by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project:
(Responsible Statecraft) In Dr. Strangelove, the fictitious base commander Jack D. Ripper orders a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union to enact revenge for contaminating American water to “impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” The satirical film poked fun at rampant Cold War conspiracy theories about fluoridating our water supply. But as it turns out, America’s water was being contaminated — not by the Russians, but by the Pentagon.
Not long after American audiences packed into theaters to watch the bleak Cold War comedy, the Department of Defense ramped up its use of a fire suppressant called AFFF, knowingly contaminating the drinking water of millions of Americans.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Now, the Department of Defense is refusing to take accountability.
This week, the Air Force claimed it has no legal obligation to comply with an order from the Environmental Protection Agency in May to abate the threat of “forever chemicals” to the drinking water of Tucson, Arizona. The EPA order required the Air Force to create a system designed to treat high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — synthetic chemicals known as PFAS that are linked to weakened immunity and other health risks — in drinking water, estimated to cost $25 million.
Testing at the Tucson International Airport Area Superfund Site has revealed PFAS levels of up to 5,300 times beyond the drinkable limit, which is “likely to enter into the Tucson public water system,” according to the EPA. These chemicals likely originated from the use of AFFF at airports and military sites, such as nearby Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Morris Air National Guard Base.
The EPA also identified other chemicals that migrated into the groundwater from a weapons manufacturing facility just south of Tucson operated by RTX (formerly known as Raytheon).
The Air Force is hoping to evade the EPA’s directive by citing the Supreme Court’s overturning in June of the Chevron Doctrine, a longstanding legal doctrine that gave deference to regulatory agencies in interpreting gray areas in the law. But, according to critics of the Air Force’s maneuver, the enforcement of rules adopted by these agencies, as opposed to the interpretation of the rules themselves, was not covered by the Court’s decision.
Read More @ TheFreeThoughtProject.com
