal about detecting irrelevant concentrations and then use their findings to justify abusing their power. In the study National Trends in Lead Concentration in 2010-2023, the ambient lead level in the atmosphere across the US is just over 0.025 ug/m³. This is based on measurement of 79 sites across the country. Similarly in Europe, soil levels of lead are routinely measured at 25-35 ng/m³, which is approximately the same level.

According to the study, the average concentration of lead hasn’t gone up in the last decade. A recent document from the EPA shows that the dust in the air, averaged across all monitoring sites, ranges from 0.015 to 0.045 µg/m³.These are detectable levels of lead across the Earth’s atmosphere and throughout the soil, but the existence of lead at these levels does not mean everyone’s lives are in danger and it must be remediated at all costs!

The EPA, on the other hand, disagrees now, and will be able to take any detectable level of lead and seize power over the situation, claiming a public health threat in a building, and ordering the expensive remediation and takedown of properties throughout the country. While there has been a natural 87% decrease in the national average of lead in the Earth’s atmosphere, the EPA could still find a meaningless, detectable level of lead somewhere and claim dominion over that property, demanding remediation.

Keep reading

EPA Knows These Commonly Used Pesticides Affect Brain Development

Rodent studies given to U.S. regulators by insecticide makers close to 20 years ago revealed the chemicals could be harmful to the animals’ brain development — data worrisome for humans exposed to the popular pesticides but not properly accounted for by regulators, according to a new research report published on Oct. 1.

The analysis examined five studies that exposed pregnant rats to various types of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (commonly called neonics). The studies found that the offspring born to the exposed rats suffered shrunken brains and other problems.

Statistically significant shrinkage of brain tissue was seen in the offspring of rats exposed to high doses of five types of neonics – acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam, the paper states.

The authors said the impacts on the brain appeared similar to the effects of nicotine, which they said is known to disrupt mammalian neurological development.

The animal studies also support the possibility of a link between neonic exposure and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the authors said.

In most cases, the companies submitting the studies did not submit data for all dosage levels, leading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assume negative effects were only seen at the high dose, according to the study.

“We found numerous deficiencies in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s regulatory oversight and data analyses,” the authors state in the paper, published in the journal Frontiers in Toxicology.

The industry studies, which the EPA used to determine what neonic exposure levels are considered safe for humans, were not publicly available and were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“Consistently, effects were found at the high dose and EPA did not demand data for the lower doses, therefore leaving it unclear how little of a substance it takes to actually cause adverse effects such as reduced size of certain brain regions,” said Bill Freese, the science director for the environmental advocacy group Center for Food Safety and an author of the study.

The study found that the EPA consistently made determinations about what levels of neonic exposure were “safe” for humans without enough data to support its conclusions.

Keep reading

Environmental Protection Agency accused of retaliating against scientists who voiced concerns about toxic chemicals

A group of government scientists say they were pressured by management at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to present new chemicals they were investigating as being safer than they actually were.

When they failed to delete evidence of the serious dangers associated with the chemicals, their managers did it themselves.

The scientists claim that after pushing back, they were hit with negative performance reviews, while some lost their positions in the new chemical division and were reassigned to other parts in the agency.

Last week, the Inspector General of the EPA announced their finding that three of the scientists’ treatment can be considered retaliation, confirming that their negative reviews and reassignments were retaliatory. They also concluded that the scientists being denied a work-related incentive that can be used to take time off or traded for cash was retaliatory as well.

The report instructed the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” as a result, including a potential three-day minimum suspension for supervisors who violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In response to the report, EPA assistant administrator Michael Freedhoff sent a letter to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention explaining that all managers would be undergoing “refresher training” on the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as scientific integrity in general and that their office would be reviewing the reports to see if additional action is needed.

Further reports are expected to be released about the scientific allegations made by the whistleblowers.

The three whistleblowers in question – Sarah Gallagher, William Irwin and Martin Phillips – maintained that the chemicals they were vetting for the agency could cause damages ranging from neurological problems and miscarriages to cancer.

The EPA appears to be trying to shift the blame for what happened to former President Donald Trump as the incident took place during his administration. They say that the agency was under pressure to push chemicals through the approval process more quickly.

“The events covered by these reports began during the previous administration when the political leadership placed intense pressure on both career managers and scientists in EPA’s new chemicals program to more quickly review and approve new chemicals,” the agency claimed.

Keep reading

Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules

In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision.

More than 200 million Americans drink water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However, Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.

The verdict delivers a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.

Fluoride proponents refused to reexamine that stance despite mounting scientific evidence from top researchers and government agencies of fluoride’s neurotoxic risks, particularly for infants’ developing brains.

Instead, they attempted to weaken and suppress the research and discredit the scientists carrying it out.

Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told The Defender, “What’s false is the CDC claiming that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century. What’s true is that ending fluoridation will be one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 21st century.”

“The judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework to fluoride,” said Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs. “In so doing, the court has shown that the widespread exposure to fluoride that we now have in the United States is unreasonably and precariously close to the levels that we know cause harm.”

The EPA can appeal Tuesday’s decision. The agency told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the EPA in the lawsuit, also said it has no comment.

Keep reading

EPA Scientists Said They Were Pressured to Downplay Harms From Chemicals. A Watchdog Found They Were Retaliated Against.

More than three years ago, a small group of government scientists came forward with disturbing allegations.

During President Donald Trump’s administration, they said, their managers at the Environmental Protection Agency began pressuring them to make new chemicals they were vetting seem safer than they really were. They were encouraged to delete evidence of chemicals’ harms, including cancer, miscarriage and neurological problems, from their reports — and in some cases, they said, their managers deleted the information themselves.

After the scientists pushed back, they received negative performance reviews and three of them were removed from their positions in the EPA’s division of new chemicals and reassigned to jobs elsewhere in the agency.

On Wednesday, the EPA inspector general announced that it had found that some of the treatment experienced by three of those scientists — Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Irwin — amounted to retaliation.

Three reports issued by the inspector general confirmed that the scientists’ negative performance reviews as well as a reassignment and the denial of an award that can be used for cash or time off were retaliatory. They also detailed personal attacks by supervisors, who called them “stupid,” “piranhas” and “pot-stirrers.”

The reports called on the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” in response to the findings. In one case, the inspector general noted that supervisors who violate the Whistleblower Protection Act should be suspended for at least three days.

The reports focus only on the retaliation claims. The inspector general is expected to issue reports in the future about the whistleblowers’ scientific allegations.

In an email sent to the staff of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention after the reports were released, EPA Assistant Administrator Michal Freedhoff wrote that the office plans to hold a “refresher training on both scientific integrity and the Whistleblower Protection Act” for all managers in the office. Freedhoff also wrote that the office is “reviewing the reports to determine whether additional action may be necessary.”

In a statement to ProPublica, the EPA tied the problems laid out in the report to Trump. “The events covered by these reports began during the previous administration when the political leadership placed intense pressure on both career managers and scientists in EPA’s new chemicals program to more quickly review and approve new chemicals,” the agency wrote, going on to add that the “work environment has been transformed under Administrator Michael Regan’s leadership.”

Keep reading

DOD defies order to clean up ‘forever chemicals’ in Arizona

In Dr. Strangelove, the fictitious base commander Jack D. Ripper orders a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union to enact revenge for contaminating American water to “impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” The satirical film poked fun at rampant Cold War conspiracy theories about fluoridating our water supply. But as it turns out, America’s water was being contaminated — not by the Russians, but by the Pentagon.

Not long after American audiences packed into theaters to watch the bleak Cold War comedy, the Department of Defense ramped up its use of a fire suppressant called AFFF, knowingly contaminating the drinking water of millions of Americans.

Now, the Department of Defense is refusing to take accountability.

This week, the Air Force claimed it has no legal obligation to comply with an order from the Environmental Protection Agency in May to abate the threat of “forever chemicals” to the drinking water of Tucson, Arizona. The EPA order required the Air Force to create a system designed to treat high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — synthetic chemicals known as PFAS that are linked to weakened immunity and other health risks — in drinking water, estimated to cost $25 million.

Testing at the Tucson International Airport Area Superfund Site has revealed PFAS levels of up to 5,300 times beyond the drinkable limit, which is “likely to enter into the Tucson public water system,” according to the EPA. These chemicals likely originated from the use of AFFF at airports and military sites, such as nearby Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Morris Air National Guard Base.

The EPA also identified other chemicals that migrated into the groundwater from a weapons manufacturing facility just south of Tucson operated by RTX (formerly known as Raytheon).

Keep reading

Congress Must Reject Monsanto-Bayer Plan to Avoid Liability for Poisoning Humans, Environment

Millions of American users of glyphosate-based Roundup have likely assumed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would never have approved the pesticide unless it was safe.

But the science-based truth has never been as cut and dried as the EPA and Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, have made it sound.

In a series of trials across the country, juries — and the public –— have learned that despite the safety claims by Bayer and the EPA, hundreds of studies by independent scientists link glyphosate herbicides to serious health harms, including cancer.

Even though Bayer maintains that its glyphosate products are safe and not carcinogenic, the company has thus far agreed to pay out more than $10 billion in settlement costs to tens of thousands of glyphosate users suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and thousands of lawsuits remain.

In an effort to block further litigation, the chemical giant has turned its focus to getting federal and state legislation passed to block Roundup users from suing the company for damages.

According to a recent Washington Post article, Bayer helped draft language for a legislative measure that would limit the types of lawsuits brought by Roundup users.

That measure is included in the U.S. House of Representatives version of the 2024 Farm Bill, which is slated to be finalized later this year. The company has also been pushing lawmakers in several states to pass similar measures.

Key to Bayer’s messaging to legislators is that, because glyphosate is EPA-approved, research showing its harms should be rejected. But the process by which the EPA approved glyphosate decades ago has never been reassuring to independent scientists such as myself.

EPA scientists conducting initial assessments of glyphosate in the 1980s discovered several mice dosed with the pesticide developed rare kidney tumors, prompting the scientists to confirm the pesticide’s link to cancer.

Then the EPA’s pesticides office did what it often does: It ignored the troubling research and the recommendation of its own scientists and approved the pesticide without acknowledging its documented link to cancer.

Even the EPA’s subsequent assessments and reapprovals of the pesticide, required every 15 years, have been plagued by questionable science. In 2022 a federal appeals court ruled that the agency’s finding that glyphosate has no link to cancer violated its own cancer guidelines and “was not supported by substantial evidence.”

Now it’s these problematic EPA endorsements that Bayer insists should be the basis for putting limits on the lawsuits glyphosate users can file.

Keep reading

California wants the EPA to allow the state to mandate electric trains that don’t actually exist

California was a leader in mandating electric vehicle sales, and then it moved to electrify trucking. Now, if the Environmental Protection Agency grants the state a requested waiver needed to implement the rule, California will mandate that train locomotives be fully electric starting in 2030. 

Should the EPA give the rule its blessing, rail companies will have a hard time coming into compliance since locomotives that can meet the mandates don’t actually exist. 

Prototype

In November, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed regulations that would require all freight trains to be in a zero-emission configuration by 2035. By 2030, the rule mandates that diesel locomotives that are 23 years or older be retired, even though a locomotive can have a useful life of 39 years or longer. New passenger locomotives by 2030 will need to operate at zero emissions, and long-haul freight trains using new engines will need to be zero emission by 2035. 

Wabtec makes a battery-electric locomotive that uses regenerative braking, which returns some charge to the battery while the train is slowing down. The locomotive runs on 18,000 lithium-ion battery cells, producing 8.5 megawatt hours of electricity. For comparison, a Tesla Model Y with the smallest battery configuration runs on a .06 megawatt hour charge

According to a promotion video on the prototype, the Wabtec train has comparable hauling power of a diesel locomotive. However, the company explains that the locomotive is meant to be part of a hybrid system, meaning it runs in tandem with diesel-powered locomotives. Over a three-month trial in California, the system reduced the average fuel consumption of the train by 11%. 

The model would therefore not meet California’s 2035 mandates.

Keep reading

Historic Drug Shortage Exacerbated by EPA Overreach

Concerning new reports reveal that the drug shortage in the U.S. has reached its highest level since the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists began tracking data. In total, 323 medicines are now in short supply.

However, the problem is about to get worse because of government regulations on an entirely different issue. Counterintuitive measures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set to effectively ban the domestic production of chemicals that are used in the process of manufacturing vital prescription drugs and vaccines.

Shortly after Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, the EPA began the rulemaking process on 10 chemicals currently in use in the United States using a broad and overreaching definition of “unreasonable risk.” Now, the EPA is expected to release a final rule on methylene chloride under TSCA.

Methylene chloride has several applications, including in the process of manufacturing hundreds of medicines and vaccines like those that treat Hepatitis B and HIV infectionsmental illnesses and epilepsyheart failure and high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.

If this rule goes into effect, it will exacerbate the drug shortage by bringing domestic manufacturing to a halt while making our supply chains more reliant on foreign nations like China for pharmaceuticals. This runs in direct contradiction to the Biden administration’s “Investing in America” agenda, which aims to onshore supply chains critical to our economy and security.

For example, methylene chloride is used to make hollow fiber cartridges which are used in the manufacture of monoclonal antibodies and vaccines, including the COVID-19, HPV, Hepatitis B, and flu vaccines, as well as therapies for arthritis, migraines, osteoporosis, and autoimmune diseases. In a letter to the EPA, the company that produces these cartridges wrote their product is used in at least 190 human therapeutics and vaccines. Their supply is so essential that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department awarded the company funding to expand its manufacturing capacity here in the U.S.

Keep reading

EPA Failed to Assess Safety of Pesticides in Flea and Tick Collars Linked to 3,000+ Pet Deaths

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not properly reviewed the safety of a popular flea and tick collar that has been linked to more than 3,000 pet deaths, according to the agency’s top watchdog.

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), an independent office in the agency tasked with holding the agency accountable, published a report on Feb. 29 calling on the EPA to make a proper, science-based decision on the Seresto product and improve its processes for making safety determinations for pet products.

The report found that the agency has not conducted or published animal risk assessments as it promised to do, and continues to rely on an inadequate 1998 companion animal safety study.

Seresto pet collars work by releasing two active ingredients, the pesticides flumethrin and imidacloprid. The OIG found that the EPA has failed to properly review those active ingredients, including in a new analysis last year.

At a congressional hearing in June 2022, pet owner Faye Hemsley of Pennsylvania reported that her dog, Tigger, began to suffer from neurological issues, including his head drooping and a loss of energy, before dying five days after she first put the Seresto collar on him.

Thomas Maiorino of New Jersey also testified at the hearing that his family’s dog, Rooney, suffered neurological issues and eventually a seizure, after wearing Seresto. They eventually decided to put the dog down.

Many other pet owners reported neurological issues in their animals, including seizures as well as pet deaths.

The collars have been the subject of more than 105,354 incident reports, including 3,000 pet deaths, more than any other EPA-regulated product in history, according to the EPA’s incident database.

From 2012 through 2022, the EPA received more than 100,000 incident reports related to the collars, including more than 2,500 pet death reports and nearly 900 reports of human pesticide incidents related to the Seresto pet collars.

“The EPA’s response to reported pesticide incidents involving Seresto pet collars has not provided assurance that the collars can still be used without posing unreasonable adverse effects to the environment, including to pets,” the OIG report states.

The collar has been under sharp scrutiny in recent years after USA Today and Investigate Midwest published an investigation spotlighting the high number of incident reports about Seresto.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is now the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, launched an investigation and subsequently determined that the EPA knew for years that Seresto was linked to a high number of pet deaths but took no action and recommending that the EPA take it off the market.

Keep reading