Sunday, December 14, 2025
Under Former Chemical Industry Insiders, Trump EPA Nearly Doubles Amount of Formaldehyde Considered Safe to Inhale
Your lungs are the cost of corruption
Industry lobbyists have long pushed the federal government to adopt a less stringent approach to gauging the cancer risk from chemicals, one that would help ease regulations on companies that make or use them.
Last week, in a highly unusual move, the Environmental Protection Agency embraced that approach in announcing that it is revising an assessment of the health dangers posed by formaldehyde, a widespread pollutant that causes far more cancer than any other chemical in the air. Working on that effort were two of those former industry insiders, who are now top EPA officials.
The proposed revisions to the assessment, released Wednesday, nearly double the amount of formaldehyde considered safe to inhale compared with the version that was finalized in the last weeks of the Biden administration. Even that older assessment significantly underestimated the dangers posed by formaldehyde, a ProPublica investigation published last year found.
Under previous Republican and Democratic administrations, EPA scientists were instructed to assume that chemicals that cause cancer by damaging DNA — the largest group of carcinogens, which includes formaldehyde — pose a “linear” risk, meaning that even small exposures can be dangerous. The agency adopted the approach almost 40 years ago to protect against the multitude of low-level cancer threats the public faces daily. But the industry’s favored method assumes that certain carcinogens pose no risk at lower levels and that the danger should only be considered once exposure reaches a certain threshold.
The Trump administration has already criticized the use of the linear model for calculating the risk of cancer from radiation and could scrap its use in examining other chemicals.
The EPA’s adoption of this threshold model for formaldehyde might come as little surprise given that some of the scientists who have promoted the approach on behalf of companies are now running the agency.
While Scientists Race To Study Spread of Measles in US, Kennedy Unravels Hard-Won Gains
Trump and Bobby Jr. end US's measle-free status
More children would be hospitalized because of this preventable disease. Some would lose their hearing. Some would die. Measles is also expensive. A new study — not yet published in a scientific journal — estimates that the public health response to outbreaks with only a couple of cases costs about $244,000. When a patient requires hospital care, costs average $58,600 per case. The study’s estimates suggest that an outbreak the size of the one in West Texas earlier this year, with 762 cases and 99 hospitalizations, costs about $12.6 million.
America’s status hinges on whether the country’s main outbreaks this year stemmed from the big one in West Texas that officially began Jan. 20. If these outbreaks are linked, and go on through Jan. 20 of next year, the U.S. will no longer be among nations that have banished the disease.
Even Fox News gets it
“A lot of people worked very hard for a very long time to achieve elimination — years of figuring out how to make vaccines available, get good vaccine coverage, and have a rapid response to outbreaks to limit their spread,” said Paul Rota, a microbiologist who recently retired from a nearly 40-year career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Instead of acting fast to prevent a measles comeback, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a lawyer who founded an anti-vaccine organization before taking the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, has undermined the ability of public health officials to prevent and contain outbreaks by eroding trust in vaccines. The measles vaccine is safe and effective: Only 4% of nearly 1,800 confirmed U.S. cases of measles this year have been in people who had received two doses.
Kennedy has fired experts on the vaccine advisory committee to the CDC and has said, without evidence, that vaccines may cause autism, brain swelling, and death. On Nov. 19, scientific information on a CDC webpage about vaccines and autism was replaced with false claims. Kennedy told The New York Times that he ordered the change.
“Do we want to go back into a pre-vaccine era where 500 kids die of measles each year?” asked Demetre Daskalakis, a former director of the CDC’s national immunization center, who resigned in protest of Kennedy’s actions in August. He and other scientists said the Trump administration appears to be occupied more with downplaying the resurgence of measles than with curbing the disease.
Nine Rhode Island State Senators want to decide where and how you may protest
“Public expression and demonstration are fundamental rights, but…”
“Street take-overs and protesters blocking roadways are both
extremely dangerous for our communities and have no place in our state,” said
Senator Leonidas Raptakis (Democrat, District 33, Coventry,
West Greenwich). “Whether it’s protesters keeping people from getting to work
or going to the hospital for an emergency, and other duties of first
responders, or these outrageous street takeovers that block the use of and
vandalize our roadways, these troubling behaviors need to have consequences for
those who disregard others’ safety and time. Public safety needs to be
protected and upheld.”
RI DINOs need to reacquaint themselves with the Constitution
Because nothing can be better than politicians legislating
punishments for protests they dislike, Senators Raptakis and Patalano will
introduce two bills in January to keep roadways clear and safe for motorists
and pedestrians. They highlight the need for legislation due to protesters
blocking highways and the recent phenomenon of “street takeovers.”
Senators David Tikoian, Peter Appollonio Jr., Brian
Thompson, Andrew Dimitri, Robert Britto, John
Burke, and Stefano Famiglietti will cosponsor the
legislative package.
“As both a State Senator and a Major with the Cranston Police Department, I have seen firsthand the catastrophic consequences that occur when our roadways are turned into staging grounds for reckless stunts or obstructed by individuals who believe they can shut down highways without regard for the safety of others,” said Senator Todd Patalano (Democrat, District 26, Cranston). “We have already witnessed incidents across the country where blocked roadways delayed emergency medical care with tragic outcomes. Rhode Island cannot afford to wait until a family in our state suffers that same loss. Passing these bills is not about politics; it is about protecting the innocent and preventing the avoidable.”
“The ACLU will vigorously oppose this proposed legislation
because it is unnecessary and unconstitutionally overbroad,” commented Steven
Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “It is
unnecessary because Rhode Island laws already impose criminal penalties for
obstructing a roadway, and there is no need for another law that is clearly
designed simply to be more punitive. It is overly broad because it could
criminalize a wide variety of innocuous activities and conduct protected by the
First Amendment, including that of panhandlers or activists standing on a
highway median to direct attention to a cause.
Saturday, December 13, 2025
CRMC must enforce its own rulings
From a Save The Bay press release:
Today marks two years since the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)
issued a cease and desist order requiring Quidnessett Country Club to
remove the illegal rock wall they erected without permission
on Narragansett Bay. Since the issuance of that order, CRMC’s
politically-appointed Council has allowed Quidnessett to retain the unlawful
wall, allowing numerous extensions, at the cost of Rhode Islanders’ access to
the natural shoreline and local habitats like the beach and salt marsh near the
shores of the country club.
“CRMC’s Council is complicit in maintaining this illegal
rock wall on the shores of Narragansett Bay,” said Jed Thorp,
Director of Advocacy for Save The Bay. “First, the Council entertained a
water-type change that would have allowed the Club to keep a massive structure
built on the coast without any permits. Then, when that avenue failed, the
Council gave the Club multiple extensions to deliver restoration plans that
would properly restore the ecosystem to its previous state. Now, a recent
appeal filed by Quidnessett in Superior Court will, in effect, grant the Club
more time to keep the unpermitted and illegal rock wall. The wall has stood for
over two years, constructed by the Club in violation of state and federal law,
and to date, with no consequences. It’s time for the Council to stop protecting
this private golf course and treat it like any other willful violator of the
law–order the Club to rectify the violation, remove the wall, and fully restore
the shoreline.”
Save The Bay staff recently visited the illegally erected
rock wall site on Narragansett Bay. While there, staff observed local wildlife
such as horseshoe crabs and birds that depend on the local habitat for
survival, a habitat that has been partially buried under a 20-foot-tall pile of
rocks on the shoreline. CRMC’s staff stated in its evaluation of the violation
that the massive stone structure could also affect the nesting of the eastern diamondback
terrapin, an endangered species. Additionally, the wall deflects wave
energy along the wall to neighboring properties–in this case, the salt marsh
and sandy beaches–which will increase erosion in those habitats.
Save The Bay continues to advocate for comprehensive CRMC
reform, including removing the Council, leaving coastal decision-making to
CRMC’s expert staff, and putting a full-time staff attorney in place to ensure
that law and science, not politics, guide regulatory decisions.
“We need a coastal agency that will defend our local
habitats and natural resources, not violators of the law,” Thorp said. “By
maintaining this illegal wall in place, the Council is sending the wrong
message to coastal developers that you can build without permits or impunity.”
SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid
subscriber.
Whoa! More than half of new articles on the internet are being written by AI
Is human writing headed for extinction?
Francesco Agnellini, Binghamton University, State University of New York
The line between human and machine authorship is blurring, particularly as it’s become increasingly difficult to tell whether something was written by a person or AI.
EDITOR'S NOTE: I do not write using AI, although it's hard to do a Google search without having their AI tool kick in. I also do not post articles that I know to be AI-generated. I do occasionally use AI images and have reposted some of Donald Trump's bizarre AI videos. - Will Collette
Now, in what may seem like a tipping point, the digital marketing firm Graphite recently published a study showing that more than 50% of articles on the web are being generated by artificial intelligence.
As a scholar who explores how AI is built, how people are using it in their everyday lives, and how it’s affecting culture, I’ve thought a lot about what this technology can do and where it falls short.
If you’re more likely to read something written by AI than by a human on the internet, is it only a matter of time before human writing becomes obsolete? Or is this simply another technological development that humans will adapt to?
Everyday Plastics Could Be Fueling Obesity, Infertility, and Asthma
Rising Concerns About Plastic Exposure in Early Life
By NYU Langone Health / NYU Grossman School of
Medicine
.webp)
This conclusion comes from an extensive review of hundreds
of recent studies published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent
Health.
Evidence Linking Plastic Chemicals to Disease
In the new analysis, researchers summarize decades of work
showing that additives commonly incorporated into industrial and household
plastics may raise the likelihood of disease and disability, especially when
exposure occurs early in life. The review highlights three major groups of
chemicals — phthalates, which increase flexibility, bisphenols, which give
plastics their rigidity, and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which make
products heat resistant and water repellent.
Together, the evaluated studies followed thousands of
pregnant people, fetuses, and children. The findings connect these chemicals to
long-term health problems that include heart disease, obesity, infertility, and
asthma.
“Our findings point to plastic’s role in the early origins
of many chronic diseases that reverberate into adolescence and adulthood,” said
study lead author and pediatrician Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP. “If we want kids
to stay healthy and live longer, then we need to get serious about limiting the
use of these materials,” added Trasande, the Jim G. Hendrick, MD, Professor of
Pediatrics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Common Cause and ACLU challenge Trump administration lawsuit for R.I.’s voter data
Protect your private voter information from Trump invasion
By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current
The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the state’s Common Cause chapter jointly filed a motion Tuesday to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Rhode Island federal court on Dec. 2, citing a need to halt a “potential misuse of voters’ sensitive data.”
“Privacy is essential — especially as related to a right as fundamental as voting,” Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said in a statement. “The Department of Justice has no need for voters’ personal information.”
Since May, the DOJ has reached out to at least 40 states seeking voter lists, including personal information typically protected under state and federal laws, like Social Security and driver’s license numbers.
Amore was formally asked by the DOJ to turn over Rhode Island’s full list on Sept. 8, but he refused to comply. Instead, Amore offered to provide a free copy of the statewide voter list already publicly available — typically provided upon request with a $25 fee.
The Trump administration argues the government is entitled to personal voter data under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, the 2002 Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
In suing Amore, the DOJ states it aims to “ascertain Rhode Island’s compliance with list maintenance requirements,” according to the 10-page complaint.
But the ACLU and Common Cause argue in their filing that the federal government does not have a proper purpose under the law for requesting the personal data of Rhode Island’s electorate.
Friday, December 12, 2025
MAGA's Epstein gaslighting is unsustainable
To believe anything Trump's MAGA defenders say requires a complete suspension of common sense.
 |
| Home of the Brave paid for this billboard in Times Square earlier this month. (Adam Gray/Getty) |
After months of pushing conflicting and nonsensical talking points about the release of the Epstein files, Donald Trump is running out of time on his administration’s failing coverup of his longtime friendship with one of the world’s most notorious sex traffickers.
Trump, the White House, and congressional Republicans have
spent nearly the entire first year of the president’s second term pushing an
ever-expanding number of contradictory narratives about not just what’s in the
files, but why Democrats and even staunch conservatives like Rep. Thomas Massie
have been demanding their release.
The White House and congressional Republicans have argued
that if the Epstein files contain highly damaging information about Trump,
former president Joe Biden would have released them while he was in office.
Simultaneously, Republicans are arguing that Democrats are behind the push to
release the Epstein files because they will be bad for Trump.
“If they had anything, they would’ve used it before the
election,” Trump told reporters on November 14, before suggesting Democrats
doctored the files. “I can’t tell you what they have put in since the
election.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are “trying to manufacture some sort of
hoax that the president had something to do with Epstein,” House Speaker Mike
Johnson claimed the same day.
The Epstein files are all a “hoax,” Trump has said — a lie
made up by Democrats to make him look bad. Yet somehow, at the same time,
there’s nothing in the files that could make him look bad —
because if there was, Biden would have released them.
So which is it? The White House and congressional
Republicans can’t say. That’s because it’s difficult to cover up Trump’s ties
to Epstein when they are so widely known and obviously incriminating.
“To simply take things that are emails and accusations that
people make is not a legitimate way for us to approach this,” Sessions said
following the release of emails by House Democrats showing even more ties
between Trump and Epstein. To hear Sessions tell it, Trump is simply following
the lead of Obama and Biden, who he suggested “concluded” the files should be
released in a “different way.”
"Now, they did not ever really approach it,” Sessions
said of Trump’s predecessors, “and we’re trying to do that now.”
While Republicans have argued that Democrats want the files
released to hurt Trump — and that if there was damaging
information therein Biden would have already released them — they’ve also said
the 50,000 pages of documents and emails that have already been released by
congressional committees exonerate Trump.
None of this has worked, forcing Republicans in Congress to
pass a bill ordering the release of at least some of the Justice Department’s
materials on Epstein, which Trump has signed into law.
Now, Republicans are adjusting tactics slightly, saying that
even if Trump is in the files, it’s not evidence of any wrongdoing.
“I need to see evidence at trial and people being
convicted,” Rep. Warren Davidson said on November 21. “I don’t really need more
rage bait in terms of public documents, I want to know when are the
prosecutions underway.”
These confusing and completely contradictory arguments —
Biden didn’t release the files so there’s nothing bad about Trump in them, but
also Democrats want them released so they can score points against Trump, and
simultaneously the files will exonerate the president — are all part of an
attempted coverup of what has been obvious for a long time: Trump has deep ties
to Epstein and at the very least is mentioned in materials collected as part of
the DOJ’s investigation.
The DOJ now has 30 days to begin releasing records related
to its investigation of Epstein. Almost surely, Attorney General Pam Bondi and
FBI Director Kash Patel will continue to run cover for Trump on the materials
they’re now bound by law to release — as they have already done for months now.
In fact, Bondi is already claiming that an investigation into prominent
Democrats in Epstein’s orbit — an investigation Trump himself publicly demanded
— prevents her from discussing anything Epstein related.
Endless contradictions
The lies and conflicting narratives about the Epstein files
began almost from the moment of Trump’s second inauguration. After riling up
his supporters for years about Epstein — stoking the MAGA base on the campaign
trail and subsequently choosing two of the biggest Epstein conspiracists, Kash
Patel and Dan Bongino, to lead the FBI — Trump’s line suddenly changed once he
returned to the White House.
Trump's hand-made birthday greeting
for Jeffrey Epstein
A month into the second Trump administration, Bondi told Fox
News that the list of Epstein’s clients was “sitting on my desk right now.” A
week later, she announced the release of the “first phase” of the Epstein
files, most of which had already been made publicly available during the Biden
administration.
Bondi then invited MAGA influencers to the White House to
receive these materials. They dutifully showed off their binders full of
already-available documents as if they had just received damning evidence on a
global cabal of sex predators — before some of them took to social media to
complain that the files contained nothing new. (A second “phase” of Epstein
files was never released.)
Bondi and Patel subsequently claimed a “whistleblower” at
the FBI field office in New York said agents there had withheld “thousands of
pages of documents” related to Epstein. In a February 28 letter to Patel, Bondi
ordered the FBI director to “conduct an immediate investigation” into why the
files in New York were withheld from the DOJ and to file a “comprehensive
report of your findings and proposed personnel action within 14 days.” There is
no indication that any such report was ever filed.
“Are you still talking about Jeffery Epstein?” Trump asked a
reporter incredulously on July 9. “Are people still talking about this guy,
this creep? That is unbelievable.”
“I don’t understand why the Jeffery Epstein case would be of
interest to anybody,” Trump said the next week.
“It’s pretty boring stuff.”
Bogus transparency claims
As Trump himself tried to dismiss the Epstein files at every
opportunity, his underlings at the Justice Department launched a new plan to
tamp down on the growing clamor for the files: “Interview” Ghislaine Maxwell in
prison and ask courts to unseal transcripts of grand jury testimony from her
trial.
Deputy AG Todd Blanche conducted the interview with Maxwell,
who told Blanche that she never saw the president engage in any criminal or
inappropriate conduct.
“I actually never saw the president in any type of massage
setting. I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any
way,” Maxwell said, according
to transcripts of her conversation with Blanche that were released by
the Justice Department. “The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In
the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”
Apparently as a reward for exonerating the president,
Maxwell was sent to a low-security prison in Texas where she has enjoyed perks
not afforded to other inmates. At the same time, the DOJ made a slapdash
attempt to feign transparency by asking courts to unseal grand jury testimony
from Maxwell’s trial.
Three federal judges denied the motions. Among them was US
District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer, who excoriated the DOJ for its
half-hearted effort at providing the public with new information about Epstein.
The DOJ’s “entire premise — that the Maxwell grand jury
materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein’s and
Maxwell’s crimes, or the Government’s investigation into them — is demonstrably
false,” Engelmeyer wrote in a 31-page decision denying the government’s motion
to unseal the transcripts of grand jury testimony. “The materials do not
identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact
with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or
Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of
Epstein’s or Maxwell’s.”
Engelmeyer’s denial of the motion to unseal provided a
convenient — albeit temporary — talking point for the Trump administration: We
tried to release more information but a judge stopped us.
After House Democrats released the trove of emails showing
even more ties between Trump and Epstein than were previously known — and as it
became clear that Congress would force the president and the DOJ to release the
files — the Trump administration launched its latest attempt to make all of
this go away.
First, Trump demanded that the DOJ investigate prominent
Democrats tied to Epstein. Bondi ceded to the demand, tasking the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) with launching Trump’s politically-motivated
investigations based on findings the Justice Department has already
said don’t warrant further investigation.
As expected, Bondi is saying that this new, ongoing
investigation prevents the Justice Department from discussing Epstein matters.
On November 19, Bondi was asked whether the SDNY investigation would expand
beyond the prominent Democrats who Trump demanded be investigated for their
ties to Epstein. She demurred.
“We’re not going to say anything else about that because it
is a pending investigation,” Bondi said.
With Bondi so quick to use the “ongoing investigation”
defense to avoid having to answer questions about the DOJ’s investigation into
Epstein and others, it’s entirely possible that the agency could try to use the
same defense to make significant redactions in releasing the files as ordered
by the law passed by Congress.
Reviewing the meandering path of arguments that have been
screen tested on the American people over the last 10 months reveals the
desperation with which Republicans have attempted to make all this go away.
First, Biden and Democrats didn’t care about the Epstein files because they
implicated people like Bill Clinton. Then, those files didn’t contain anything
damaging on Trump or else Biden would have released them. Now, Democrats want
the files released because they do contain damaging
information about Trump, but maybe that’s only the case because they tampered
with them.
The story has become bewildering and insane. To believe
anything about Epstein coming from Trump or Republicans requires a complete
suspension of common sense, which is why it’s good to remember that the
simplest explanation is often the correct one: Trump and Republicans are lying.
Lie after desperate, confusing, and impossible lie, all aimed at an impossible
goal: erasing history and the many deep and troubling ties between Epstein and
Trump.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and the BH Link triage center are here to help you
You're not alone
By Rep. Julie A. Casimiro and Katie Anderson
Thankfully, when stress runs high this holiday season, we can turn instead to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and the BH Link triage center. Together, these programs offer phone-based and in-person alternatives to 911 and hospital systems for those needing immediate support or timely referrals.
Anyone in crisis – kids and adults alike – can call, text, or chat 988 any time, 24/7, for free and confidential emotional support, resources, and referrals. For immediate face-to-face support, adults 18 and over, regardless of insurance, can walk into BH Link – no appointment necessary.
Depending on their needs, help-seekers will receive an assessment and safety plan, scripts for psychiatric medications; detoxification from opioids, alcohol or benzodiazepines; or a referral or transfer for ongoing care, with medical clearance and insurance authorization, as indicated. There are no out-of-pocket expenses associated with these visits.
Everyone seeking care is greeted warmly and responsively in a safe, relaxed setting, with minimal wait times relative to crowded emergency rooms. Both 988 & BH Link can also serve those simply interested in learning more about what outpatient resources, like therapists, may best help them or their loved ones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)