The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.
Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.
But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.
Tbh it’s more straight up price gouging with pharmaceuticals because if they tried this shit with medicine people would notice immediately due to the intense testing required, and the public is much less tolerant of scandals in medicine whereas most people probably don’t even care about this. So the most common thing is to sell drugs that work as intended, but at hideously inflated prices. Not to say there aren’t companies that will straight up poison you though, god knows it’s happened plenty of times in the not distant past. Remember thalidomide?
What if a certain oligarchs made sure the press would never step out of line?
https://ntm.ng/2021/12/08/documents-show-bill-gates-has-given-319-million-to-media-outlets-to-promote-his-global-agenda/
Not saying that’s what happened during a certain thing that made headlines over the last few years, but it’s sure suspicious that Bill Gates, WEF and other billionaire foundations invest these huge sums into basically the backbone of Western without an agenda.
How about you find some non-bullshit reason to criticize the dude instead of unscientific nonsense? There’s plenty of factual reasons yet nobody actually wants to use logic
What is the logical reason to drop 300 million USD on a wide range of media companies? Philanthropy? Please, tell me, I’m open to logical suggestions. (Not kidding, no sarcasm.)
Yes? He has to make his nonprofit look legitimate so how better than to invest in otherwise unprofitable industries?
Also he could just believe in the idea. It’s not unheard of.
We seem to have different definitions of “logical”. That’s ok.