The EPA's Bold New Idea Has Massive Implications For Public Health (motherjones.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic chemicals has been based on the cautious scientific reasoning that considers even slight exposure to toxins potentially risky to public health. From that premise, the EPA has assessed a wide range of pollution, including lung-clogging particulate matter, Superfund cleanup, water treatment, radiation exposure, and risk assessments for carcinogens like benzene.

That time-honored approach may be changing because of easy-to-overlook phrasing within a paragraph buried in the proposed "Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science Rule," a regulation that will bar the EPA from considering a wide range of scientific studies in its rule-making. With a few sentences buried in the seven-page Federal Register text, the EPA is opening the door to a new scientific approach that -- in a worst-case scenario -- could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

Some scientists have considered the implications of this paragraph and described a whole array of potential problems to Mother Jones. Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets.

Comments

Hormesis

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea about the full implications, but hormesis is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

Is this the paragraph?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

" The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. "

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science

If so, what's the problem?

Re:Is this the paragraph?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Not that Mother Jones went out of their way to make clear exactly what they were talking about, but I think it's this one:

In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.

To the extent the EPA really was taking studies measuring harm at at exposure level X and assuming 50% of the harm at exposure level X/2, I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the above. (For all we know, more robust studies might find a greater level of harm at smaller exposures than a linear interpolation would assume.)

"a little pollution is actually beneficial"?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I know it's Mother Jones, but how in the world do you twist the actual text into that kind of soundbite?

In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.

No wonder they didn't quote the actual language in the article.

Re: wtf /.

[Anonymous Coward]

With this comment:
can tell you that Fox has it's bias but it's pretty obvious to me that they are the LEAST biased of the major cable network related websites

You pretty much just pegged what is wrong, first you think fox has anything to do with actual news and not entertainment, pandering to a certain world view.

Do you still believe Sadam had something to do with 9/11 and had chemical or nuclear weapons?

You realize you are the least likely to be informed about the real world by listening to Fox News?
So much so that if you watched no news at all you would be better informed?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#251316fc12ab