Chuck Darwin<p>EPA faces questions over plastic-based fuel with huge cancer risk </p><p>On Friday, a community organization sued the <a href="https://c.im/tags/EPA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>EPA</span></a> in the US court of appeals in Washington DC, over the agency’s decision to allow a <a href="https://c.im/tags/Chevron" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Chevron</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/refinery" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>refinery</span></a> in <a href="https://c.im/tags/Pascagoula" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Pascagoula</span></a>, Mississippi, to produce the fuels derived from <a href="https://c.im/tags/plastic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>plastic</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/waste" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>waste</span></a>, including the one that could subject people nearby to a one-in-four lifetime <a href="https://c.im/tags/cancer" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>cancer</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/risk" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>risk</span></a>. <br>Cherokee Concerned Citizens, which represents residents in a housing subdivision close to that refinery, is asking the court to invalidate the EPA’s approval of the new chemicals.</p><p>The EPA approved the new chemicals even though its own scientists calculated that pollution from production of one of the plastic-based fuels was so <a href="https://c.im/tags/toxic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>toxic</span></a> that one in four people exposed to it over their lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. That risk is 250,000 times greater than the level usually considered acceptable by the EPA division that approves new chemicals, and it’s <a href="https://c.im/tags/higher" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>higher</span></a> than the lifetime risk of cancer for current <a href="https://c.im/tags/smokers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>smokers</span></a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/11/epa-plastic-based-fuel-cancer-risk-approval-questions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">theguardian.com/environment/20</span><span class="invisible">23/apr/11/epa-plastic-based-fuel-cancer-risk-approval-questions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</span></a></p>