Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The EPA Proposes A New Rule To Make Scientific Data Available To Public
Topic Started: Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM (458 Views)
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Are we supposed to assume that the scientists are biased, but the companies being regulated who will challenge their data, aren't?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Opinionated
Apr 25 2018, 01:01 PM
Are we supposed to assume that the scientists are biased, but the companies being regulated who will challenge their data, aren't?
Nope....that's why transparency is a good thing....

:popcorn:
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Opinionated
Apr 25 2018, 12:51 PM
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.

No I do not think that all of their data for every regulation has been manipulated. I do think that it is obvious that in some cases like DDT, the regulations were made in haste and went too far. Hopefully, making the data public will reduce those types of mistakes.



Edited by Demagogue, Apr 25 2018, 01:03 PM.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

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 would you like to have your name and medical records released as part of a study?

Or would you decide not to participate?

As I pointed out in my links, the only real issue is whether individual medical records with identifying names is to be released. This type of information is critical for studying cancer causing (or other illnesses) chemicals and processes.

It is also a real question if this regulation is legal under HIPA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
_g R_
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 12:42 PM
_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.
US Government Places “Gag Order” on Weather Agency Employees, Inserts Geoengineering Propaganda into ‘Common Core’ Syllabus

https://wakeup-world.com/2015/11/27/us-government-places-gag-order-on-weather-agency-employees-inserts-geoengineering-propaganda-into-common-core-syllabus/
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 01:08 PM
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 would you like to have your name and medical records released as part of a study?

Or would you decide not to participate?

As I pointed out in my links, the only real issue is whether individual medical records with identifying names is to be released. This type of information is critical for studying cancer causing (or other illnesses) chemicals and processes.

It is also a real question if this regulation is legal under HIPA.
As I said, if this applies to future regulations only then it would seem to be fairly easy to comply with privacy issues and HIPPA.

I have actually seen a number of studies done in the post HIPPA era where the information in the study is de-personalized for that specific reason. Essentially the people agree to be part of the study but the folks running the study do not include their real name in any of the study data.

There is a vastly greater chance of your personal information being exposed by a hacker going after your insurance company than there is of it being exposed as part of some double blind, peer reviewed, study.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

_g R_
Apr 25 2018, 01:13 PM
BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 12:42 PM
_g R_
Apr 25 2018, 12:39 PM
Demagogue
Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
George Aligator
Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
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.
US Government Places “Gag Order” on Weather Agency Employees, Inserts Geoengineering Propaganda into ‘Common Core’ Syllabus

https://wakeup-world.com/2015/11/27/us-government-places-gag-order-on-weather-agency-employees-inserts-geoengineering-propaganda-into-common-core-syllabus/
I really do not support your shrill propaganda site but it does make one relevent comment ... the "gag orders", NDA's or whatever the Trump administration is trying to use are illegal and unenforceable. There is current laws protecting the distribution of this information.

But I would point out to those that think the EPA rule is good to wonder why all the Trump administration attempts to limit the flow of information is therefore not "bad".

Dem?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Demagogue
Apr 25 2018, 01:18 PM
BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 01:08 PM
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 would you like to have your name and medical records released as part of a study?

Or would you decide not to participate?

As I pointed out in my links, the only real issue is whether individual medical records with identifying names is to be released. This type of information is critical for studying cancer causing (or other illnesses) chemicals and processes.

It is also a real question if this regulation is legal under HIPA.
As I said, if this applies to future regulations only then it would seem to be fairly easy to comply with privacy issues and HIPPA.

I have actually seen a number of studies done in the post HIPPA era where the information in the study is de-personalized for that specific reason. Essentially the people agree to be part of the study but the folks running the study do not include their real name in any of the study data.

There is a vastly greater chance of your personal information being exposed by a hacker going after your insurance company than there is of it being exposed as part of some double blind, peer reviewed, study.
But this EPA regulation specifically forbids your solution. ALL the data including names must be included. Currently the raw data without names is available. The trends, illness numbers, etc. are available. It is the link between the names and the medical records that are kept confidential.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 01:32 PM
Demagogue
Apr 25 2018, 01:18 PM
BuckFan
Apr 25 2018, 01:08 PM
Demagogue
Apr 25 2018, 12:48 PM
Opinionated
Apr 25 2018, 12:38 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deephttps://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 would you like to have your name and medical records released as part of a study?

Or would you decide not to participate?

As I pointed out in my links, the only real issue is whether individual medical records with identifying names is to be released. This type of information is critical for studying cancer causing (or other illnesses) chemicals and processes.

It is also a real question if this regulation is legal under HIPA.
As I said, if this applies to future regulations only then it would seem to be fairly easy to comply with privacy issues and HIPPA.

I have actually seen a number of studies done in the post HIPPA era where the information in the study is de-personalized for that specific reason. Essentially the people agree to be part of the study but the folks running the study do not include their real name in any of the study data.

There is a vastly greater chance of your personal information being exposed by a hacker going after your insurance company than there is of it being exposed as part of some double blind, peer reviewed, study.
But this EPA regulation specifically forbids your solution. ALL the data including names must be included. Currently the raw data without names is available. The trends, illness numbers, etc. are available. It is the link between the names and the medical records that are kept confidential.
I will have to look at the actual wording of the rule (not the proposed law that was never passed). There is really no need for the names to be made public and I would disagree with it if that was truly a requirement.

I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The think that the concern about the names being release is a bit overblown but I could be wrong. On the bright side, it is just a rule and the next administration can always change it if it is bad whenever they come in. :cheers:
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

I think the rule needs to make exceptions for confidential information, like medical records and proprietary information which cannot released to the general public with out the permission of a third party, but otherwise the data should be made public.

My suspicion is that this already probably the case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thoughtless
Member Avatar

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?
No, the rule is that "only scientific studies with data available to the public are used", which is quite different releasing data to the public that's to be used.

So if a study is done that contains confidential information (health records etc.) or industry confidential information, the EPA can't use it.

I've probably singed a dozen or more confidentially agreements in my work, for the purpose of using private data to make decisions for my clients.
Without geometry, life is pointless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
_g R_
Member Avatar

_g R_
Apr 25 2018, 01:13 PM
US Government Places “Gag Order” on Weather Agency Employees, Inserts Geoengineering Propaganda into ‘Common Core’ Syllabus

https://wakeup-world.com/2015/11/27/us-government-places-gag-order-on-weather-agency-employees-inserts-geoengineering-propaganda-into-common-core-syllabus/
In his book “From The Company Of Shadows“, Kevin gives a highly acclaimed account of what is happening behind the curtain of government secrecy. After some communications with Kevin, he has supplied geoengineeringwatch.org with the hard-hitting statement below which outlines what is done to whistleblowers with shocking clarity. My most sincere thanks to Mr. Shipp for his uncommon and exceptional courage in the fight for the greater good.

Silencing Whistleblowers
By Kevin Shipp for geoengineeringwatch.org


Why don’t more “whistleblowers” come out to expose illegal or unconstitutional secret government operations? If these activities are so illegal, why are people not coming forward to report them?

Over the last fifty years US government intelligence agencies have perfected a complex, sequential system to systematically silence or destroy any employee, including his or her family, who attempts to reveal illegal or unconstitutional activities conducted as part of secret government operations.

As a condition of employment, military and intelligence employees recruited for secret operations are required to sign a “secrecy agreement,” or “nondisclosure agreement,” before being given access to the position, which offers high pay and status in the organization. This agreement threatens civil and criminal penalties if the employee reveals ANY information regarding the program. Thinking the agreement will only be used for legal purposes and will get them the coveted job, all employees eagerly sign it.

This secrecy agreement was originally designed to protect legitimate classified information, to protect military personnel during wartime and protect legitimate national defense information and technology.

However, because of the binding power of the agreement, government agencies began using it as a powerful tool to silence federal employees who question the legality of certain government operations. It was the perfect tool to threaten, silence or jail any whistle blower who dared to challenge the secret operations of government.

Today, the secrecy agreement is routinely used as an efficient weapon to intimidate or silence employees. Annual refresher briefings are given to remind employees of the penalties for violating the agreement. These penalties include huge fines, termination, financial ruin and even prison – all of which mean the destruction of their lives and their families. Most will not reveal any wrongdoing, no matter how egregious, for fear of calculated, severe retribution.

When employees sign the secrecy agreement and are cleared for classified programs, they are not told they are giving up their right to a jury trial, or to sue the agency that hired them. If they try to do so as a whistle blower, they find they have no right to be heard in federal court. Many have found this out when their case was denied; then it was too late. That is part of the system.

If the employee attempts to contact their Congressman or Senator, their representative is blocked from receiving any information about their case, because they do not have the necessary “clearance.”

When the employee attempts to blow the whistle to the Congressional intelligence committees, their response is ignored. It is made clear to committee members that they are not to touch such cases, so they refer them back to their Senator or Congressman, who cannot access information involved in their case.

If a courageous employee continues to proceed and blow the whistle, a system of personal and career destruction follows. This begins with promotions being denied, being turned down for sensitive or career enhancing assignments, and their files being flagged, ruining their reputation inside their agency. At this point their career is over. If they go quietly, the retribution stops.

When the employee still continues their effort to report the information, their travel records, personnel records, medical records and security records are searched for mistakes or damaging information that can be used to threaten them with termination. Their telephones and computers are monitored searching for incriminating information. If no substantive information can be found, it is fabricated and placed in their file.

Employees who refuse to back down are then subjected to internal “security investigations,” multiple, hostile “interviews,” attempting to get them to recant their information, and multiple polygraph interrogations.

In many cases, the employee is commanded to report to the internal medical office for psychological evaluation. If they comply, the evaluation labels them as paranoid, unstable, or disgruntled. This information is placed in their file and is used later to justify the agency’s action in the event of outside scrutiny.

If the employee contacts a member of the news media, they are immediately cited with violating their secrecy agreement and criminal penalties are filed against them. Several news media outlets are connected to the CIA and NSA and notify them of the employee’s contact.

Finally, the employee is forced to resign after being threatened with termination in kangaroo court meetings where the information fabricated in their files is used against them.

After termination or forced resignation, interest rates on their internal credit union loans are raised to make the payments unaffordable. The release of the employee’s retirement funds needed provide for their family are blocked (a felony). The agency black lists them from gaining employment with other government agencies or contractors, further ruining them financially.

Dehumanized, financially ruined and under severe emotional and mental pressure, the employee’s family begins to break apart. If the family’s foundation is not strong, this results in alcoholism, depression and divorce. In some cases, it has resulted in the employee committing suicide, the ultimate goal of the program of destruction. This silences the employee permanently, obscuring the agency’s role in their destruction. It is the perfect crime.

Should the employee still have the resolve to endure this program of career and personal destruction and continues to press for release of the information, or if his family members attempt to sue the agency for the illegal activity, classified agencies will invoke the secretive State Secrets Privilege, which orders the employee and his family not to reveal the information or face prison. If the family’s case reaches federal court, the State Secrets Privilege is invoked and the case is shut down – and sealed. Federal judges rubber stamp the censoring of the case without reviewing the case facts.

Now that the employee’s case, and in some cases their family’s case, is shut down and under seal, citing “national security,” the process of silencing the employee is complete. Many are never heard from again, fearing prison if they talk to anyone, including an attorney.

Using attractive awards of multi-million dollar contracts, the US government military industrial complex convinces private corporations that their employees must be cleared and sign secrecy agreements. This includes employees at all levels, from secretaries to CEOs. Once they have signed the secrecy agreement, they are bound to keep all information, including potentially illegal information, quiet, being threatened with the same penalties.

To date, over five million Americans have been required to sign this secrecy agreement and now fall under the shadow of the State Secrets Privilege.

Only a few federal employees have made it through this systematic process of destruction to reveal what they know about the illegal operation they observed. Sadly, some whistle blowers have died “mysterious” deaths or committed “suicide.”

Employees in intelligence agencies are aware of penalties contained in the secrecy agreement and the huge risk in violating it, even to expose corruption. Most look the other way to protect their careers, retirements and families. Many have observed the outward signs of the system of personal and career destruction used on others and a culture of fear exists. But, they are not fully aware of all that is being done. The full scope of the system is only known at the higher levels of the organization and is hidden from employees, until its use is necessary.

This is why we do not see whistle blowers coming out and reporting what they have seen. This system has been used and perfected for over fifty years. It is being used because it works.

It works, unless the system is exposed, the whistle blower knows what is coming and prepares for it, and they are supported by private organizations and individuals dedicated to truth in government.

This support is essential, not only to protect the whistle blower and their family, but also to defend our Constitutional form of government from tyranny.
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
_g R_
Member Avatar

This secrecy agreement was originally designed to protect legitimate classified information, to protect military personnel during wartime and protect legitimate national defense information and technology.

However, because of the binding power of the agreement, government agencies began using it as a powerful tool to silence federal employees who question the legality of certain government operations. It was the perfect tool to threaten, silence or jail any whistle blower who dared to challenge the secret operations of government.

To date, over five million Americans have been required to sign this secrecy agreement and now fall under the shadow of the State Secrets Privilege.
Edited by _g R_, Apr 25 2018, 02:38 PM.
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

This is nothing more than a backdoor scam to legitimize withholding and removing science based decisions.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

There is no reason climate data isn't completely available to the public, after all, it will prove GW/CC and everyone can move forward in unison. This isn't like foreign intelligence or medical records, this is climate data. Besides that, we, the taxpayers PAID for it.

"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robertr2000
Member Avatar

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?
Government always hides (correct) information from the sheep.


But now..... MAGA
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Anyone else enjoying the conservative comedy discovery or "transparency" when Mr. Trump / Pruitt removed references to climate change from their website?

Conservatism... it's a joke. :rollseyes:

And this move a scam.






Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
Coast2coast
Apr 25 2018, 04:17 PM
Anyone else enjoying the conservative comedy discovery or "transparency" when Mr. Trump / Pruitt removed references to climate change from their website?

Conservatism... it's a joke. :rollseyes:

And this move a scam.






Look on the bright side. It is just a policy for future regulation. Realistically, whenever someone other than Trump gets elected they can change it back.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

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?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
Edited by George Aligator, Apr 25 2018, 04:28 PM.
Conservatism is a social disease
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
George Aligator
Apr 25 2018, 04:27 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?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
To be honest GA, I thought that maybe you misread the topic title and then posted a little rant.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply