EPA: Campaign misleads public

I'm concerned that the current EPA advertising campaign addressing lead levels and human health issues misleads the public to believe that the EPA's current 90-year, multi-billion dollar plan is going to resolve the human health issues contributed to lead. The EPA plan focuses on capturing the ground water from areas in the eastern part of the valley, diverting the water through extensive culvert systems and treating the water at a water treatment facility in Kellogg.

The concern about the water is the zinc content, a mineral that is necessary for human health in the synthesis of proteins and insulin, formation of blood and can be found in common cold remedies. The EPA's current advertisements address lead health issues (not zinc health issues), yet the majority of 90-year plan focuses on zinc. I question the integrity of the EPA's public ad campaign and the need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on eradicating a mineral that is naturally occurring and actually essential to human health.

Is this expensive and misleading advertising campaign really the best use of public money? Is the EPA's proposed 90-year plan really the best use of public money? Why not create a plan with a more specific scope of remedies? Does the issue really require a plan that stretches over the majority of a century? I wonder how much the cost, quoted in today's dollar value, will really add up to in 90 years. The EPA should address that inflationary factor in one of their advertisements and make the real cost known.

MISTY REYNOLDS

Coeur d'Alene