I believe EPA did not do that because they knew it would come up not safe and so they are involved in providing knowingly false information to the public about safety.

You're talking about a potential commitment almost to the level of the financial commitment we're putting into Iraq in terms of resources for evacuation, helping people rebuild, and remediation (of environment). This is a substantial hit that will hit both the taxpayers and the insurance companies.

Official U.S. government policy in the Clinton administration is to grow food chain crops --the food supply of America -- on poison. And not to tell the public.

The reason for the the absence of the government agencies, I believe, is because they are participating on a cover-up.

The danger is actually worse when the water goes away, because you have hazardous materials more concentrated in muck and dust. People will more readily come back, and will try to clean their homes or porches. And they'll have toxic dust they'll be sweeping around. And they'll inhale it and ingest it.

I think you just assume that your memory is just sort of a video playback of your experience, but it's nothing like that at all. It's a complete refabrication of an event and a lot of it is made up, because you're filling in spaces.