Tell the EPA that we need strong science to meet today’s environmental challenges to health—and that requires using all of the best available research available when it makes decisions.
Write your comment in your own words so it will be counted as a unique comment:
- Copy the text below into the EPA template here. (If you include your address, it will appear in the EPA docket.)
- Make your comment unique:
- Rewrite it in your own words.
- Add opening and ending sentences explaining why this matters to you personally.
- Remove all CAPITALIZED text.
- Sign your comment with your name, and if you are willing, city and state. Note that everything you write, including your name and address, will appear on the EPA docket.
Dear Administrator Pruitt,
I am writing to voice my opposition to U.S. EPA’s proposed rule, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.”
INSERT HERE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF WHY THIS ISSUE MATTERS TO YOU.
PUT IN YOUR OWN WORDS ONE OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS BELOW OF HOW SOLID SCIENCE HAS ALLOWED US TO ADDRESS SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH THREATS.
Air pollution. The Clean Air Act, a bedrock environmental law that protects us from dangerous air pollutants, would be endangered under this proposed rule because it relies on a longitudinal epidemiologic study of thousands of individuals. If the proposed rule is approved, we could lose the Clean Air Act’s sweeping improvements to the air we breathe.
Lead in drinking water. EPA rules provide significant protection for children’s developing brains by establishing drinking water limits on lead. The rules are based on studies that correlate childhood blood lead levels with impaired brain function and adverse behavioral effects. Once again, the studies could be barred and the protective actions rolled back.
Harm from fracking. The understanding that fracking harms health relies heavily on studies using medical records. Here’s one example: Researchers examined hospitalization records in Pennsylvania counties where fracking was taking place and correlated them with nearby drilling and fracking activity. They found that people living near dense fracking operations had higher rates of hospitalization for cardiac and neurological issues, cancer, skin conditions, and urological problems. No such increase in health problems was observed in a control county with no drilling and fracking activity. If the EPA were unable to consider this study due to a requirement to release patient information, we would lose valuable new knowledge about fracking’s harms.
CONCLUDE WITH YOUR PERSONAL CALL TO REJECT THIS RULE, WHICH WOULD CRIPPLE OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT HEALTH AND WELL-BEING – THE VERY MISSION OF THE EPA.