|
The EPA Proposes A New Rule To Make Scientific Data Available To Public
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM (456 Views)
|
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Post #1
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
http://www.oann.com/the-epa-proposes-a-new-rule-to-make-scientific-data-available-to-public/
OAN Newsroom UPDATED 6:30 AM PT — Wed. April 25, 2018 EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is proposing a new rule to cut down on the use of what he calls “secret science.”
The measure would ensure only scientific studies with data available to the public are used when creating policy.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Post #2
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information?
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
PATruth
|
Apr 25 2018, 11:57 AM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #271
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information? Good question? If any thing the science should convince CC/GW skeptics that it is indeed a dire situation that needs addressed?
Maybe someone has been manipulating the data?
|
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
|
| |
|
clone
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:10 PM
Post #4
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information? Rhetorical question?
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:14 PM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,658
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Absolutely beautiful....!
This should have been done a long time ago. If Al Gore keeps spouting his mouth about "global warming" (he got a 'D' at Yale in science class, ... ), then we need to open-up all the data. Have a debate about it...! Many debates, on television, every month. The liberals wanted us to spend billions and billions of tax dollars on global warming, yet hid the data. There are all kinds of web sites on the internet, with REAL scientists and people with strong science backgrounds, who would love to have access to that data. EVERYONE should see it. Then debate it. Show the debate, highlight the arguments for and against. Then, and only then, should we decide how to spend tax money.
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information? The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science.
And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base.
That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views.
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
_g R_
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,667
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #252
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views. I think you pretty much nailed it George. Thank you.
|
|
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
Post #8
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views. You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you?
That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess?
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:35 PM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information? The science is. The underlying raw data is not. In particular, data gleaned from medical histories is protected by HIPA and confidentiality agreements. For easily seen reasons, people do not want their medical histories associated with their names. So when studying the incidents of illness, cancers and such, data from individuals need to be collected. The data linking the individual to the results is usually confidential.
The anti-EPA types want this data to be public, meaning anyone can see names and medical histories, because they know this will kill the types of research that finds increases in illnesses to their products.
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:37 PM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Apr 25 2018, 12:14 PM
Absolutely beautiful....! This should have been done a long time ago. If Al Gore keeps spouting his mouth about "global warming" (he got a 'D' at Yale in science class, ...  ), then we need to open-up all the data. Have a debate about it...! Many debates, on television, every month. The liberals wanted us to spend billions and billions of tax dollars on global warming, yet hid the data. There are all kinds of web sites on the internet, with REAL scientists and people with strong science backgrounds, who would love to have access to that data. EVERYONE should see it. Then debate it. Show the debate, highlight the arguments for and against. Then, and only then, should we decide how to spend tax money. Mozart What data from global warming studies is not public? Do you have examples of data used in global warming studies that are confidential?
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:38 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information? On its surface, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that such data should be made public. So I was scratching my head, wondering what the objections might be. So I went looking, and here's what I found:
- Quote:
-
Critics on the left and in the scientific community see the effort as an attempt to hinder EPA from issuing rules.
"A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released," said Yogin Kothari with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Many scientific studies rely on data that can't be made public for reasons like patient privacy concerns or industry confidentiality.
"If EPA doesn't have data to move forward with a public protection for a safeguard, it doesn't have to do that at all," said Kothari. "It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission."
Publishing raw data also opens scientists up to attacks from industry, which can twist or distort data to shape a deregulatory agenda, said Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official in the Office of Water who worked on a staff analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Southerland, who left EPA last summer, said the effort is deceptive and is not about transparency, but about sidelining peer-reviewed science that supports regulation of pollution. She said there are numerous examples of groundbreaking studies that are not replicable, such as human health studies after the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima or the ecological effects of the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In many of the older studies, there are a plethora of people, including some who are dead, who could no longer be tracked down.
"This is just done to paralyze rulemaking," she said. "It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen — in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Publicizing the data in some EPA actions, which often come after years of research, could be extensive. For example, risk assessments for certain chemicals sometimes cite hundreds or even thousands of studies, all of which would have to be tracked down for data collection, according to the EPA analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Requiring data transparency would cost hundreds of millions of dollars because it would require EPA staff to track down data from study authors and create an online management system to store and present those data, the analysis found. In addition, EPA staff would have to spend time redacting personally identifiable information in the studies, and study authors would likely require payments for preparing and sending their data.
EPA career staff estimated that Smith's legislation would add $250 million in costs annually for the first few years after it was implemented, Southerland said. That estimate was dismissed by senior EPA officials who said those costs were inflated and that the agency would not use many studies to which the rule would apply, but they did not provide evidence, she said. EPA's analysis of Smith's bill was published by the radio program "Marketplace."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076559
|
|
|
| |
|
_g R_
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:39 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,667
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #252
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views.
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess? Information which is not deemed 'classified' is all that will be made public. This is why employees at the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and other related agencies are always being forced to sign nondisclosure agreements, and these secrecy agreements are often specifically designed to keep the general public in the dark under the disguise of fancy terms like 'national security'..
Edited by _g R_, Apr 25 2018, 12:40 PM.
|
|
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:40 PM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:35 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information?
The science is. The underlying raw data is not. In particular, data gleaned from medical histories is protected by HIPA and confidentiality agreements. For easily seen reasons, people do not want their medical histories associated with their names. So when studying the incidents of illness, cancers and such, data from individuals need to be collected. The data linking the individual to the results is usually confidential. The anti-EPA types want this data to be public, meaning anyone can see names and medical histories, because they know this will kill the types of research that finds increases in illnesses to their products. Here is a more thorough explaination
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/?utm_term=.6ba743c08032
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:42 PM
Post #14
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- _g R_
- Apr 25 2018, 12:39 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views.
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess? Information which is not deemed 'classified' is all that will be made public. This is why employees at the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and other related agencies are always being forced to sign nondisclosure agreements, and these secrecy agreements are often specifically designed to keep the general public in the dark under the disguise of fancy terms like 'national security'.. The only reason these employees would be required to sign non-disclosure agreements is with an industry partner protecting their trade secrets. I have not heard of employees of these agencies signing other NDA's.
Trump has made his appointees sign NDAs but most observers believe they would be unenforceable.
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:46 PM
Post #16
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
So basically, if there is any data in the study that can't be released for some reason, or the study relies on any other study that uses such data, no EPA regulation can be made based on it.
Sounds like they'll pretty much gut the EPA in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:48 PM
Post #17
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 12:38 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information?
On its surface, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that such data should be made public. So I was scratching my head, wondering what the objections might be. So I went looking, and here's what I found: - Quote:
-
Critics on the left and in the scientific community see the effort as an attempt to hinder EPA from issuing rules.
"A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released," said Yogin Kothari with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Many scientific studies rely on data that can't be made public for reasons like patient privacy concerns or industry confidentiality.
"If EPA doesn't have data to move forward with a public protection for a safeguard, it doesn't have to do that at all," said Kothari. "It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission."
Publishing raw data also opens scientists up to attacks from industry, which can twist or distort data to shape a deregulatory agenda, said Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official in the Office of Water who worked on a staff analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Southerland, who left EPA last summer, said the effort is deceptive and is not about transparency, but about sidelining peer-reviewed science that supports regulation of pollution. She said there are numerous examples of groundbreaking studies that are not replicable, such as human health studies after the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima or the ecological effects of the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In many of the older studies, there are a plethora of people, including some who are dead, who could no longer be tracked down.
"This is just done to paralyze rulemaking," she said. "It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen — in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Publicizing the data in some EPA actions, which often come after years of research, could be extensive. For example, risk assessments for certain chemicals sometimes cite hundreds or even thousands of studies, all of which would have to be tracked down for data collection, according to the EPA analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Requiring data transparency would cost hundreds of millions of dollars because it would require EPA staff to track down data from study authors and create an online management system to store and present those data, the analysis found. In addition, EPA staff would have to spend time redacting personally identifiable information in the studies, and study authors would likely require payments for preparing and sending their data.
EPA career staff estimated that Smith's legislation would add $250 million in costs annually for the first few years after it was implemented, Southerland said. That estimate was dismissed by senior EPA officials who said those costs were inflated and that the agency would not use many studies to which the rule would apply, but they did not provide evidence, she said. EPA's analysis of Smith's bill was published by the radio program "Marketplace." https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076559 Yeah, I think they are making a lot of excuses there so that they can make rules without public oversight.
If the EPA is going to have a finding that puts a great financial burden on our society then the EPA should have to defend that decision in a transparent manner. If they only way they can justify a rule is though secret studies then we do not need that rule.
For the record, right now this is not a congressional act. It appears to be a rule within the EPA that bypasses congress. Also, my guess is that this only applies to future regulations so we would not have to worry about their concern over things that were studied in 1947.
Besides, even for the stuff studied in 1947 just make the information public.
Lastly, I would like to address one point that was made in your linked information. The former EPA person was concerned that others would manipulate the raw data to present a different conclusion than the one the EPA came to. That is kind of the point. The EPA is controlled by politicians. All politicians and those they appoint must be considered to have an agenda. How do we know that the EPA is not the one who is manipulating the data if we don't have access to it in order to verify their claims?
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
Post #18
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:51 PM
Post #19
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:48 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 12:38 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decisions would not always be public information?
On its surface, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that such data should be made public. So I was scratching my head, wondering what the objections might be. So I went looking, and here's what I found: - Quote:
-
Critics on the left and in the scientific community see the effort as an attempt to hinder EPA from issuing rules.
"A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released," said Yogin Kothari with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Many scientific studies rely on data that can't be made public for reasons like patient privacy concerns or industry confidentiality.
"If EPA doesn't have data to move forward with a public protection for a safeguard, it doesn't have to do that at all," said Kothari. "It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission."
Publishing raw data also opens scientists up to attacks from industry, which can twist or distort data to shape a deregulatory agenda, said Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official in the Office of Water who worked on a staff analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Southerland, who left EPA last summer, said the effort is deceptive and is not about transparency, but about sidelining peer-reviewed science that supports regulation of pollution. She said there are numerous examples of groundbreaking studies that are not replicable, such as human health studies after the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima or the ecological effects of the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In many of the older studies, there are a plethora of people, including some who are dead, who could no longer be tracked down.
"This is just done to paralyze rulemaking," she said. "It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen — in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Publicizing the data in some EPA actions, which often come after years of research, could be extensive. For example, risk assessments for certain chemicals sometimes cite hundreds or even thousands of studies, all of which would have to be tracked down for data collection, according to the EPA analysis of the "HONEST Act."
Requiring data transparency would cost hundreds of millions of dollars because it would require EPA staff to track down data from study authors and create an online management system to store and present those data, the analysis found. In addition, EPA staff would have to spend time redacting personally identifiable information in the studies, and study authors would likely require payments for preparing and sending their data.
EPA career staff estimated that Smith's legislation would add $250 million in costs annually for the first few years after it was implemented, Southerland said. That estimate was dismissed by senior EPA officials who said those costs were inflated and that the agency would not use many studies to which the rule would apply, but they did not provide evidence, she said. EPA's analysis of Smith's bill was published by the radio program "Marketplace." https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076559
Yeah, I think they are making a lot of excuses there so that they can make rules without public oversight. If the EPA is going to have a finding that puts a great financial burden on our society then the EPA should have to defend that decision in a transparent manner. If they only way they can justify a rule is though secret studies then we do not need that rule. For the record, right now this is not a congressional act. It appears to be a rule within the EPA that bypasses congress. Also, my guess is that this only applies to future regulations so we would not have to worry about their concern over things that were studied in 1947. Besides, even for the stuff studied in 1947 just make the information public. Lastly, I would like to address one point that was made in your linked information. The former EPA person was concerned that others would manipulate the raw data to present a different conclusion than the one the EPA came to. That is kind of the point. The EPA is controlled by politicians. All politicians and those they appoint must be considered to have an agenda. How do we know that the EPA is not the one who is manipulating the data if we don't have access to it in order to verify their claims? So it is your theory that the research studies where they haven't previously made the data public has been because they're biased, inaccurate, and manipulated to arrive at a certain finding, rather than there are just obstacles to their releasing the data?
Because I find that a bit hard to chew, let alone swallow.
|
|
|
| |
|
clone
|
Apr 25 2018, 12:53 PM
Post #20
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created Created?
Treasury Dept. Kills 305 Obsolete Rules, Introduces 250 Deregulatory Initiatives
The Treasury Department recently released a report detailing its progress on the path of regulatory reform.
The Treasury said it’s rolled back 305 regulations, including 298 outdated IRS rules since President Trump took office.
The department also said it has dropped 94 rules from its regulatory agenda annually, and introduced zero new regulations.
LINK
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|