TITLE: EPA whistleblower fired for telling the truth about geoengineering
SENTENCE 1: Davis states, “I was terminated as a public servant performing a public service for raising the issues of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering.”  He says that the issue regarding anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering first reared its head in May 2013, when another employee from the NPDES Programs Branch sent a general email to everyone regarding “NPDES and Climate Change.” Davis sent a short reply to the email, and six weeks later, he says he received a Letter of Reprimand that accused him of “making false, malicious and unfounded statements against colleagues, supervisors, management and elected public servants.” His own supervisor said his remarks were damaging to both the integrity and the reputation of the agency.
SENTENCE 2: In his petition, Hirzy stated, “The action will simultaneously prevent hundreds of cases of lung and bladder cancer through the reduction in the amount of arsenic now being delivered to our citizens who drink water that is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA).”  Hirzy also noted that the agency wouldn’t be interfering with local government’s choosing to fluoridate water by removing HFSA as an option, but that the agency would be mandating the nation’s citizens not be exposed to carcinogenic substances like arsenic.
SENTENCE 3: According to Davis, the “P” in EPA stands for the “protection of corporate profits,” and not the protection of people, animals and the environment.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:
If you state that Davis's supervisor claimed his remarks were damaging without providing context or evidence, then you risk presenting a subjective evaluation as objective fact.

Also If you include the supervisor’s statement without providing the full context of Davis’s alleged remarks, then you risk influencing the reader’s perception of Davis as either a whistleblower or someone making baseless accusations.
If you state that the EPA prioritizes corporate profits over protection of people, animals, and the environment based on Davis's claim, then you risk presenting a subjective criticism as objective fact without evidence.
If you present Davis’s claim of wrongful termination without providing official responses or evidence from the EPA, then you risk presenting an unverified claim as fact, which may mislead readers about the circumstances of his dismissal.
If you present Hirzy's claim about preventing cancer cases through reducing arsenic in water as established fact, then you risk presenting a speculative benefit as certain without scientific verification.