"When justifying a job-killing regulation, EPA argues exposure to particulate matter is deadly, but when they are conducting experiments, they say human exposure studies are not harmful," said Vitter. "This is a prime example of how EPA handpicks what scientific information and uncertainties they use to support their overreaching agenda. Discounting the risk involved to human study subjects violates proper scientific protocols and fundamental ethics."
In February 2013, Vitter, along with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), sent a letter to EPA questioning the science, as well as the same experiments reviewed by the OIG that were behind the EPA's proposal to tighten the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), yet when the scientific justification remains hidden. Frustration continues to grow with EPA justifying rules based on scientific data assuming significant harm to humans, while at the same time discounting these claimed harms when considering the effect of exposure from PM2.5 during human testing trials.
EPW Republicans recently released a report showing that the original PM2.5 rulemaking was led by former EPA employee and convicted felon John Beale in coordination with EPA colleagues Robert Brenner and Lydia Wegman. Beale's notoriety came from claiming to be a CIA agent for years while stealing nearly $900,000 from American taxpayers. Wegman was directly involved in withholding underlying scientific data from Congress and the public.