I then found this posting over at TownHall. So as both the air and lawn mowers becomes continually cleaner, the EPA employs “junk science” to make lawn mowers potentially more hazardous and more expensive.
Else where in the article EPA studies have repeatedly flunked outside reviews by panels established by the agency itself, but no outside panel is set to evaluate this one.
I happened over to the SEA blog this morning and was looking at discussion about science which was alleged to be ignored. The SEA is upset that a decision was not made their way. They are upset that a decision maker, actually made a decision rather than take a poll.
To excerpt from the article talking about discussion nine years ago, it was said Frank O’Donnell, then-executive director of the Clean Air Trust, called talk of regulating lawn mowers “crazed propaganda.
Today, however, EPA openly seeks implementation of pollution standards for lawn mowers that would supposedly cut smog-causing emissions by 35 percent. As for O’Donnell, he’s now president of Clean Air Watch where he’s working hard to implement that “crazed propaganda.”
Another quote from the article There are also safety concerns. The EPA proposal would almost certainly require installation of catalytic converters. Yet the heat put off by catalytic converters is such that the EPA itself recommends against parking cars in tall grass because of the chance of fire. But using such a device on a machine that is in constant contact with grass is okay?
This is clearly a case of junk science. The trade if against some at best small amount of harm from lawnmower exhaust with the real risk of a great increase in lawnmower fires. Tell the nine or ten year old in the burn unit that this was “good science.”
I am going to trackback this to the SEA website and see if reasoned discussion occurs there or here.
