EPA blasts Associated Press journalist over report about Houston superfund sites

[RandySF]

The Environmental Protection Agency on Sunday released a lengthy statement condemning a recent Associated Press report that said the regulator was nowhere to be found at dangerous, potentially toxic sites submerged by flooding in Houston.

On Saturday, the AP reported that the EPA was not present at at least five flooded so-called Superfund sites, or locations that the EPA designated as "being among America's most intensely contaminated places." Following flooding in Houston last week, many observers worried that chemicals could've further contaminated the flood water near the Superfund sites.

In a fiery and personal statement on Sunday, the EPA dubbed the story "incredibly misleading," saying it "creates panic and politicizes the hard work of first responders who are actually in the affected area."

"Through aerial imaging, EPA has already conducted initial assessments at 41 Superfund sites – 28 of those sites show no damage, and 13 have experienced flooding," the statement said. "This was left out of the original story, along with the fact that EPA and state agencies worked with responsible parties to secure Superfund sites before the hurricane hit.


http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/EPA-blasts-Associated-Press-journalist-over-12170978.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[sharedvalues]

1. Now GOP is admitting the EPA is valuable

And needs to be in Houston.

This is good news.

Also, where is Scott Pruitt?

[Igel]

2. The EPA is saying the EPA is valuable.

It's always said that, and says that it should be in Houston and pretty much any place else it thinks it needs to be.

I don't see that Pruitt himself wrote the response.

However, I found the article to be misleading. It's hard to check for subsoil contamination when a site's covered by 3 feet of water. The AP reporters didn't get access to most of the sites. They got access to the space 3' above the site.

In many cases, though, "access" isn't just getting your feet on the ground, which is all the reporters needed to do to properly claim access. It's getting there with the equipment in a way that allows sampling. The journalism majors who took "living with viruses" or "human origins" and who haven't had chemistry since they were sophomores in high school might have forgotten this.

All the other quibbles aside, they really didn't bother to fret over one aspect of wordsmithing, making sure their definitions were explicit and consistent. They had a story to tell, and sometimes shaping the story is more important than explaining the background.