Defending the Truth

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1170193892

"Environmental Protection" is what the EPA is about!

The EPA is required to review every 5 years the listing of air pollutants. The EPA is considering removing lead from the listing because since 1980 the levels of lead in the air have been reduced by 90%. While lead poisoning remains an issue in homes due to lead-based paints, which effects mainly the poor, should the EPA continue to spend money on testing the air, or should it divert its resources to helping children in their homes??

If you ask me, I am with helping the kids in their homes, but if you place the environment over children, well then, I can see why you are up in arms.

dmk

How could it be a good thing to stop testing for something so dangerous? Won't the reductions just creep right back up?

I wonder if NOT testing for a problem that's virtually been eliminated might free up the resources for things more important and/or dangerous.

I don't think we should turn a blind eye at one thing to cover another. Find the resources to cover all the bases instead.

To me this is kind of like the question of whether the CDC ought to put more time and energy into Cancer or German Measles. If the latter is pretty much non-existent, let's put our efforts into curing the former.

The reduction of lead levels in our air, is not a question of good or bad, we know it is good. The question is what should government do with limited resources. Continuing evaluating the air quality for lead, or instead use those resources for other work. What a department can do is not infinite, there is a limit to the resources it receives. Thus a good department head will determine where those resources can be best used.

Instead of crying gloom and doom, one should ask what will the department spend these saved resources upon, and will that benefit more people. Everyone likes to place on a pedestal the plight of the poor, and how government should help them, but when government decides to refocus efforts and redistribute its resources, immediately we hear the calls of gloom and doom, just like the heading of this topic.

Their concern for the poor is so noble when it comes to taking money from the rich, yet they never exactly tell us who is the rich. But when government instead tries to act like everyone else in the world, making decisions regarding the best use of limited resources, their true concern becomes apparent......and its not for the poor.

dmk