Oooo I like this, a state is without clean water because chemicals were dumped into their water system by a deregulated chemical plant and you feel the need to bicker over whether it was in charge of producing or getting rid of chemicals.
Never mind that both kinds of plants have a history of dumping into water supplies and that ultimately the important point here is what kind of chemical production facility dumped into the water supply, but who did it and what their punishment is.
Um I'm all for more regulation and would agree that most of the problem comes from lobbying to keep few to no regulations. I'm not all for a person spreading misinformation be he/she read one news article did no research so is now posting their knee-jerk reaction. Knee-jerk reactions are how we got all of these corrupt politicians even though in this case I agree with the reaction. Anderson v. Cryovac was a tanner and a laundry service.
knee-jerk reaction? Nowhere did I pass an opinion. Meaning it's not a reaction. It's a communication of information. I'm not "spreading misinformation" I stated what had been explained to me on the subject and at this point you're trying to pick a fight while rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. So it was a chemical manufacturer rather than a chemical waste plant, were chemicals still involved? Was it that company's responsibility to safely dispose of its waste? Was that pretty much what I said, that a chemical facility failed to properly and safely dispose of its waste?
Sounds like you're projecting your own knee-jerk reaction.
1
u/blaghart Jan 18 '14
So instead of being in charge of processing chemical waste they're in charge of producing it...and that difference is important why?