The real problem here is regulations interfering with business.Businesses
would never do anything dangerous or underhanded to increase their bottom
line.Mike you remind me of Battle Mnt. NV who's city council
decided, when it was found that they had toxic amounts of arsenic and lead in
the city water supply, voted to not have the water supply tested again, thereby
curing the problem.Do you really believe that some arbitrary
regulations were just thrown out there, without any science to, (oh wait, I
caught myself) I mean pseudo-science to back it up, just to expand government
and force these otherwise good people to cheat and lie because these regulations
aren't really about safety?For someone who extols the virtues
of not drinking or smoking you always seem to side with polluters and toxic
criminals as long as they are in the business of making money, odd.
My Daughter moved into that area 4 yrs ago and her and her family have been
having strange illness ever since. I think something evil is going on, if they
are trying to cover up test etc...
How much over the limit? What harm was done by being over the limit? Should
people have been taken to the hospital? Should they have been warned to stay
indoors? The $39,000 fine will surely be passed along to the hospitals and
doctors who use that service to dispose of their waste. Were the actual
contaminants worse that the smoke from a typical family barbeque or from a
campfire? Would it have been better to close the place down rather than to fine
it?I'm certainly not excusing falsifying records, but I
sometimes wonder whether "problems" are found to justify jobs in
government. Somehow, most of us live entire lives in the "hazardous"
confines of our own homes, eating food prepared in grossly inadequate kitchens
(according to health department standards) and yet we never have any ill
effects. When regulations are used to punish more than they are
used to protect, maybe the "system" needs as much investigation as those
in investigate those "problems".