So you read an article that clearly was one-sided on its face, didn't put forth any effort to see if there was an opposing view, and then called me "pathological" for not doing the exact same thing you did.
Maybe you should apply to AP. You'd apparently fit right in.
Here's an idea -- when you read something like that and know you don't have time to do any fact-checking or additional research, maybe....withhold judgment? Or at least not be so sanctimonious with your admittedly ill-informed opinion.
You'll notice that I didn't defend the EPA's decision. I didn't defend what Pruitt did because I knew I didn't have enough information to have an informed opinion.
I then did a bit of digging. Still don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way, but there are certainly two sides to this argument. If you want to see a decent article on it try this one -- it at least presents statements from people on both sides, which should be a prerequisite for any article that should be considered worthwhile. The writer actually attempted to be
fair. And its from CNN, so we know at least one person there understands that presenting both sides, even with bias, is a prerequisite if you want to convince
thinking people.
EPA won't ban pesticide chlorpyrifos; is it safe?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/health/epa-chlorpyrifos-decision/index.html
Nobody claims that this stuff is completely safe -- almost no pesticides are. The question is whether there are concentrations and uses that minimize the risk and give benefits that increase food production, etc..
This stuff was actually banned from residential use more than a decade and a half ago. That's an important fact, and here is one thing in this article that jumped out at me when discussing the proposal for a complete ban:
This proposal relied primarily on four studies from Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health that examined associations with chlorpyrifos and neurodevelopment. The Columbia researchers looked at chlorpyrifos concentrations in umbilical cord blood of babies over a roughly 10-year period -- five years before the residential ban and five years after.
In the first half of the study, researchers could measure concentrations in picograms in some children, though not all. (One picogram equals one trillionth of a gram.) After the residential ban took effect, no measure amount was found in any of the children.
The entire article is pretty well-balanced, and includes this bit from another official in January - prior to Trump ever taking office:
In a public document issued January 17, Sheryl H. Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Policy at the USDA, expressed "grave concerns about the EPA process that has led to the Agency publishing three wildly different human health risk assessments for chlorpyrifos within two years."
Kunickis also said she had "severe doubts about the validity of the scientific conclusions underpinning EPA's latest chlorpyrifos risk assessment."
Compared to this CNN article, the AP article was compete garbage, and not just because it made up a private meeting that never happened.
