I think it's premature for the EPA to make that judgment. It begs the question of why transport a substance across miles and miles for disposal when a process for treating it on-site would be preferable.

They're going town to town, doing a public relations effort to get support. They haven't received that public support, yet they continue to spend taxpayers dollars to support their effort.

The toxic cocktail of pesticides in our drinking water can't be addressed by the chemical by chemical regulatory approach of government. Citizens can take action at the local level to reduce or eliminate pesticides in their own back yard, in their local parks and schools.

The plant's once-through cooling is continually killing fish. Mitigation can be used to make up for the past, but it can't be used as a bank for future losses.

Nine-tenths of the environmental groups never supported mitigation in place of best available technology at Salem.

Woe betide him, and her too, when it comes to things of consequence, when they are placed in circumstances requiring fortitude and strength of mind, if she have not resolution enough to resist idle interference ... It is the worst evil of too yielding and indecisive a character, that no influence over it can be depended on. You are never sure of a good impression being durable; everybody may sway it. Let those who would be happy be firm.