21 votes

The EPA Is Hiding Proof That a Widely Used Chemical Causes Leukemia: Report

6 comments

  1. [2]
    CALICO (edited ) Link
    Briefly summarized, emphasis mine: The article goes more in to detail. The above selections I thought were those most relevant and least subject to any bias. NY Mag has a left wing bias in story...

    Briefly summarized, emphasis mine:

    During a Senate hearing in late January, Ed Markey asked then-EPA director Scott Pruitt about a little rumor that he’d overheard. “It’s my understanding,” the Massachusetts senator said, “that the EPA has finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other cancers and that [the] completed new assessment is ready to be released for public review, but is being held up.”
    “You know, my understanding is similar to yours,” Pruitt replied.

    Formaldehyde is one of the most ubiquitous industrial chemicals in the United States. It’s in much of the wooden furniture that Americans sit in, the body wash they clean themselves with — and, for those who live in the vicinity of a major refinery, the air that they breathe.

    If that report were released — and its findings independently verified by the National Academies of Sciences — then the EPA would strengthen restrictions on the chemical’s use, while cancer patients could draw on the findings in class-action lawsuits.

    Pruitt promised to follow up on the matter — but never did.

    The article goes more in to detail. The above selections I thought were those most relevant and least subject to any bias.

    NY Mag has a left wing bias in story selection and reporting, but is always sourced and factual.

    edit: also, this is one of those cases where I'm not sure where this ought to go. ~health, ~news, ~talk, and ~misc all make some level of sense.

    8 votes
    1. mom Link Parent
      Don't worry, we'll just get it to the front page :)

      Don't worry, we'll just get it to the front page :)

      2 votes
  2. guamisc Link
    Pretty inflammatory, but I have a hard time seeing where this article is wrong.

    “If the administration was really keen on protecting public health, why wouldn’t they send this to the National Academy and give it a really good review?” the former EPA official asked. “If it survives that review, then there’s a public health problem that needs to be dealt with, and if it doesn’t survive the review, then they can point the finger at IRIS and say, ‘You’re dead.’”

    The former official said there would be only one reason not to ask the country’s top experts whether they agree with the analysis: “You don’t want the answer.”

    Pruitt is, of course, gone; his personal corruption having become too much of a distraction from his agency’s vital mission of helping the Republican Party’s donors evade financial responsibility for poisoning Americans.

    But that mission is safe in the hands of the EPA’s new acting director, Andrew Wheeler. As staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2004, Wheeler worked to delay an earlier version of the EPA’s formaldehyde analysis – and went on to profitable career as chemical industry lobbyist.

    Pretty inflammatory, but I have a hard time seeing where this article is wrong.

    7 votes
  3. [2]
    captain_cardinal Link
    Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen (as explained by this National Cancer Institute page). I'm curious what levels are dangerous, though. That's where the review by the National Academy of Science...

    Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen (as explained by this National Cancer Institute page). I'm curious what levels are dangerous, though. That's where the review by the National Academy of Science would be useful.

    4 votes
    1. moriarty Link Parent
      It doesn't specify, but from the politico article:

      It doesn't specify, but from the politico article:

      The Trump administration is suppressing an Environmental Protection Agency report that warns that most Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments, a current and a former agency official told POLITICO

      5 votes
  4. Yudhayvavhay Link
    I don't doubt it considering both the EPA chief that resigned or his replacement have zero consideration for health or the environment.

    I don't doubt it considering both the EPA chief that resigned or his replacement have zero consideration for health or the environment.

    4 votes