(NaturalNews) Big business and politics often collude to achieve grand economic goals that "benefit the majority." People in positions of power are quick to believe that they know what's best for the collective. Lawmaking is easily persuaded by big money; both power players have an agenda and a ladder to climb. Corporations, big oil and other economic power players often manipulate legislators by pulling their puppet strings.
These politicians find out that their way to the top many times comes through corporate bribes and sponsorship. In honesty, politicians should be required to wear a jacket like race car drivers wear, listing all their sponsors in plain view.
Big industry convinces Washington Governor Inslee to allow 1,000 percent increase in cancer risk from fish consumption
The Washington State governor has proposed a measure that is deceptive about carcinogen levels in fish, permitting greater levels of pollution while keeping big industry's economy from taking a hit.
The proposal would raise the fish consumption rate guidelines, exposing people to higher levels of carcinogens. These measures have been put in place to warn people about possible water pollutants that are passed from fish into people, but they are about to be corrupted to preserve the interests of big business.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee has advanced the proposal which is angering Indian tribes and environmentally conscious individuals. The bill would allow an increase in allowable cancer risk from fish consumption, defining it as law. This would allow water pollution levels to skyrocket, while advancing industry and the state's economic good standing.
Basically, over time, the new law would give out information endorsing greater contaminated fish consumption, ultimately misleading the general population, silently poisoning the people over time through water-borne pollutants.
If Inslee cannot convince the Washington legislature to pass the proposal, then he is set to work out several alternative regulatory breaks for big industry which would allow for greater levels of pollution to freely flow into the environment, air and waterways. Sewage treatment plants and factories that give off emissions may be given up to 20 years to comply to toxic waste limits, giving them a smooth, economically sound transition. During the 20-year time frame, though, higher levels of pollutants could flow into the environment unrestricted, further destroying people's health. The damages may be felt for multiple decades.
Is Inslee's decision just or deceptive?
As InvestigateWest reported, a Boeing Co. executive met with former Washington governor Christine Gregoire to convince him against regulations on emissions. Under pressure, Gregoire stopped the State's Ecology Department from putting in pollution rules that would have protected the people from high levels of carcinogens in fish. Now, the new Governor Inslee is set to continue where Gregoire left off, pressured by big business.
"The governor came into this issue, inherited it, hearing both that this is going to kill business and hearing this is necessary to protect Washington citizens who are heavy fish consumers," said Ted Sturdevant, who is now Inslee's chief adviser on the issue.
"He's been looking for a path that does both--that protects people who eat a lot of fish and that doesn't kill the economy."
After organizing a panel of advisers in February, including business and tribal officials, Inslee is supposedly trying to do what's best for everyone. His decision is to be handed down to the state's Ecology Department as the EPA pressures the state to clean up its system for regulating water pollution.
IsInslee's solution beneficial and just or dangerous and deceptive -- allowing a 1,000 percent increase in allowable cancer risk from fish consumption?
Should so many people's livelihoods hinge on the decision of a few men in power?