Do you also believe that Apple has broken into her homes across three states, follows her in unmarked vehicles, threatened to mail her a severed head, intercepted her home internet, and bugged her apartment, too?
Or is bringing up her own dubious allegations against this company off-limits when she's analyzing an EPA report without any qualifications?
To be honest, I give very little if any credence to anything she's said, especially if it's unsupported by evidence. Notice I'm not relying on anything she's said. Even if she is mentally ill, it's not reasonable to always assume the opposite of everything she asserts; that's called being a reactionary.
Fact of the matter is, EPA reported that Apple was under accounting their waste streams leaving open the possibility that filters were not changed as often as they should have been.
The EPA said that Apple may have been under accounting the types of waste because they were treating it without the permits the EPA requires, it said in the document they had things labeled as "California Waste Only" that should be under EPA jurisdiction.
I didn't see anywhere that they weren't changing the filters enough, only Ashley said she figured that out from public records requests. I don't trust her to understand anything she reads.
She has confused everyone at work into thinking we're breathing/drinking toxins more than once.
> I didn't see anywhere that they weren't changing the filters enough.
I don't think you've read observation #11 or my comment.
From observation #11:
> Apple does not appear to have included all the solvent waste streams when calculating the breakthrough times for the "Activated Carbon" boxes to ensure no VOCs are released into the atmosphere onsite.
Breakthrough times are a function of how much VOCs you are putting through them. If you under account for the amount of VOCs you will overestimate the "true" breakthrough time.
Do you also believe that Apple has broken into her homes across three states, follows her in unmarked vehicles, threatened to mail her a severed head, intercepted her home internet, and bugged her apartment, too?
Or is bringing up her own dubious allegations against this company off-limits when she's analyzing an EPA report without any qualifications?