Slashdot Mirror
EPA Proposes Limits To Science Used In Rulemaking (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule on Tuesday that would limit the kinds of scientific research it can use in crafting regulations, an apparent concession to big business that has long requested such restrictions. Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data. The measure was billed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as a way to boost transparency for the benefit of the industries his agency regulates. But scientists and former EPA officials worry it will hamstring the agency's ability to protect public health by putting key data off limits.
The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data as a basis for its air, water and chemicals rules. While it publishes enormous amounts of research and data to the public, the confidential material is held back. Business interests have argued the practice is tantamount to writing laws behind closed doors and unfairly prevents them from vetting the research underpinning the EPA's often costly regulatory requirements. They argue that if the data cannot be published, the rules should not be adopted. But ex-EPA officials say the practice is vital.
The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data as a basis for its air, water and chemicals rules. While it publishes enormous amounts of research and data to the public, the confidential material is held back. Business interests have argued the practice is tantamount to writing laws behind closed doors and unfairly prevents them from vetting the research underpinning the EPA's often costly regulatory requirements. They argue that if the data cannot be published, the rules should not be adopted. But ex-EPA officials say the practice is vital.
Because this is how you end up watering your crops with Brawndo.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Can you even think beyond the pre-programmed rigid static one-dimensional binary extremes, of which not one, but *both* are distorted strawmen?
Seriously, you are a full human being, .. sitting there ... shouting phrases that would make an IS member tell you to take it down a notch and start pondering.
What happened to your life, man?
Seriously, I mean this with the best possible intentions. Not taking any "sides".
Go outside! Leave the country! Find a beautiful spot, where the people are nice and the drinks too.
Do you really want *this* to be your life? ... what you are?
Can you even feel me? :-/
Not disclosing public health data does not make a result non-reproducible. It just makes it less convenient to reproduce.
In your conception of "reproducible", gravity wave detection is not science, because you can't reproduce the detection of any specific event.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am skeptical of any Trump associate (or even any guy Trump likes) proclaiming they are trying to make a government agency more transparent. Remember this is the guy who insisted on a bug sweep of his government office and also installed an expensive privacy phone booth, and insists on a security detail greater than that of most 3rd world dictators. He gets favors like cheap rent from industry lobbyists and then tries to lie about it.
And, for good measure, freely uses taxpayer money for luxury travel so lavish that even Trump has to notice.
So spare me protestations that this member of the Trump clown show is going to make anything better at the EPA for anyone except his industry executive friends and that any criticism is just anti-Trump bias. For someone to have faith in him doing the right thing they would have to be delusional, ignorant, partisan or any combination.
Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.
Without data and methods, the study can't be reproduced, so the conclusions can't be challenged.
That's not science.
Anonymize the data. That's what everyone else does. Or compel data from the entities in question. Compelling data is only a rule change away.
But requiring all the science data to be available is a GOOD thing.
Unless the science data can't be made available, thereby invalidating all research that involves medical side effects. This is just a way to prevent science from being used because it proves too much.
"weaponize transparency". Where on Earth do you shills^Wpeople think this shit up. Or is truth no longer acceptable when it doesn't fit your narrative?
Hello anonymous! By your own logic, we should not take into account your criticisms because you have not been fully transparent yourself.
Very funny!
No. Your prediction is wrong. Approvals for pesticides are not "rulemaking".
Here is a hint: if you think that a change that the administration is making isn't intended to benefit large companies, you are almost certainly wrong.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's OK, folks--Kohath's merely asking a question.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.
Absolutely! I would in fact propose a law that requires any company that challenges EPA regulation based on this argument to open all their own books and research in the interest of transparency.
I feel so sig.
The general population disagrees or Facebook wouldn't be as successful as they are.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Absolutely! Partisan humbug and rancor aside, transparency is a good thing. If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's NOT science.
But instead of relying on science, our political system lets companies write the laws and regulations that govern them. As a result, we get abominations like polluted water in Flint MI, West Virginia, and North Carolina.
Before releasing something into the water supply, samples should be tested for contaminants. And if those samples don't make the grade, those responsible need to be held accountable. Making discharge safe typically involves diluting it to approved contaminant levels before releasing it into the water supply. Simple, really. There are labs that can and do test discharge samples for a plethora of contaminants, acidity, color, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, etc. But they don't test for everything that might be dangerous - prescription drugs for example. These sort of things need to be put right before they are put in our water. But it won't happen if science doesn't make the rules and regulators don't enforce those rules.
Because science and technology can verifiably be used to clean up the environment, whereas politics demonstratively won't, I propose replacing Scott Pruitt with AI. If AI is good enough for the CIA, it's gotta be better for the environment than a corrupt political lackey.
--
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/what-lies-upstream/
Except that isn't what this about.. at all. There's nothing preventing those patients being identified as John Doe nor by some random ID. It's literally the EPA will be required to base their decisions on Science and Slashdot is ripping them apart because Trump??
No one has even brought up national security or other sensitive information that may still need to be redacted. Anything involving nuclear radiation or biological weapons for example.
Getting the feeling this entire "story" was crated by bots.
Donald Trump is such a terrifying fascist dictator that literally nobody fears speaking about him on any platform.
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.
Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This change will require environmental regulation decisions to be based on publicly-available data, rather than secret datasets - and the problem is what, exactly? Critics of this rule change apparently are forcing themselves to pretend medical data can't be annonimized and made public...
What is fascinating is that the critics are ignoring how this regulation would protect their interests of a business-favoring administration tried to ram thru a regulation rolling back a clean water regulation ("I have secret medical data that shows humans have an incredible tolerance for less in their drinking water, we we are rolling back safe water regulations").
Ken
Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and
transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political
interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either.
It is the same as pretty much everything else with them.
1. Establish the desired outcome. Eliminate abortions, get more republicans elected, more tax cuts for high earners, etc.
2. Determine what paths get that outcome ignoring ethics entirely or to a great degree.
3. If necessary come up with "reasons" why you had to take those actions.
4. Take those actions.
With abortions, you have such things as requiring a 6 foot wide hallway. There have been no rational basis for why that is required beyond they wanted to shutdown more abortion clinics, but the stated reason was for the health of the people involved. In other words, they lied.
In voting, you have protecting against fake voting as the stated reason. In practice their voting role purges, voter id requirements, etc, etc raise barriers to voting that tend to favour their side. In short, they lied again.
With this you have the stated reason of protecting us from non verified info and such, but the outcome of gutting more of the EPA and making the planet dirtier. In short, they lied again.
They elected someone known for lying and have established a pattern of lying continuously to get their way. None of this is new..
Hell Trump just called the leader of North Korea "Very Honourable."
Truth means nothing to these people. Only outcomes matter. It is all a means to the end.
Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.
So the EPA proposes that the science used to determine public policy and environmental regulations be held to the same rigorous standard as your average sixth-grade science fair submission, and critics attack the proposal because... decisions based on secret data is the only way to protect the environment?
Ken