You're conclusions are reasonable for the assumption that the government acted from malice. You miss, or dismiss with no mention, the following possibilities:

You're conclusions are reasonable for the assumption that the government acted from malice. You miss, or dismiss with no mention, the following possibilities: The cause of the illness was a substance not then known to be toxic. The toxin did not remain airborne long enough for EPA samples to gather it. The EPA tests were not capable of detecting the problem. General incompetence. A bad batch of test kits. The toxin may have come from dust stirred up during work which quickly settled. Any of the above being true would invalidate your conclusions. As someone totally ignorant of the illnesses you are talking about, I have only your statement to go on, which addresses none of the above, so these may be known. As for government lies, many many cases of government lies can be equally attributed to ignorance as they can to malice, so I am challenging your basic proposition.