Letter: EPA serves a vital function

In "Dependence on foreign oil" [IMHO, Jan. 20], a writer wants to increase coal production and dissolve the Environmental Protection Agency. Whenever I read or hear that someone wants to get rid of the EPA, I just shake my head in amazement at the complete ignorance of the statement.

Perhaps we should then dump more pollutants into our oceans and rivers. Let's scrap all rules on smokestacks, and let's go back to burning all our garbage into the atmosphere. Let's burn all the coal we can. Let's just allow hydrofracking without any studies about the long-term effects of shooting millions of gallons of chemicals and poisons into the ground that could seep into our drinking water.

All these things may or may not lead to more jobs. However, does this writer, and those who support his position, realize the health implications? I am a lung-cancer patient who knows a few things about the chemicals in our air, in our water, etc. So many people get asthma these days. Many diseases are caused by our environment, and things can only get worse without intervention.

I understand the need for jobs. As a former corporate controller who has friends out of work, I truly understand the impact of this country's concerns about unemployment and the economy. But trading rules that protect our environment and health for the sake of jobs is irresponsible and dangerous.

David Forman, Wantagh