'Scary terms' misinform about water, air quality

Friday, June 19, 2015
 | 
Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

A new report says the EPA must protect drinking water and downstream communities from power plant pollution, but a critic says it's just "scaremongering."

The report, "Selling Our Health Down The River," comes from EarthJustice.org, although representatives from Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and Physicians for Social Responsibility contributed. The authors say power plants discharge more than 5.5 billion pounds of pollutants into U.S. waterways every year, contributing to the contamination of more than 23,000 miles of rivers and 185 water bodies whose fish are too toxic to eat. As a result, the authors call on Environmental Protection Agency to finalize a rule to stop water pollution from power plants.

Dr. Tom Borelli, a senior fellow with FreedomWorks, responds to the report. He points out the EPA is already protecting America's waterways and air, the result being that both have become significantly cleaner over the past decade.

Borelli

"So you have to review these sorts of reports by the source," he suggests, "and EarthJustice is one of the radical environmental organizations that essentially wants to ban the use of coal in America. These groups always throw around scary chemical terms, trying to frighten citizens for more and more regulation."

The authors of the report also present what they describe as "evidence that EPA has been under-estimating the public health benefits of controlling metals including arsenic and hexavalent chromium (which can increase the risk of cancer), as well as lead and mercury (which can cause brain damage) released by power plants into rivers, streams, and lakes."

Borelli believes the nation has to "strike the balance" between pollution and low-cost, dependable energy – coal being one of those forms.

"This is nothing more from my view than scaremongering – trying to scare people and just before the summer hits," he tells OneNewsNow. "Again, we have to also keep in mind the cost. A study just came out [saying] the economic cost of households, right now, almost half of American households spend 17 percent of their budget on energy."

Housing was another big expenditure for Americans.

"So, again," Borelli cautions, "we have to get the right balance between protecting the environment, what we all want – [but] we also want cheap and reliable energy."

Comments will be temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we restore this service!

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWS BRIEF

FEATURED PODCAST

VOTE IN OUR POLL

The best description for major corporations coordinating to fight election laws is…

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Fires, damage at Oakland protest against police brutality
Iran names suspect in Natanz attack, says he fled country
Russia detains Ukrainian consul over classified information
Police ID killer in FedEx shooting as 19-year-old man
Biden's Justice Dept. takes steps to target local police
Police left confused over directive from Minnesota mayor

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Indiana Fedex shooting massacre: Names of victims revealed
Opinion — Ariz. AG Mark Brnovich: Supreme Court vs. cancel culture – here's how justices can strike a blow for liberty
Conservative House Republicans to form 'America First' caucus, release Trump-inspired platform
Can we finally start ignoring Fauci?
Understanding how 'critical events' lead to people getting killed by police

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Liberal court wins = 'game on, not game over'

A conservative political pundit says two high-profile decisions from the Supreme Court last week make it imperative that conservatives turn out at the polls in November 2016 to prevent what would essentially be an "Obama third term."