EPA denies petition on Chlorpyrifos Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   4/24/2017 10:04 AM

   While I'm certainly happy for the outcome, and, one of the things I didn't agree with the Obama administration 100% was how the EPA was being run. I had to chuckle at the comments made by the new EPA Administrator in their press release (which I agree with):
   
   "We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farmers that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated in the announcement. "By reversing the previous administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making."
   
   I didn't think he believed in Science.
   
   Gee it has been awful quite in this forum, I'm a little surprised. What with all that has happened (without a lot happening) in the past 95 days.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   4/24/2017 2:04 PM

   Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: While I'm certainly happy for the outcome, and, one of the things I didn't agree with the Obama administration 100% was how the EPA was being run. I had to chuckle at the comments made by the new EPA Administrator in their press release (which I agree with):
   
   "We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farmers that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated in the announcement. "By reversing the previous administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making."
   
   I didn't think he believed in Science.
   
   
   
   

3. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   4/24/2017 3:04 PM

   The first 100 days is less than 7% of a 4-year term. I don't think it means much. It shouldn't, anyway.

   
   
   
   
4. Larry Allan

   

   0 posts
   
   4/24/2017 5:04 PM

   Peter Bowman, CGCS said: The first 100 days is less than 7% of a 4-year term. I don't think it means much. It shouldn't, anyway.

   
   Thats almost 10% Petey, It should represent more than zero

   
   
   
   
5. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   4/24/2017 5:04 PM

   Are you using Canadian math or US math? In the United States 100 days/1460 days = 6.8%. I'm good with that.

   
   
   
   
6. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   4/25/2017 7:04 AM

   Peter Bowman, CGCS said: The first 100 days is less than 7% of a 4-year term. I don't think it means much. It shouldn't, anyway.

   
   
   Agreed, it's an arbitrary number, but Trump made a big deal of how he would pass so much legislation in the first 100 days. He callled it "a contract with the American voter".
   
   He is now in breech of contract, but it doesn't matter. The people who voted for him still love him and the rest of us still hate him, so it doesn't change anything.

   
   
   
   
7. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   4/25/2017 3:04 PM

   Here's some chum...
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1e68f5bc-194f-3bde-ad2e-c2e4e507187c/ss_a-new-report-reveals-obama.html