LETTERS: SO WHOSE CONFUSED NOW?

To the editor:

My letter Jan. 25 about the EPA evidently struck a nerve. I've always heard that it's the truth that hurts. Joseph Ketcher was displeased with my letter. He suggested that I was a little confused. I am not in the least confused. I have studied the pros and cons of the EPA's activities for many years, and my conclusions have come from careful consideration of the facts and fictions. I only cited a couple of examples. I did not even touch on the fact that the EPA promised that hanging all this pollution garbage on automobiles would eliminate smog and dirty air. It didn't happen. The very fact that the EPA wants to tighten regulations for auto emissions is an admission of this fact. I also didn't mention about the EPA's penchant for declaring puddles of water as wetlands and rendering people's private property worthless.

The point I was trying to make in my letter was that the EPA is spending much more of the taxpayers money on unproven remedies than their results warrant.

Mr. Ketcher concedes that there is no concrete proof Freon contributes to global warming. So why does the EPA continue to pursue this?

He also admitted that I was absolutely correct when I said people and their activities are the cause of pollution. But he went on to say that I suggested that limiting immigration would stop pollution. I did not say that. Here is what I said: "If we didn't have such an influx of new people, we wouldn't have such an increase in pollution." So the readers can make up their own minds as to which one of us is confused.

RAY UMBDENSTOCK

Cape Girardeau