Amazingly the reporter highlighted a letter from the Pavement Coatings Technology Council and said it was among the "notable." What was the criterion that reporter used to determine "notable?"
"Notable" implies someone has looked at the evidence and found something of note. Did the reporter do this? I doubt it. If they had, then here's what they would have found:
- no industry studies done in the last 20 years showing the safety of their product. They complain that they need more info from the USGS in order to replicate their work. But anyone with high school chemistry knowledge could test and report the chemical levels and mutagenicity of the coal tar sealers. Has this been done? No.
- perhaps the reporter would have found my recent article which cites how these coal tar products fail to meet basic consumer protection standards in the areas of health, environment, economy, social justice, and transparency.
- research has been done by a wide variety of local, university, state, and federal agencies, not just the vilified USGS (see below hyperlinked document). Environmental damage has been found by coal tar sealers even at the DNA level. Just click on any agency below to go to their research.
- this is the wild west of the chemical industry where manufacturers put whatever in their products and call it green, natural or environmentally superior.
- this product family represents one of the prolific and potent sources of known human carcinogens brought to American's homes. It brings 3 pounds of carcinogens to American homes every couple of years.
I will say that if this complaint truly among the notable in our nation, then we have achieved a very fair system of regulations.
Let's hope that the Washington Post will take this opportunity to dig a little deeper into the industries they highlight.
Yes, the use of this toxic product throughout our nation is notable. Asking for regulatory relief from sound science is not notable, but laughable.