GOP Bill To Outlaw EPA 'Secret Science' That Is Not Transparent, Reproducible

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Fox News reports that Republican lawmakers in the House are pushing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from proposing new regulations based on science that is not transparent or not reproducible. The bill introduced by Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., would bar the agency from proposing or finalizing rules without first disclosing all "scientific and technical information" relied on to support its proposed action. "Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups," says Schweikert. "For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions." The bill, dubbed the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (HR 4012), would prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency in the regulations' development including all data, materials and computer models. According to Schweikert's press release a 2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research found that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make federal government decisions should be made public. "Provisions in the bill are consistent with the White House's scientific integrity policy, the President's Executive Order 13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, the Bipartisan Policy Center and the recommendations of the Obama administration's top science advisors.""

Comments

"Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.

You cannot regulate them.

This will be one GIANT loophole for industry.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[TheSpoom]

That's the point. I bet the open access requirement is also harder to reach than it seems.

Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Joce640k]

Why only the EPA?

Why not all the other stuff the government does?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[ebno-10db]

Let's start with trade negotiations. No secretive negotiations whose results are only foisted on congress and the people after they've been finalized. "Take it or leave it." Screw that. All drafts, preliminary agreements, and the results of negotiations to be made public as they're ongoing.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

It could be abused, to force the EPA to include "meta-analyses" of scientific results and use them to discredit reliable results compared to large sets of industry published, fraudulent results. Let's not forget the tobacco industry scientific fraud, for decades, about the poisonous effects of cigarette smoke on humans.

It's also theoretically possible that this kind of law could be used to expose the "industry analyses" to review. That's what I'd hope for, right now: too many analyses are published under extensive non-disclosure agreements that prevent the EPA from being able to publish them. I've certainly seen that kind of restraint of publication about groundwater and soil toxicity analyses for new construction. The project leaders wanted even the existence of the analysis kept secret unless it was favorable to construction.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[John Jorsett]

Why only the EPA?

Why not all the other stuff the government does?

You have to start somewhere, and if it's successful in this case, then the rest can follow. What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Idarubicin]

There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist". Like you, I demand that ALL science should be uncensored.

Isaac Newton was a staunch creationist who put a great deal of time and effort into literal interpretation of the Bible. (Fun fact: Newton was born on Christmas day!) It's too bad that America's children are sheltered from learning his Laws because of their unfortunate association with a Christian wingnut.

Oh, what's that? Darn. Well, which creationists are doing actual science that is being concealed from children? I mean, surely an advocate of creationist teachings wouldn't make grand claims based in personal beliefs and tenuous or nonexistent evidence....

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.

AKA every bill ever?

It sickens me that my generation and the one after it have latched on to the idea that one team is 'evil' and the other team are 'the good guys', when it is painfully obvious that both teams want the same thing, to be the only two teams in power. neither of them are the good guys.

no matter what a bill says, it -must- be evil, because it's being introduced by 'those other guys', the evil party.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[pepty]

What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

They have been asking that the private medical data of everyone whose medical records were used during the evaluation of soot and particulate rules for the Clean Air Act be made public. The authors of those studies don't have the authority to release that data, neither does the EPA. Though I'm certain the GOP would love to berate the EPA publicly for betraying patient confidentiality if they did disclose that information

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Mr. Slippery]

How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Almost all of it is in fact available, so this is just more GOP BS.

A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.

As the University of East Anglias CRU explains,

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold....Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties....The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. The Dutch Met Service (KNMI) run the European Climate Assessment and Dataset (ECA&D, http://eca.knmi.nl/) project. They are able to use much data in their numerous analyses, but they cannot make all the original daily station temperature and precipitation series available because of restrictions imposed by some of the data providers...The problem is a generic issue and arises from the need of many NMSs to be or aim to be cost neutral (i.e. sell the data to recoup the costs of making observations and preparing the data).

We receive numerous requests for these station data...These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.

And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.

But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Dr. Spork]

Exactly. No more federal money for abstinence-only sex education when independent research shows that it fails in every one of its goals and leads to an increase in teen pregnancy and abortions. And since nothing in "creationist science" is reproducible, let's finally put that behind us as well. Oh and don't forget about DARE, which is completely secretive and provably worthless when independently evaluated, yet isn't defunded. Yes, I think I can get along with these new pro-science Republicans!

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

Is this (below) what you are talking about? It doesn't look like they are looking for private medical records but rather the diagnostic codes that wouldn't be personally identifiable in and of themselves. Either that or they are instructing EPA to code the PHI prior to release, which would render it safe to release. ( See PHI, and De-identification ) The US Congress is the one that makes the rules, and it appears that release of it may be mandated already. The EPA isn't complying. The EPA is doing making its rules both in secret and based on secrets, and I thought we were against that on Slashdot.

3. Request: That underlying data used to promulgate Clean Air Act rules be made public so the public can independently examine cost/benefit and other issues. That the EPA release a full set of data files for the American Cancer Society Study; the Harvard Six Cities Study; HEI/Krewski et al. 2009; Laden et al. 2006; Lepeule 2012; and Jerrett 2009. This request includes the coding of Personal Health Information (PHI).

Background: Since 1997, Congress has requested the underlying data for particulate matter studies (PM2.5) be made available to Congress and the public. Then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner went back and forth with Members regarding Congressional and public access to the underlying data, citing legitimate scientific inquiry qualifications and confidentiality concerns. In response to the continued reticence by EPA to publicly release data, the Shelby amendment, a rider to the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), mandated that OMB amend Circular A-110 to require federal agencies to ensure that "all data produced under a [federally funded] award be made available to the public through the procedures established under FOIA."

A March 4, 2013, letter to EPA from Ranking Member Vitter and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith requested the underlying data from additional long term cohort studies that rely on updates from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study, including: Krewski e. al. (2009); Pope et al. (2002); Pope et al. (2009); Krewski et al. (2000); Laden et. al (2006); and Lepeule et al. (2012). This letter repeated multiple communications from Congress requesting the release of the underlying data which are the basis for nearly all the health and benefit claims from CAA rulemaking in this Administration.

Status: Wholly unresponsive.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Bite The Pillow]

There is something between no science and public science, and that's what we currently have. The public, not just Congress, would need access to the data models used. Not just the papers, which goes beyond what we have today, but the backing data and the model.
Open access journal would not be enough.

We can agree that this is an improvement.

However, Congress is not held to the same standard. There is no requirement to put public funded research in the public domain. There is nothing in this bill except a wish for a scientific community that does not exist.

And because it does not exist, no Administration office will be able to make the regulations that Congress delegated responsibility for. Dumping asbestos in a lake? We need an open access study that says asbestos is still harmful when wet.

I'm being serious, go back and read the bill. Being obvious or accepted or well known is not enough. Citing a meta-study is not enough. A report from Nature or Science is not enough. A reviewed and published study in a respectable journal is not enough.

All of these are pro-science, but they fall short of this bill. Argue for open science all you want, but here is why it doesn't matter:

This bill, on the surface, asks for what makes the most sense. It does nothing to get us there. It is no different from saying only moon people can make EPA regulations, and at the same time providing no funding to put people on the moon. The text of the bill, as written, is asking for what is nearly impossible. If this is unintentional, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise it needs to die.

Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Hardly.

I'm torn - I think this would be a good idea in principle, but can already see it has been phrased specifically to shut down any attempt to mitigate climate change. Transparent is good, but the world is unique and ever-changing. By it's nature any research into weather or climatology will be impossible to reproduce - you can't make a copy of the planet to try different things on. That makes unraveling the details far more difficult, but we've still got supporting evidence from hundreds of different

Tell you want, I'll grant you reproducible science requirements for EPA regulations if we can do the same for the federal reserve and fiscal policy - they cost the nation FAR more, and there has never been a single reproducible experiment in macroeconomics, ever. In fact there's been precious little *scientific* study of the matter at all, it's all philosophers spinning stories compatible with their biases.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

When an agencny like the EPA takes action the science is based upon compilations of complex studies and agreement among scientists.

No, it's not. You can find example after example of the EPA and other agencies falsifying information and distorting data to get to a political-based outcome. Another famous one was the snail darter population issue in California. The EPA did not go after the problem (agricultural runoff), but decided to treat the symptom by cutting off water to the small farmers in the San Joaquin valley so that the corporate farms on the SF Bay watershed could continue to pollute.

To ignore these abuses is to submit to tyranny.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Of course they can game the system - name one repeatable climatology experiment. It can't be done, like astronomy climatology is an observational science, you can't throw a bunch of alternate Earth's into the lab to experiment on. Requiring that only experimental (reproducible) science be used as the basis for policy means we have to ignore most of what we know about the natural world.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

The already exists a legal definition of "publicly available". In addition, this law would apply to the EPA, not to the labs which produced the results. That is, it is the EPA which this law requires to make this information publicly available. This bill was created in reaction to the EPA's failure to provide the scientific information upon which it based its revision to Clean Air Act regulations to Congress.
Feel free to suggest an alternative wording that is more to your liking.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

>So what the fuck then is all this "climate change" hoopla based on then

Observational science.

There's two kinds of science: experimental science where you tinker with things in a repeatable way and see the results, and observational science where you're dealing with things that can't be duplicated and have to be inferred from lots and lots of independent corroborating results. Believe me, climatologists, astronomers, etc aren't altogether happy with the situation either, it'd be *much* easier to study the climate if we could tinker with it in a controlled fashion and see what happens, but it's just too big to be possible.

We can tell you how it's changing, and more-or-less why it's changing (though we're still working on some of the details). We can make millions of different measurements and determine that evidence from many unrelated sources corroborates our theories. What we can't do is make a duplicate Earth to perform experimental science on.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"These are the same people that are trying to get an extremist interpretation of the Jewish creation myth taught as science in public schools."

Wow. Stereotype much?

Are all black people thieves, too? Are Polish people stupid?

Get back to me when you figure that one out.

And just for the record, no, clearly what they are doing is in response to the EPA refusing to release bases for its decisions. See the links in the other comments above.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[je ne sais quoi]

I was thinking this bill could actually much worse than just wishing for a scientific process that doesn't exist: there is a large and gaping flaw in its logic. Much of our regulations are issued because of large-scale damage to the ecosystem that costs much more to deal with its consequences than prevent (e.g., the added health costs of air pollution). However, in large systems, especially those involving human beings and livelihood, it is utterly impossible to reproduce something, like the climate change over the entire Earth,. According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.

As for the EPA using secret science, this is an utter load of bull-shit. All of EPA's studies are on-line and publically available. Here is a link to the searchable database containing the superfund site Records of Decision: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/c...

This is another manufactured crisis like the "war" on Christmas attempting to make people on the left (or anyone who doesn't agree with them) into demons. Assholes.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

"you can't make a copy" - Hell, you can't even get a copy of the data or algorithms.

Sure you can if you're not too lazy to look for it. Here's a good place to start.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Yes, bias and corruption exist everywhere.

Now that that's settled, look at the state of the environment 50 years ago before the EPA was established compared to today. They may occasionally be biased, but we *know* the opposition is. Is it worth letting big monied interests totally defang the EPA against the biggest threat our species has scene in all of recorded history in order to curtail a few arguable overreaches?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Hey, I'll accept well-established observational science even when it goes against me. Rustle some up and we'll talk.

But when the only counterargument is big businesses saying "But it will cut into my profits! Whaah!", you'd bet your ass I'll side with the observational science.

Re:wait what?

[mellon]

It's a great idea, as long as a willful failure to reproduce the results doesn't qualify as "not reproducible." And of course, it also means that a lot of work that is not being done now will have to be done—there's been a push in the sciences to do a better job of publishing code used to arrive at results, but this is by no means a complete success at this juncture. So the effect of this at present would probably be to prevent the EPA making any rules at all. And of course, I'm sure the Republicans have no intention of increasing science funding to account for the additional work that will be required, and the studies that will have to be re-done, and the code that will have to be rewritten.

So yes, this could be a good thing; nevertheless, I smell a rat.

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.

The bottom line is that no rule can make government work better. For government to work better, the people implementing the rules have to be smart and have good intentions, and there has to be criticism. If you just pass a rule, but don't hire the right people, it's garbage in, garbage out. And we are the hiring manager, much though we might wish to pretend that it's "the corporations" or "the libruls" or whatever. The buck has to stop here.

Well

[The Cat]

Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.

Re:Well

[ebno-10db]

Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.

In other words, here's hoping the dupes fall for it.

What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose? Yeah, I can't think of any either. Nor have I ever heard of opponents of an EPA policy criticize it on the grounds that the EPA hasn't disclosed relevant scientific information.

This is a "think of the children" type of bill. Tout something that everybody agrees is desirable, and slip your agenda into the fine print. What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?

This sounds like a ruse.

[Above]

"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

That quote is not the same attitude that would come from someone who is looking for solid, reproducible science. I believe most of the people who are strong supporters of solid, transparent, reproducible science would actually say the EPA has been near toothless, not overbearing. For example West Virginia chemical spill that contaminated the Kanawha/Ohio/Mississippi and the drinking water for millions and yet the company was allowed to store the chemical right next to the river with nearly zero monitoring or oversight. Another would be fracking, for which there is ample evidence of ground water contamination, and it causing earthquakes, and yet "full speed ahead!".

No, this is a bureaucratic trick, often used in Washington, so let's translate:

• Transparent - prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go! You can imagine GOP friendly companies (like those run by the Koch brothers) would do studies and then prevent them from being published just to gum up the works.
• Reproducible - In it's most benign form this is a delaying tactic. Perhaps everyone agrees on the science, but until it can be "reproduced" regulations can be delayed. There will be calls for private industry to reproduce findings when there is no (business) reason for them to do so, and then their lack of action will be used to gum up the works. However, in a more malignant form GOP friendly companies will do bad science on purpose, and attempt to question the validity of EPA findings. It's easy to imagine again 10 studies that all agree, and then right as the regulation comes to pass some bad science pseudo-report being released that calls into question the "reproducibility" of the science.

The tactic is alive right in the promotion of the bill. The "Institute for Energy Research" turns out to be a lobbying group run by an ex-Enron director, funded by ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers. As a result I think you can see the sort of transparent, reproducible "science" that will be in play here, starting with the "2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research" used to back up this bill.

Yet another redundant, useless law

[bruce_the_moose]

This idiot congress critter has absolutely no idea how EPA regulations get written.

"Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups," says Schweikert.

He assumes the regulations get written the same way financial industry and other regulations get written, by think tanksand lobbyists (ALEC anyone?). My sister, an environmental engineer spends a great amount of time in the field collecting samples and then coming back to the lab and documenting the science that goes into developing regulations for the EPA.

"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

Which is pure, verifiable bullshit. His agenda couldn't be more plain. Like laws introduced to prohibit public funding of abortions, which is already prohibited, it's more about grandstanding and politics than anything having to do with transparency, economics, or in absolutely last place, the environment.

Re:wait what?

[c0lo]

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated.

"Proven harmful" is even mild in comparison with "reproducible harmful". There are lots of things one can never hope to reproduce empirically: can you really reproduce an earthquake (if you can't control it, how can you hope to reproduce it)? Or the effect of variating CO2 percentage on Earth's climate? (yes, you can observe it, but not reproduce it, there's only one Earth to stand as experimental subject)

Re:wait what?

[penix1]

Maybe all these dick-cheeses that are trying to hamstring the EPA should spend a couple weeks in Charleston, WV during the height of the chemical spill. Maybe we should ship them all the bottled water from the Elk River for their enjoyment.

Sorry for the snark but having lived through this ongoing drama and having to bird bath for a week using bottled water because these asshats prefer money over health is getting to me.

Re:wait what?

[Joce640k]

This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me

It's aimed specifically at the EPA and it's designed so they can basically block anything they don't like.

Remember how nobody could *prove* that smoking causes cancer? That's the way this is going to go...

Re:wait what?

[Joce640k]

I smell a rat.

Yep. Proving things is harmful in a complex system can be almost impossible. eg. They couldn't prove that smoking causes cancer, but was there any real doubt?

This is just designed so they can stonewall anything the EPA proposes.

There is no controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as all sides in a controversy have to use open science, this will not happen. You have nothing to fear because all real science is open.

Remember the years that the FDA was just trying make cigarette makers put warning labels on cigarette packs? The cigarette industry had plenty of studies that showed cigarettes were "safe". It's easy to find a scientist to create a study to show that what you want then to show.

And while the debates are going on about what is "real" science, industry is plowing ahead making money and harming people.

The same WILL happen with all these industries who are trying get out from under the EPA.

Industry CANNOT be trusted to do real science when it comes to their regulation and their bottom line.

It is naive think that data, truth and science will prevail.

EPA Full of Bad Code

[retroworks]

I agree that simply restricting EPA's regulation is an "end of pipe" solution to the problems at EPA (restricting the power to restrict). But while I think the environment is the most important legacy our generation will leave (or not), there are many problems at EPA. A pile of lead silicate in the sunshine at a mining site is governed by 1872 laws and the cleanup paid by Superfund. Try collecting a stack of leaded silicate at a recycling operation. Outdated EPA codes discourage innovation or investment. In 1960 the USA had 7 secondary (recycling) copper smelters, by 2001 there were 0, because EPA enforcement of "waste" (scrap raw material, defined as "waste") is stronger than enforcement of "extraction" (mined raw material, defined as a "commodity") codes. The codes on EPA books were influenced by property value, making resources extracted from populace more difficult. 14/15 of the largest Superfund sites are at hard rock mining sites EPA can't figure out how to regulate... so they double down regulating recyclers, in a perverse "pecking order" show of strength. Visit this EPA Calculator to see EPA's attempt to put their Codes into legal interpretation, and run virgin leaded ore through it (follow "specific exclusions" path for mined ore, defined under "commodity" exclusion) http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/...

I really liked my colleagues (state env regulatory agency) and hate to sound like a jerk. But that social group-think, and "reverence of the environment", doesn't belong in scientific method, and is part of the problem. There is kind of pseudo-religious hostility towards rewriting environmental regulations, which become ossified and subject to work-arounds. Too many environmental regulators seem spoiled by the knee-jerk support of environmentalists, who fetishize the environmental codes, opposing rewrites and sunsetting of old EPA rules (again, out of justifiable but cynical suspicion the RCRA and CERCLA laws won't be replaced by new ones). Resistance to identified problems with EPA testing methods (like TCLP tests applied to vitrified solids, hah!) feeds the backlash at the GOP over continued use of the old code. How many of the comments here simply dismiss the idea in the article because it comes from the GOP? And how often are Democrats willing to sunset an old code before implementing a new one? It's a vicious intractable political cycle.

All I can think of is to put USGS.gov (US Geological Survey) or NASA in charge of EPA, as the problems at EPA are entrenched officials who don't know how to steer their ocean liner to catch the sunset. RCRA and CERCLA are broken, EPA officials know it, but they are too afraid that if they are removed they won't be able to get replacement law enacted, and won't be able to hire the type of people that would write good regulations out of the new laws. Or if it's a coding problem, maybe a software engineer can fix it.

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[pepty]

It would put a stop to basing EPA laws on human medical science, since you would have to get everyone whose medical records were used in the study (or their estates) to make their records public. That's what the GOP is asking for:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Logical Fallacy

[whistlingtony]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy. "Black and White". You know this.

"Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or on the side of the enemy."

There are plenty of alternatives. Like, I don't know, Allowing the EPA to regulate based on common sense (storage tanks in west virginia should be checked out once a year. Good science? I don't know. But it's common sense.) and known science (yes, formaldehyde is bad for people). Basically, shut up and let the EPA do it's job.

I can't believe we're having this discussion barely a month out from the West Virgiania debacle.

West Virginia

[whistlingtony]

I can't believe we're even having this debate barely a month after the debacle in West Virginia. A company didn't inspect their own tanks, the EPA regs were LAX, not tight, and 300,000 people couldn't even wash their hands in their water for a week, let alone drink it. It's not even ancient history. It happened THIS YEAR, and it's FEBRUARY!

At best, this would just be used as a stall tactic while companies tied up the EPA with further appeals. They already do that. This is just another tactic to use.

Everyone here should be quite aware that the EPA does a needed and useful job. I like not having lead in my kids' toys, formaldehyde in my milk, and chlorine gas in my air. Regulations are IMPORTANT. They keep us safe. Remember, it's way cheaper to not be safe.