The EPA has released their 2003 TRI (Toxic Release Inventory).
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/index.htm
JOHN HEILPRIN at the AP writes, "Despite increases in levels of mercury, PCBs and dioxin, overall chemical pollution released into the environment fell more than 6 percent in the latest report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency." He continues, "about 23,000 facilities provided information on 650 chemicals, but that represented a decline in participation. In 2002, 24,379 facilities were included; in 2001, 25,388 facilities reported findings." The AP has the nerve to coat this story with the headline "EPA: Chemical Pollution Falls 6 Percent".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/toxic_pollutants
So, let me get this straight, nearly 1,400 of the chemical polluting facilities from 2002 just decided not to report their pollution to the EPA in 2003? Does that really constitute a decline in pollution? We didn't report it so it doesn't exist! Now to think that in order for the pollution to exist, it must be reported by the facility who discharged it, how can we be assured that a wildly underfunded EPA is capable of enforcing environmental law, or checking that the reported discharge amounts are even remotely accurate?