Slashdot Mirror
EPA Dismisses Half the Scientists on Its Major Review Board (nymag.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A few weeks after the election, pro-Trump commentator Scottie Nell Hughes heralded the dawn of a new era when she declared, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts." In the age of Trump there's little need for people who've devoted their lives to studying scientific facts, and over the weekend the administration finally got around to dismissing some of them. According to the Washington Post, about half of the 18 members on the Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors have been informed that their terms will not be renewed. The academics who sit on the board advise the EPA's scientific board on whether its research is sound. The academics usually serve two three-year stints, and they were told by Obama administration officials and career EPA staffers that they would stay on for another term. But on Friday some received emails from the agency informing them that their first three-year term was up and they would not be renominated. Republican members of Congress have complained for some time that the Board of Scientific Counselors, as well as the 47-member Science Advisory Board, just rubber-stamp new EPA regulations. A spokesman for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed that he's thinking of replacing the academics with industry experts (though the EPA is supposed to be regulating those companies). Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Center for Science and Democracy, expressed her disappointment and asked, "What's the scientific reason for removing these individuals from this EPA science review board? It is rare to see such a large scale dismissal even in a presidential transition. The EPA is treating this scientific advisory board like its members are political appointees when these committees are not political positions. The individuals on these boards are appointed based on scientific expertise not politics. This move by the EPA is inserting politics into science."
Who's watching the watchers if they're watching themselves?
#DeleteFacebook
Wow nice linking to fake news sites, except for the Denver Post link which had absolutely nothing to do with sound scientific research.
Trump much?
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
A spokesman for the henhouse comfirmed that he's thinking of replacing the roosters with "chicken experts" (i.e. foxes).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Your first link is a google list of fake news sites.
That gold mine spill was because the gold miner was illegally storing waste water. The EPA didn't cause a thing. The fault is 100% the gold miners.
See, what mining companies do is they mine, store their toxic waste on site, extract the profits to their investors, go into debt, pay their investors even more money, then go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers wth the cleanup bill.
Privatize profits, socialize the costs.
Then conservatives use this shit as "proof" how bad the EPA is.
It's like lie that Mitch McConnell (R-KY) invented that the EPA has a war on coal when in fact the decline in coal is 100% caused by the free markets that conservatives worship.
See, the EPA is the fall guy that businesses use to hide their exploitation of us and our environment.
And stupid people beleive the lie because they think the business community has nothing but their interests at heart.
Elections have consequences. In this case, America spoke with a single unified voice
Is that intended to be ironic? If so, you need to understand that irony is invisible on the internet, since it is camouflaged by the ubiquitous cluelessness pervasive on comment posts.
If this is not intended to be ironic: that's ironic. Because, in fact, America did not speak with a single unified voice.
and declared that we are sick of all the burdensome environmental regulations destroying our lives and careers and they need some one to rain them in.
If this is intended as ironic: ROFL on the phrase "rain them in."
If it's not intended as ironic: that's ironic.
Actually, this isn't inserting politics into science as stated, it's more like a continuation of the removal of science and all its annoying reliance on real facts from politics/governance.
"These people that are controlling things right now are in their own little world with no regard or though for the consequences of their actions on real peoples lives"
Do you honestly believe that the world would be a better place if anyone could do anything they want to the shared environment? Think about what that world would look like. If your neighbor could burn whatever they want, dump whatever they want. What if your neighbor was a chemical plant.
Look at the history of companies like DuPont, Dow Chemical, etc... Look at what happens when there is no EPA. Think about living next to one of these without somebody keeping them in check.
Without a check on behavior, people will live like they "are in their own little world with no regard or though for the consequences of their actions on real peoples lives". And they will destroy that world given 1/2 a chance. I'd like them not to destroy the world I share with them.
Almost - they can't let facts (or laws) get in the way of extracting profit from people and the environment.
Remember, he promised jobs; just like the way China grew it's economy at 10% annually for over a decade.
We should not be surprised when we end up with the same toxic waste land that has Beijing : China has 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course if your a capitalist, you can just claim this is fake news and continue your pillage.
You have fellow PHDs on the board, you dont invite the patients to review potential brain surgens, but that is what you are talking about.
The EPAs job is not to balance the cost of regulations with the benefits, that is congress' job, the EPA has one job, and it is in its name.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Interestingly enough, when a medical committee is looking at brain surgeons, they typically have a few on the committee.
Two things:
(1) As another reply already pointed out, a medical committee on brain surgery invites brain surgeons, Ph.D.s in neurophysiology or whatever, etc. They don't invite patients for their opinions on how best to do the surgery, which is a closer analogue here.
(2) Your idea may have some merit in the sense that having input from industry experts could be useful in formulating the best policy plans if they will require restructuring businesses. Perhaps there is already some sort of committee like that at the EPA, or maybe input is ad-hoc -- or maybe even one could be formed. HOWEVER, it does NOT make sense to appoint industry experts on business policy to the Board of Scientific Counselors or the Science Advisory Board.
Maybe the brain surgeons don't understand the realities of patient care and comfort. Maybe they should have a hospital committee that includes some patients to think about those issues. But the brain surgeons should NOT appoint a bunch of patients to an advisory board on the science and practice of brain surgery itself!
Industry was already on the committee, by law they have to be, just like by law other groups are supposed to be represented as well. He's firing everyone that's NOT industry so industry is the only one on the committee and the only one with a voice. This is why everyone called Pruitt a Shill for industry, make no mistake he's getting paid for this, either now or later.
Because clean air and water should be something only the rich can afford.
We (the plurality) voted for Clinton. By almost 3 million votes. Trump lost the vote of the citizens.
A very small group, specifically the electoral college, put Trump in there. The voters didn't. It's a technical win at best. What it isn't is an indication that he actually won the hearts and minds of the US population. He didn't. He still hasn't. There's no sign he ever will.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"In our research we have found no evidence that lead levels in the atmosphere is higher than the natural level nor that atmospheric lead is harmful to human health"
"You wouldn't, since you're in the business of selling lead".
That actual conversation happened in front of congress in congressional hearings about whether lead in gasoline should be banned. The second speaker was Claire Cameron Paterson. Paterson had, several years earlier - set out to determine the age of the earth by doing uranium dating on an asteroid dating from the earliest days of the solar system. Uranium dating works by figuring out what percentage of uranium had turned to lead.
But he ran into a problem - the lead levels were impossibly high, as in the earth was apparently created last Tuesday high. He realized that lead pollution was interfering with the results. To actually get the answer he had to produce a lead-free environment to do the testing in - and to do that he had, had to become the world's top expert on detecting trace amounts of lead.
He did just that- and along the way realized that lead levels in the atmosphere was astronomically high (a big problem for something known to be a deadly poison that made people crazy and violent). The lead industry argued that lead in the atmosphere wasn't harmful and was, in fact, normal. Paterson proved (using ice core samples) that, prior to leaded gasoline being introduced, the lead level in the atmosphere was ZERO. He also collaborated with numerous doctors and proved there is no safe dosage of lead - a single lead atom is harmful to humans.
That hearing happened in 1955 with Paterson presenting his evidence to congress and begging them to ban leaded gasoline for the sake of the health of all Americans. The industry experts, despite their clear incentive for manipulating and lying about their data, won.
In fact they won for another 30 years. Leaded gasoline wasn't banned in the USA until 1985. Many other countries didn't follow suit until a decade later.
Thirty years during which millions of people needlessly died - to make a few companies a little richer.
The person who is going to be regulated by something CANNOT have a say in the regulations because is NEVER in his best interest NOT to flat out lie. If you ask him "if X harmful" he will lie if he makes money out of X.
If you ask him "how much will banning X cost" - he will lie and pretend it's a trillion times the real number, pretend he'll have to fire more people than he actually employs and tell you that fart goblins will crawl up the toilet and bite your asshole if you ban X.
He'll say ANYTHING to ensure X keeps making him money - and he won't care who dies so he can do it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *