"The Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to evaluate compounds in products such as flame retardants in mattresses and car seats to see if they are especially harmful to children.
And you wonder why the nutters of the world get such a toehold on people’s fears with their crackpot theories. It’s because The Authorities and Big Business and whatnot are a bunch of liars.
Capitalism is great, sure, until industries start selling products (child safety products, no less) that aren’t safe even when used in the the intended manner.
Sheldon Kopp said a long time ago that “Every solution breeds new problems.”
Unbridled capitalism never gets things like this done. First off, it’s too hard for consumers to know which products are safe and which products are unsafe. Second, 75% of consumers would buy the unsafe product anyway, as long as it was 10 cents cheaper than the safe one.
The government needs to take an active role in determining what is and what isn’t safe, when they demand that companies add new chemicals like fire retardants to existing products.
This is why I always thought lawsuits against gun manufacturers for anything other than shoddy workmanship made no sense. It’s like suing GM for making a car that can go 60 mph and selling it in places where the speed limit is 55.
So the government doesn’t give EPA the proper funding for the program or the ability to enforce against violators. And it’s the EPA who dropped the ball? Ok whatever.
But the EPA has little to no control over its own budget. And even if they’re given funds, they may not have a say in how they’re spent. They may find the budget for a desperately needed program all earmarked for some congressidiot’s pet project and utterly unavailable for what they really need it for.
So I can’t blame EPA for not having the funding. Unless, of course, they’ve received discretionary funding and are screwing it up themselves. But like everyone else in government, they have to go begging to Congress every year for funding.
It isn’t even a matter of money or no money – the work that group already did was lousy! They don’t even care enough about the purpose of their work to do it well. That is seriously sad.
You do realize that “They’re a bunch of liars” is not a rational conclusion to make from reading the linked story?
An underfunded federal project that seems poorly constructed and prone to potential conflicts of interest (according to the story) does not equate to “OMG! The Government Lied!”
If there is a grand conspiracy to convince dumbass parents to put nail polish on their five-year-olds, by all means let’s expose it and punish the evildoers. :dubious:
And I know that the EPA has to work closely with industry in order to accomplish anything - my dh is working on one of their projects right now. There’s no way the gov’t could afford to carry everyone with appropriate expertise on its payroll.
So people have to do a good job, just because they should. Because money isn’t everything. Otherwise we’re all fucked.
Doing bad science and presenting it as legitimate is no different whether it’s an EPA project or those quacks with the silver bracelets.
And you know that their underestimating the amount of this chemical was because they were lying…how exactly?
If your husband makes an error on an EPA-related project, we should assume that he has no integrity?
You’ve admitted that the EPA cannot maintain a stable of completely independent scientists (even if they had the money, a lot of the people who have knowledge of these chemicals are bound to have some connection, however indirect, to industry). Damning all the work these people do as “lies” is idiotic.
This is a classic nonsensical comeback from those seeking to excuse quacks and conspiracy nuts.
The alternative to insufficient or flawed research is adequate, well-run research, not to embrace “quacks with the silver bracelets” or conspiracy theories which have no foundation.
If you’d started this thread as a rant against poor performance by the EPA and/or generalized overcosiness with industry by the Bush Administration (and backed it up with better evidence) I’d have no problem with it.
It seems, though, that you want to use this story to justify the “You Can’t Blame 'Em for Suspecting Conspiracy By The Science Overlords” agenda that you’re always toting around from thread to thread.
There must be some really weird dinner table conversations in your house, seeing as your “dh” is one of Them.
Slick obfuscation and facile bullshit, on the public dollar. Particularly given that
They don’t.
It’s not.
People working towards one goal (protecting profits) while pretending to accomplish another (protecting the public) doesn’t exactly qualify as a “conspiracy”, no.
It’s not exactly a program worth of the public’s trust, either. It’s a betrayal, just like bad medicine.
I don’t disagree that government has a necessary role here, but it simply isn’t true that the private sector can’t handle matters like this either. Many organizations as diverse as Underwriters Laboratories and Good Housekeeping fit this bill.
This is a fair point. I don’t know that industry groups can handle something like long term environmental/developmental damage from casual contact with chemicals, but they can obviously handle more straightforward issues like electrical safety.
