Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt Gets Worse. NYT "E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=HomepageWASHINGTON The Trump administration is preparing to significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations, overriding protests from scientists and physicians who say the new rule would undermine the scientific underpinnings of government policymaking.
A new draft of the Environmental Protection Agency proposal, titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, would require that scientists disclose all of their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the agency could consider an academic studys conclusions. E.P.A. officials called the plan a step toward transparency and said the disclosure of raw data would allow conclusions to be verified independently.
We are committed to the highest quality science, Andrew Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, told a congressional committee in September. Good science is science that can be replicated and independently validated, science that can hold up to scrutiny. That is why were moving forward to ensure that the science supporting agency decisions is transparent and available for evaluation by the public and stakeholders.
The measure would make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies detailing the links between pollution and disease rely on personal health information gathered under confidentiality agreements. And, unlike a version of the proposal that surfaced in early 2018, this one could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.
This means the E.P.A. can justify rolling back rules or failing to update rules based on the best information to protect public health and the environment, which means more dirty air and more premature deaths, said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association.
snip
It was hard to imagine that they could have made this worse, but they did, said Michael Halpern, deputy director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group. He added, This is a wholesale politicization of the process.
Academics are not typically required to turn over private data when submitting studies for peer review by other specialists in the field, or for publication in scientific journals, the traditional ways scientific research is evaluated. If academics were to turn over the raw data to be made available for public review, the E.P.A. would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to redact private information, according to one federal estimate.
The Six Cities study and a 1995 American Cancer Society analysis of 1.2 million people that confirmed the Harvard findings appear to be the inspiration of the regulation.
The proposal gives the public 30 days to offer comments on the changes to the E.P.A.s plan. Agency officials have said they hope to finalize the measure in 2020.
The original goal was to stop E.P.A. from relying on these two studies unless the data is made public, said Steven J. Milloy, a member of Mr. Trumps E.P.A. transition team who runs Junkscience.org, a website that questions established climate change science and contends particulate matter in smog does not harm human health.
He dismissed concerns that the new rule could be used to unravel existing regulations, but he said he did expect it to prevent pollution rules from getting tougher.
The reality is, standards are not going to be tightened as long as theres a Republican in office, he said.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 609 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It Gets Worse. NYT "E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules" (Original Post)
NRaleighLiberal
Nov 2019
OP
The tens of millions of people who aren't paying attention better wake the fuck up.
Garrett78
Nov 2019
#4
elleng
(131,240 posts)1. MUCH WORSE,
every damn day!!!
spanone
(135,911 posts)2. This is truly Idiocracy
hunter
(38,339 posts)3. If not science, what???
Prayer isn't going to make pollution go away. The invisible hand of the free market isn't going to make pollution go away.
Prayer didn't make the air in Los Angeles breathable again, hard-core science, engineering, and stringent regulations did.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)4. The tens of millions of people who aren't paying attention better wake the fuck up.