RE: Question for 21 September: Can we trust the EPA?

[James Marple <jesl@carolina.net>]

Mike

Your perception that raw data is "hard to find but should not be" is shared by all persons I know who seek hard facts from federal bureaus. 

It is understandable that local agencies might have semi-competent fact filers, that some states might still lack up-to-date collection and presentation techniques. But when federal agencies of this most informed nation in the world have such intricate data storage systems that you can't find a critical number, you have to at least suspect that someone wants to keep the "rabble" from being fully informed. 

I see no good reason why the public isn't able to call in or type a description of data and interact with a program that will produce what they seek. The marvelous machinery that can now understand speech or translate fumbling attempts at description in microseconds should be available to talk back to them in a way that soon fills their request. So this costs ten billion dollars! Wouldn't it be more useful to the nation than, say, the tunnel under Boston's harbor, Arizona's absurd waterline or expansion of California's water supply scam? 

There's an enormous pool of talent going to waste, meaningful input to community planning from "ordinary" persons whose vision is not clouded by overtraining or self-interest, just because most people lack the expertise to ferret out information. They shouldn't need it. Thats what Feds are for.

Question: If Bill Gates were to donate the latest and best equipment tomorrow, how many years might bureaucrats delay installation at the behest of special interests who prefer to have the public remain timid in its ignorance and confusion?