For decades the enviros and the EPA have ducked defending their outrageous claims by simply ignoring their critics. It was easy to do with the complicity of the mainstream media.
So if they do respond to criticism, that means the criticism represents a serious threat that cannot be ignored.
- Grist.org, the most-visited enviro web site, responded with the July 22 article, “A body of evidence for bodily harm from air pollution“;
- George Washington University School of Public Health dean, former EPA toxics chief and long-time enviro activist Lynn Goldman responded on July 27 with a letter to the Washington Times and a blog posting, “Attention Steve Milloy: I’ve seen the bodies“;
- George Soros-funded Media Matters responded on July 27 with “Smog Screen: Conservative Media Contradict Health Experts on Air Quality“;
- The Environmental Defense Fund‘s director of online activism has been furiously commenting on JunkScience.com; and
- Ohio Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich raised “Show us the bodies, EPA” in a hearing this week (See transcript below).
Though the enviros have whinged about “Show us the bodies, EPA“, they have yet to show us any bodies or anything else to back up their assertions that current air quality is sickening and killing hundreds of thousands annually.
We will continue to press our point. They will either produce the evidence or face the prospect of air pollution hysteria following global warming hysteria into implosion ignominy.
FYI, below is the transcript of this week’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in which Rep. Kucinich questioned Deputy EPA Administrator Robert Perciasepe about “Show us the bodies, EPA.” Our comments are in bracketed bold.
REP. KUCINICH: On July 20, 2011, the Washington Times ran an op- ed by Steve Milloy, the publisher of JunkScience.com, titled Show Us the Bodies, EPA. The subtitle reads Green Agencies Use Phony Death Statistics to Justify Job Killing Rules. Quote, unquote. The op-ed described a TV add run by the Environmental Defense Fund saying, “The TV ad for this theme features a young girl in a hospital bed, supposedly having an asthma attack. She’s wearing a nebulizer, face mask and chest compression device that is rhythmically but disturbingly squeezing the child, giving the appearance that she is in severe respiratory distress, by implication, from air pollution. But like the EPA’s 17,000 lives saved statistical fabrication, the ads are fake.”
Now, Mr. Perciasepe, I’d like to give you a chance to respond to this op-ed. It’s apparently aimed at EPA’s proposed toxic — air toxic rule. Are EPA’s estimated benefits from the proposed rule a statistical fabrication?
MR. PERCIASEPE: They’re based on peer reviewed science. [Perhaps, but all the “peers” are EPA-minions and none of the data has ever been made available for independent review.] They’re not a statistical fabrication, and they’re — you’re not going to see on somebody’s death certificate, they died of air pollution. [That’s probably because they didn’t.] They’re going to die of the diseases that air pollution exacerbates and causes premature impacts. [Surely some notation would be made somewhere, no?] Even healthy people are impacted. [Show us]. But people who are more vulnerable, like retired folks, are going to be even more vulnerable to these things. [Show us.] So the impact of the damage on the lungs and the cardiovascular system. So I know you have other witnesses that will go into the science of this in more detail, but these are not fabricated, they’re based on peer reviewed science, both clinical and epidemiological studies. [All of which have been exposed and debunked.]
REP. KUCINICH: Mr. Milloy’s op-ed also questioned the public health impacts of mercury pollution. He wrote, “But there’s no evidence that ambient levels of mercury or of mercury emissions from U.S. power plants have harmed anyone,” quote-unquote. Now, Mr. Perciasepe, isn’t there clear evidence showing that mercury impairs the brain development of infants and children?
MR. PERCIASEPE: There are mercury warnings in every state for fish contaminated with mercury. [These warnings are based on junk science. See e.g., Steve Milloy’s “Fish Mercury Warning”.] Mercury causes damages to developing brains in children and fetuses. [There is no evidence that ambient mercury is harming anyone.]
REP. KUCINICH: So is that yes?
MR. PERCIASEPE: So yes.
REP. KUCINICH: OK. OK, can you describe why it’s important to control mercury pollution from the domestic power plants? Isn’t there a disproportionate impact on communities near plants that emit mercury pollution?
MR. PERCIASEPE: The mercury emissions from the power plants in the United States are the largest remaining source in the United States of mercury emissions, and they are — they affect the water and the — and the mercury bioaccumulates in fish, and then fish get eaten by humans. [Sorry, Bob. The vast majority of ambient mercury in U.S. air comes from Mother Nature and China. U.S. power plants emit less than 1% of global emissions.]
But I want to be — I went to point out one last thing on this point. The mercury and toxics rule is not just mercury. It includes acid gasses, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, all these other metals and acid gasses that also have health effects are included, which is why you have to look at the broad impact of all those different toxics, not just mercury, although mercury is very important. [Talk is cheap. Got some evidence?]
REP. KUCINICH: Thank you very much.