RE: EPA's evolving role - communication is a two-way street.

[John.Browne, Jr. <jb4juddcreek@webtv.net>]

There may be some impediments to 2-way communication that, ultimately could affect the nature & quality of the discourse; eg EPA says "there's a big problem with "(fill in the blank- PCBs in the Hudson River, fine particles in diesel exhaust, additives to tobacco, gasoline, etc etc)" and the 'prime stakeholder' responds "We'll sue you if you say that!" The result may be an undue 'toning down' of certain allegedly inflammatory info, to a degree that the public feels less concern generally than might be warranted, given the nature of the 'problem.'
There's also a need for communication across borders (eg pulp mill effluvia heading down the Columbia river, acid rain heading N to Quebec), since borders do not define environmental parameters, in most cases. Can a case be made to involve stakeholders on both sides of our various borders (both local & international)? If so, there's the added need for multilingual information exchanges which must bear the brunt of scrutiny of a disinterested multilingual community. In the case of international questions, EPA may find itself as both a Minister of Information & a Respondent (as our Fed Gov'ts offical spokesbody on the issues of the environment). Is EPA ready & willing to listen to an international dialogue?   ^..^