Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were both in occupied Copenhagen in 1941. They met to discuss each other’s work in physics. It has been reported that Bohr told Heisenberg that you can have clarity or you can have accuracy, but you cannot have both. In Science and Technology Studies, we like to upstage the physicists by supplying neither. So here goes, with apologies to Professor Stephen A. Erickson for that last joke.
The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970. The creation of the EPA was in response to the pollution crisis at that time, such as Cuyahoga River, which was so polluted that it caught fire in 1969. Yes, the river caught fire and this was not the first time either. So, two things the EPA has responsible for are clean water and clean air. It would seem that everyone would want clean air and water, but why then are so many Republican lawmakers critics of the EPA? Let’s start with breathing air.
I think most of us can agree that breathing clean air is nice, if not a natural right in terms of a clean natural environment to live and in terms of Locke and Jefferson’s ideas about natural born rights of all citizens for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The EPA is charged with monitoring air quality enforcing the laws passed by Congress. But, let’s look at the case of monitoring air outside of large chemical plants in Louisiana done by Gwen Ottinger. The chemical plants tend to release air born toxins in quick bursts. The concentrations are short lived and are usually noticed by all the people living around the plants. They loose their breath and their eyes start to water. If you were the EPA, that is when you want to test the air, but that is not when the EPA tests the air. The EPA gathers data over a 24 hour period and then averages the data over that time. A very large quick release violating regulations can become perfectly legal averaged over 24 hours. It almost seems that the monitoring methods of the EPA were created by the chemical industry. What about water?
We have to start with Flint Michigan. They were basically lead poisoned by their municipal government. Many studies of drinking water have shown that it is not a question of “if” we are lead poisoned in the USA, but only how much. How is water tested? Research by Yanna Lambrinidou suggests that the EPA does the exact opposite of air monitoring for water monitoring. Air monitoring is done over long aggregate periods, but water monitoring is done in very isolated snap-shots. Snap-shots can completely miss grains of lead that tend to break off in lead pipes. Further, lead pipes do not leach in regular patterns and may not be system wide. Lead can be poisoning one house, while the house next door is relatively safe. Like air monitoring, it almost seems like the monitoring methods of the EPA were created by the water utility industry.
In the examples of both air and water, the monitoring and the enforcement of the federal laws seem very sympathetic to the industries being regulated. This is not to say that the EPA is just a shill for industries. I am sure there are many at the EPA who take their jobs and responsibilities very serious. But at the same time, the fact that two different methods of monitoring (aggregate and shap-shot) just happen to be perfectly aligned to the industry that can benefit the most does bring one to pause and think. Even more of a paradox is why Republican law makers would want to do away with the EPA. With the EPA created by the Republicans, one might think of it as a great opportunity to take credit for clean air and water. I guess in our era of anti-government sentiments, that is not an option.
One might still caution the dismantling of the EPA on grounds other that clean air and water. Following a ‘watered down” regulatory structure should still give industries a legal refuge. In other words, if our water utilities are poisoning us with lead, as long as they are in compliance with EPA rules for safety, there is a civil law push back. But what if the EPA goes away? There are all the scientific studies available that show the harmfulness of lead in the water that utilities must make themselves aware, otherwise they have not performed due diligence and may open themselves up for civil action. If the EPA is still around and a utility is following their guidelines, that is the legal standard and the EPA standard seems to be a pretty low bar. The bottom line is that everyone deserves clean water and clean air. The current incarnation of the EPA provides some protection and that protection is for both citizens and corporations and utilities. Doing away with the EPA may be very short sighted as it could open corporations and utilities to civil risk not present in today’s softball regulatory game. Are the EPA monitoring methods clear or accurate? Oh say can you see if the river is still burning?