Why a Republican president is fighting to protect Americans from a toxic chemical crisis
It’s a classic story about a President who thinks it’s his job to make sure people have enough food to eat, but then he does it by threatening a dangerous chemical spill.
The American conservative media is buzzing over a recent New York Times article, which is headlined “President Trump Is Trying to Make a Clean Water Rule for the US.”
And it’s a story that is almost universally accepted by the media.
But the article does not explain why, as the NYT notes, Trump is proposing a rule that would require people to boil their water and dump it in lakes and rivers and streams that feed into the streams and lakes.
Instead, Trump proposed a rule to use more “diluted” water to prevent spills from leaking into drinking water supplies and waterways.
“The Trump administration’s effort to make drinking water safer with dilute water is based on the theory that it would prevent the release of chemicals into the environment, which could cause health problems, especially in areas with high levels of lead,” The Times writes.
“But that theory, while it has been widely used to help states protect drinking water, has no scientific basis and could have serious environmental consequences.”
That’s why the Trump administration is using a study by a former Obama administration official to claim that the Trump water plan would reduce lead contamination in drinking water by 25 percent.
But according to the Times, the Obama administration study was never made public, and the Trump study has not been released either.
The article points out that while the administration’s proposed rule would make the United States a leader in clean water, it would also mean that “there would be a higher risk of spills from dilution of drinking water sources, and a reduction in public confidence in the safety of the drinking water system.”
But the Trump plan doesn’t address that risk at all, and so it’s safe to say that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that Trump is trying to make water safer by diluting it.
What’s more, the Trump-administration water plan does not address the risks that can arise if water is contaminated with potentially dangerous chemicals, and even if there are risks.
For example, according to a recent report from the Environmental Protection Agency, “In some cases, drinking water systems may have no way to monitor and control the potential for exposure of drinking and household products to contaminants that are released by municipal wastewater treatment plants or wastewater treatment facilities.
These facilities are not designed to detect and remove contaminants that might be released by these facilities.”
A recent EPA study found that while drinking water in several states is being treated with water containing chemicals, there is “no way to tell which contaminants are contained in that water, how they were detected, or how safe the water is for human consumption.”
And even if the Trump Administration were to release its own study on the matter, there are other issues that should also be addressed.
In a 2012 article published in the journal Science, researchers from Harvard University, the University of Washington, and other universities found that there was “little evidence that drinking water contaminants are significantly more toxic than non-contaminant contaminants” in drinking and residential water.
So the fact that the Obama Administration is proposing to make the water safe with dilution doesn’t even come close to addressing the risks posed by the Trump proposal.
And the fact is, it’s not clear that any of the Trump proposals would even address the problems that have been identified with the Obama water plan.
And that’s what makes the Trump approach so dangerous.
The Trump plan is about making sure that the US can continue to be a leader among the world in clean drinking water.
But it’s about more than just that.
It’s also about making it harder for the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to keep their lead and lead-contaminated water supplies clean.
And it has a serious impact on our economy and national security.
It would force our trading partners to comply with the Trump order in order to continue to buy American manufactured products, and that could have a significant impact on the economies of the United Nations, the European Union, and all of the nations that depend on American imports.
It could also lead to higher costs for goods made in the United Sates and other countries.
It may also hurt the ability of our trading partner countries to raise prices to protect their exports, and lead to more money being spent on protectionist policies.
And in the end, it may not only have a negative impact on foreign nations, but on Americans.
It makes sense for Trump to make it harder to make American goods safe for our own consumption, but it makes more sense for him to make that easier for other countries to make.
In short, it is a recipe for disaster.