LETTERS: BOND IS MISLEADING ON POLLUTION ARGUMENTS

To the editor:

We should give U.S. Sen. Kit Bond credit where it is due. In defense of pollution and big polluters in his ongoing war against human and environmental health, he is certainly consistent. With unfortunate success over recent weeks, he has adopted positions in favor of unhealthy air for St. Louis and against the protection of Missouri scenic waterways from toxic chemical waste. Of course, the senator is attempting to conceal his unreasonable positions by claiming that they are common sense. No doubt the senator knows that, given a choice between promoting environmental and health protection on one hand and granting benefits to polluters on the other, most voters would opt for health over pollution. To bolster his position, therefore, Bond finds that he is forced to make false claims and attempt outright deception. In promoting dirty air for St. Louis, the senator knowingly and repeatedly has made the false claim that a lawsuit sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for the Environment and the Sierra Club would halt funds for highway projects across the state that are designed to promote safety. It's time to tell it like it is. This is a simple and straightforward lie. We deserve better from a federally elected representative than the promotion of lies to serve the interests of polluters. In his attempt to prevent Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt from setting Missouri off limits to lead mining by a company almost unparalleled in Missouri for its record of violation of state environmental laws, Bond has claimed that more research on the environmental effects of lead is needed. He has even allocated $250,000 to conduct such studies. Given the abundance of research currently available on the subject, it is odd that a fiscal conservative such as Bond should advocate more federal funds for such studies. As a researcher myself, I am generally in favor of the allocation of funds for research. But, it would be more valuable if the senator were to promote research in areas where there is still some doubt rather than promote throwing money at re-inventing the wheel. The urge to more and ever more research on a topic is an ancient political ploy designed merely to delay critical action on crucial issues. Surely, it fools nobody. Curiously, though not surprisingly, the same politicians who demand ever more research evidence seem to be the same ones who then deny the vast wealth of research evidence (on such issues as global warming) when it is available. I hope that some time soon Missouri electors will stop sending to Washington representatives who are as dedicated to promoting pollution and the interests of polluters as seems Bond.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau