Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
n/t
what is with the militant liberal bias on this site?
No idea about the full implications, but hormesis is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
“growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function,”
Because, you know, the best way to talk about a sentence is to not show it.
Nothing matters any more. There is no truth or facts and science is all just made up liberal lies. All that matters is the will of Trump and the Corporate Lobbyists -- you know, THE PEOPLE. Working Class Tax Payers aren't people and don't get a say
What's a little mercury between friends?
EPA ... the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Can't wait for the FDA to make that assumption about cancer ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This world was built on the process of Evolution by Variation and Selection, not Intelligent Design.
At some point, you've just got to do something; you can't be arguing over hypotheticals for eternity.
America is ready to start doing something again.
Is like the church was back in the day when Galileo was around. We're all going to suffer for it.
have always been at war with Eastasia.
could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial
Where exactly is this "assumption" made?
And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.
Public health, schmublic health. There's MONEY to be made!
Who the fuck cares if we make the planet unable to support human life! I'll be dead, having made MORE MONEY!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Why does this dribble even make it to /.?
You know that goofy high pitched in and out 70's stuff that would start to play every time shit was about to go down? Yeah, I'm hearing it over and over in my head right now.
From Ironside apparently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.
" 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?
a 120mm round from a tank fired to your head is bad, .22cal would be okay? /h (yes, I know modern tank shells aren't made of lead, no need to get pedantic on me)
but a
I mean, they're both lead right?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
from the ./ summary:
"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."
That is the fundamental error underlying all environmental regulatory policy in the U.S. Every nutrient essential for human life has some dose at which it becomes toxic. Water and table salt are two common examples. Whether a substance is harmful or beneficial to life depends on both the substance and the quantity. If the EPA were serious about that policy, then it would demand that the oceans be ejected into space to clean up the environment of deadly salt and water toxins.
It says "cautious scientific reasoning." There are two problems with that description. First, it is value judgment which violates presumed editorial neutrality of straight news. Second, it is the wrong value judgment. "idiotic non-scientific assumptions" would be an accurate description.
The consequence of a completely unworkable policy is regulatory confusion and rule by bureaucratic fiat.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Now we can see a return to the good old days when people used to paint their homes with lead paint. Yes! You too will soon be able to paint lead on your walls for all the family to enjoy. The EPA says it was mistaken and it's perfectly safe now. Paint your walls with lead paint soon! :))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Oh, and in Flint Michigan and many other parts of the USA, neighbourhoods can start drinking the tap water again because lead is safe!
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Hormesis -- a positive health impact from low exposures to an environmental stressor like radiation or pollution -- is a real thing. You can demonstrate that in lab animals.
The thing is, humans aren't lab animals. You can't control their total exposure to the stressor. Scientific support for radiation hormesis in humans is (for obvious reasons) anecdotal, and by definition isn't controlled. The same exposure that had a small beneficial effect in one population might not have happened had that population been living on a radon spur.
Where there is a possibility of a hormetic effect at low levels of exposure and a certainty of a negative effect at high levels of exposure, you have to limit human exposure from any single source. That doesn't take a genius to understand, but that level of reasoning appears to be light years beyond the current political discussion, in which radiation is either good or evil and must be treated accordingly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Regulatory capture is going to be the death of US civil society, and the nation will truly be in the hands of the wealthy and corporations .. and everyone else can fuck off and die.
If the EPA is coming with this assumption, they know they're lying their fucking asses off and are really just giving corporations a giant cash grab at our expense.
And I fear this is going to undermine actual science and allow very weak evidence by polluters, with a requirement for very strong evidence to prove something is dangerous.
America is truly fucked.
Here's an explanation of what's going on... same method used by tobacco industry.
https://thinkprogress.org/sena...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
l . ,-,__, .{ / ,__\ Gee .U__| T__, that /\ o } o} \ in .l/ / window .j . .] / sure /} good .{ . .Y lookin! .\l Say .\ . .\ mister .l\ . \ much? .I } . } I .1/ . / would .{ . / trade ./ ./| you ./ ~-_, a .(, \-~`'~ whole .\ \_, ovaltine
l
l { `}'- -/ golly
l {`}'\ _, mister
l
l / . . . \ \ woman
l/
/ / \`~' `T } } the
{ { . } .
\ \
l\ \/ . . }/ is
l \{ . \
I
l . 1 .
l .
l . . 1, . \ how
l . .
l . .
l . .
. . .
. . .
. . . /
. .
. . .
. . . . `'~ can
According to Putin, when the queen revealed her underlying Reptilian nature by shape-shifting, her face turned scary, with evil-looking slit eyes and a long dragon-like snout. Her skin also turned a “grey dish water color.”
He also saw the old monarch shape-shifting when Obama and New Zealand’s Governor-General Jerry Mateparae helped her down the stairs. Putin said that when Obama held the queen, her hands turned Reptilian green and scaly, and when she smiled, she revealed sharp and spiky reptilian teeth that glistened evilly.
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.
Your point would have been better if you didn't make it a partisan thing.
Good quote from a guy whose stuff I like: "In our online interactions, we have a choice of being a smartass and showing people how dumb they are, OR maybe convincing skeptical new people to consider our opinions. Unfortunately for fellow smartasses, we only get to choose one :-)"
The current state of political debate doesn't distinguish between types of radiation, much less the exposure levels.
How many reporters don't understand the difference between a microwave's radiation and inhaling cesium dust or radon exposure? I'd say most. I commonly see warnings about cell phone radiation exposure like it's the same as fallout from a nuclear blast.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I am generally deeply skeptical of what Trump is doing to the EPA, but I don't actually see a problem with the text - it's a good thing to investigate response models to various toxins, radiation, etc. and use the most appropriate one for determining policy. A linear model is almost certainly incorrect for most cases, and could just as easily underestimate the harm as overestimate it.
The problem comes in if this is used to implement unjustified deregulation, which is certainly a concern with this administration. It's hard to say if that's the case without more context though.
It's not a partisan think. I'm a liberal myself. It's that people across the political spectrum make ridiculous arguments.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just a reminder to you younger Slashdotters, that there was a time, before there was an EPA, where several of the Great Lakes had all their fish dying, there were rivers in Ohio that would burst into flames and several American cities where the smog was so bad that the air was a yellowish-green even on a cloudless day. And not just cities like LA and Cleveland, Pittsburgh, but also Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas and many others.
A Republican president created the EPA in 1970, and within a decade and a half, you could find Lake Trout and Salmon in the Great Lakes again, there are even fish in the Cuyahoga, and people could actually breathe in cities without coughing up brown phlegm again. Corporations adjusted to the new regulations and the '80s and '90s saw a booming US economy with widespread improvement across all economic strata.
We are being ratfucked by our own government. If your big issue is "feminists are taking my jobs!" and supporting this administration in order to "own the libs and SJWs", you are what is known as a useful idiot, and you are hurting yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The faster we get rid of various versions of LNT, and actually get reasonable scientific definitions, the better. Our bodies are designed to easily handle certain amount of toxins, carcinogens, radiation, etc. It's a part of normal metabolic process.
The problem is when we receive more of a dose of aforementioned things than our natural metabolic, immune etc processes can handle. When that happens we get sick, poisoned, killed or suffer long term cell damage that leads to cancer. The worst offender by far in this category is the radiation LNT model. It's been long debunked (yes, you get a significant radiation dose by flying, no, it's not a carcinogenic factor to fly to your yearly holiday because the additional dose is much lower than surplus of your natural cell repair mechanisms held in reserve).
Same applies to toxins, poisons, carcinogens and so on. What we need to know is not just that "this material/process can be toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic" but "how much of an exposure to this needs to occur for the toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic effect to actually occur in human body".
"Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets."
Easy: Every by-product of industrial production that make republican backed corporations shitloads of money.
Reading the examples of Hormesis out there ... things don't look so great for hormesis. I'll take the threshold.
That explains the minions? They're all fucking mutated because of bananas.
Oh, wait, bananas are real and radioactive and minions aren't. That applies to radiation inside the body too.
Team Blue and Team Red both arguing over polygraph tests, neither and no one pointing out that polygraph tests are pseudoscience. The culture war consumes all.
Hmmm. Given the types of people that the current administration have put in charge of the EPA, I'm wondering myself what this could possibly be aimed at...
Could it be coal?
Nah. That's just my liberal-leaning reaction. Trump has obviously looked at the current standards for chemical exposure, consulted the experts, and identified areas where chemical regulations could be loosened in a way that still reasonably protects the health of American citizens.Why look at all the public health issues and environmental protections that Trump and his constituents care deeply about:
There's... coal.... no wait. Already said that.
Um.... coal.
Also.... coal?
(maybe oil too, but not nearly as much as coal. MAGA!)
Polygraphs aren't pseudoscience; but there's a lot of pseudoscience around polygraphs. People can't deal with anything that's complicated, so (as needed) people will regard a polygraph as practically infallible or utterly useless. In fact their performance is better than chance, which is useful, but not decisive.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.
Thank God humans evolved, thus ending the 4.5 billion year dearth of pollutants that was holding back all the species on the planet. Since the mid 19th century we've been making things so much better!
J
" Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets."
If this is indeed the case, then it runs afoul of the Supreme Court's "plain English language" standard of interpretation of the law, where a reasonable practitioner of the art in question should be able to read and understand the law without having to be coached by a lawyer.
Obviously the EPA is crippled by current right wing politics. The right wing loonies should be forced to drink only water from Flint !
Remember when the Republic Party stood for, among other things:
- personal responsibility;
- accountability;
- consequences for the actions of the individual.
Bret Kavanaugh was investigated based upon his actions. The "liberals" had nothing to do with his drinking, his partying, his (alleged) sexual assaulting ways. But do continue to push the narrative that "Democrats made poor Bret Partay Hardy!"
The political Right have abandoned all their "values" and stand for little more than racist immigration policies, fawning over the rich and powerful, screwing the poor and weak, and control of the political establishment. They have sold their souls for 40 pieces of silver, just as a certain Apostle once did. What was his name? Judas, was it?
Whatever happened to Judas? Ohhhh, riiiightttt.
The EPA doesn't need science to make it's rules. With the Republicans in charge, we live in a post-science world. The only thing they need to consider in making rules is how it affects corporate profits.