LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

March 28, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It is not well known to the public that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has attempted to take over virtually all industries in America by claiming that exposure to particles in the air as small as 2.5 millionth of a meter can cause death in a matter of minutes, hours or days. It is called the PM2.5 rule. The EPA has succeeded with the help of the American Lung Association and radical environmental groups that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the anti-capitalist left wing of our nation.

The PM2.5 rule was promulgated initially in July 1997 based on “secret science” that would not be divulged to the Congress even though they did investigate it. All evidence of actual epidemiology shows that these particles are absolutely harmless and are present nearly everywhere. Steve Milloy, a scientist and lawyer famous for his 20-year-old website junkscience.com, “All the junk that’s fit to debunk,” is also the author of the important book Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA. It is a most compelling piece of investigative journalism worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.

This 280-page narrative contains all the transcripts of hearings and correspondence with the agency and scientists hired to create technical results intended to support EPA’s desire to control the lives of all citizens who breathe. In so doing, the book proves conclusively that EPA and its cohorts committed various crimes, which Milloy clearly exposes. A horrible example is the totally documented story of a 58-year-old woman with a variety of serious maladies who was purposely exposed to mega doses of particulate matter to make her sick and thus support EPA claims. She was never properly informed of the experiments in which she was participating.

None of the EPA efforts show serious harm from PM2.5, but the results were hidden. When independent scientists attempted to correlate high episodes of PM2.5 in air valleys in California with increased mortality in large populations, they found NONE. Yet, EPA continued to insist that their oppressive rule saves tens of thousands of lives.

The book reads like a mystery novel of intrigue and evil. Still, it is all on the record as reality, listing names of the prominent people in government who colluded to allow the EPA to continue what can only be called a criminal operation. During President Ronald Reagan’s years, he issued an executive order directing agencies not to take regulatory action unless the potential benefits to society outweigh its costs. President Bill Clinton softened the rule by stating that benefits need only justify their costs. This more relaxed standard set EPA on a national witch hunt to control life as we know it. Milloy brought his case to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues chaired by University of Pennsylvania President Dr. Amy Gutmann. Milloy was totally stonewalled even though he was supported by an EPA official willing to blow the whistle on their perverse experimentations.

Milloy has an especially strong personal impetus to expose devastating experiments performed on humans by EPA because he lost an uncle in a German concentration camp where such experiments were rampant. A close reading of Milloy’s charges against EPA and their responses leaves little doubt the agency wanted people to die to prove their cases. The many years of experience the senior author of this article has with EPA demonstrates that this claim is not as outrageous as it may seem. The irony, Milloy says, is that “while the EPA relies on the PM2.5 epidemiology to impose expensive regulations on the economy, it simultaneously dismisses that very epidemiology in a court of law to justify its human experiments.”

Milloy tells us that some of the most interesting evidence against EPA’s PM2.5 regulation can be found among coal miners who are exposed to high levels of very small particulate matter. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, studying 8,899 underground coal miners, reported that the death rate for coal miners did not differ in a meaningful way from the average American Worker, and this even though 54% of the miners were smokers.

Exceptionally informative is Milloy’s explanation of why outside parties adversely affected by such blatant corruption, especially businesses and trade groups, do not complain loudly and constantly. The reasons should be obvious. Many companies deal with multiple levels of regulation, including air, water, and waste. They may fight and win on one issue but then fear being penalized on another where an EPA permit is required. Irritate the EPA and risk the agency “venting its anger by delaying, denying, or otherwise sabotaging a permit,” Milloy says. Do not doubt him.

In his final chapters of Scare Pollution, Milloy outlines critical areas in which EPA must be overhauled. In the end, he concludes, their responsibilities should be devolved back to the states where they belong. His most important requirement is that the EPA’s practice of hiding its scientific data from the public must end. He also calls for the end of their corrupt peer review practice where their hired researchers control the technical review. In fact, Milloy recommends EPA get out of the research business altogether. They only fund researchers they can count on to deliver desired results. He says it is time they begin reality-based cost-benefit analysis. Finally, Milloy calls for Congressional approval of all major EPA rules. He says there is a principle of US Law called the “non-delegation doctrine,” which holds that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to executive branch agencies.


To discuss these crucially important issues, Steve Milloy will be our guest on The Other Side of The Story at America Out Loud Talk Radio on Saturday and Sunday, December 3/4, at both 11 am and 8 pm EST.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rogier F van Vlissingen
1 year ago

This may well be an example of over-analyzing. We can now see things we could not previously and then we go off the deep end with premature conclusions. The excessive secrecy is a give-away.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link