To its credit the AP broke the story, yet to move much beyond Florida and California, despite being a case study of how the EPA operates. One fact missed by AP, but included by the LA Times is that EPA turned down the scientists’ request for an independent review by the National Research Council,. Also that the EPA hired the manufacturer Arysta LifeScience Corp's former CEO Elin Miller. The precise timing is missing even from the Times article: Miller started at the EPA in October 2006 after the EPA backed down from approving the fumigant in April due to objections from the United Farm Workers, environmental groups and California pesticide officials. The Times goes no further to delve into the revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies. Nor is mention made soil degradation of soil by fumigants and economically viable alternatives. No assessment of the quality of the EPA review, either positive or negative appears. And there's this tidbit from Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Pesticide Action Network of North America asked the chemists to write the letter after government scientists complained anonymously that EPA higher-ups had warned them not to tell opponents about its pending approval." There no link to the scientists’ letter, no evaluation of how the EPA plans to enforce the restrictions under the permit and what effects that might have. The Palm Springs paper interviewed PANN, which says that tenting can increase concentrations and lead to pollution of the water table. True? False?