From 8faf344a79bc081e90bf6cbacbfd3726f9357c5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jacob Walchuk Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 04:17:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] fixed markdown glitch --- _chem12/The_U.S._Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_TSCA.md | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/_chem12/The_U.S._Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_TSCA.md b/_chem12/The_U.S._Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_TSCA.md index bf9b9ec..59502a5 100644 --- a/_chem12/The_U.S._Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_TSCA.md +++ a/_chem12/The_U.S._Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_TSCA.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ --- HYPERLINK "http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2016/08/27/the-u-s-toxic-substances-control- -act-tsca/" The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) +act-tsca/" The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Amidst the cacophony of jingoist, vacuous blather at the Republican Convention there were some noteworthy phrases that probably slipped by @@ -53,11 +53,10 @@ industry because it should reduce consumer angst given that EPA will now be charged with examining the safety of chemicals before they go on the market. But here is the issue. While Republicans in the House voted for -the bill, they also voted to cut the EPA’s funding and staffing for -2017. If EPA is going to carry out its new duties effectively, it will +the bill, they also voted to cut the EPA’s funding and staffing for 2017. +If EPA is going to carry out its new duties effectively, it will need more, not less funding. The plan is that some of the shortfall will be offset by charging companies fees for submitting chemicals for EPA to review. That may not sit well with Republicans. Joe Schwarcz PhD – Aug 27th/2016 - -- rgit 0.1.5