[FormerLurker]

Obviously, the EPA has not achieved one darn thing over the years and should be abolished.

Are you saying that they haven't cleaned up any toxic waste dumps?

[Hunble]

I am asking you kind Freeper. What has the EPA achieved?

Is the environment better today, than it was in 1970? If so, in what ways?

[Hunble]

I know that I have asked you a very difficult question and an honest reply can not be simple.

Two choices:

1) If the EPA and other government programs have done a good job improving the environment, then they should be applauded.

2) If the environment is actually getting worse, then these government programs have been failures and should be abolished.

You can not have it both ways!

[Robert A Cook PE]

TRUE:

THE VAUNTED "CLEANUP FUNDS" HAVE BEEN SPENT: 95% ON LAWYERS.

But only 5% on engineering, waste removal, and de-tox applications.

by the way, they are spending MOST of that money on re-cleaning dirt (some of which IS contaminated - there ARE enviro problems that must be resolved! - which go so far past reality that you you could have a kid (literally) EAT the dirt of the site for years and not have any toxic effect.

The result GENREATES FAR MORE VOLUME OF WATE than was orignally planned that even MORE money is spent dumping (and cleaning) the "new" waste.

Which is ALSO a waste of money.

They should clean up the sites to a "rational" level that doesn't present run-off and local harm, and should restrict the "any part" lawsuit responsibility so the waste can be processed.

The rest is overkill, enriching the EPA, and its lawyers, and the enviro's - and their lawyers. Neither group wants to see the lawsuites end.