Eco-Nuts Don't Like Safe Drinking Water

Chemical Plant Safety Important . . . So Are the Chemicals

Yet another great Junk Science article by Steven Milloy on Foxnes.com.

FOXNews.com

In sum, Inhofe wants to ensure chemical facilities are secure while Corzine and the eco-scoundrels want to make sure there are no more chemicals at chemical facilities — a regressive goal that would harm public health, reduce the quality of our lives and wreak economic havoc.
What should be debunked first, however, are the EPA's disaster scenarios. They aren't "worst-case" — they're pure fantasy.

In developing the scenarios, the EPA made a number of unrealistic assumptions. The agency, for example, pretended wind would blow in a 360 degree-radius from the site of a chemical release — that is, in all directions at the same time.

The EPA also pretended that the topography of heavily populated areas is flat — no buildings, trees, mountains or other barriers to drifting chemicals — and that chemical facilities have no capabilities for preventing or mitigating releases.

None of these assumptions are true, much less their confluence. The EPA's worst-case scenarios are worthless as policy-making tools.

--30--