Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Senate may consider "The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Senate may consider "The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015"

    Who knew that the EPA frequently imposes new costs on our economy on the basis of "secret science"?
    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was referred a bill (S. 544) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

    General Statement and Background

    Current law does not guarantee that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory actions are based on the best available science, nor does it ensure the science used is transparent or independently verifiable. While numerous Administration policies and guidance recommend such safeguards, they fall short of meeting the open access and integrity standards for sound science.

    Aside from EPA-generated science, the Agency primarily relies on studies that have been conducted outside the Agency and peer reviewed. However,in many cases peer reviewers do not have access to underlying data and therefore cannot verify the findings of the studies under review. In 2014, a survey of experts in risk analysis and toxicology released by George Mason University found that only 16% of those surveyed said peer reviewers often or always have access to underlying data from critical studies. Moreover, peer review alone is not a sufficient check on science. In 2002, the National Research Council explained ``peer review alone does not detect fraud, validate factual findings . . . or substitute for the judgments of the scientific community as a whole.'' Further, in 2014 The Economist reported ``[m]odern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying--to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity. Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis.''\1\

    [...]

    https://www.congress.gov/congression...te-report/69/1

    Why should the EPA be prohibited from using "secret science"?
    With Pollution Levels Dropping, is Small Particle Air Pollution Really Killing Americans?

    July 1, 2015
    Guest essay by Steve Goreham

    [...]

    Past EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in 2011, stating, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Particulate matter refers to PM2.5, classified by the EPA as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, much smaller than the eye can see. Particle pollution is a mixture of dust, nitrates and sulfates, metals, pollen, and organic chemicals.

    The EPA claims that any level of small particles can cause premature death. The agency warns that death may be short-term, occurring within a few hours of inhalation, or may be caused by long-term inhalation of PM2.5 over several years. EPA policy advisor Amanda Brown asserted that between 130,000 and 320,000 Americans died prematurely in 2005 due to small particle pollution, an incredible 6 to 15 percent of total US deaths.

    [...]

    The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will force closure of coal-fired power plants across the nation, is an example. The EPA claims that implementation of the CPP will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths and $93 billion in climate and public health benefits. But the monetized climate benefits are essentially zero. Almost all of the $93 billion comes from an EPA calculation on savings from avoidance of premature death from small particles.



    [...]

    The Harvard Six Cities study of 1993 and the American Cancer Society study of 1995, two studies that form the basis of EPA small particle science, found an increase in relative risk of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2). An increase in death rates of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2) is almost statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    [...]

    But what stinks to high heaven is that data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies have never been released. Other scientists are not able to replicate and verify the results of these studies. In effect, the EPA is asking all to “trust us” on the science of death from particle pollution. The Secret Science Reform Act proposes to force the EPA to disclose data from studies that support the need for EPA regulations.

    [...]

    The result is a massive, costly, and growing burden on American citizens in the name of clean air. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost US citizens some $400 billion in compliance costs over the next 15 years. But the savings from “prevention of premature deaths” from particle pollution are likely imaginary.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/0...ing-americans/
    2
    Hell yes.
    100.00%
    2
    I don't know.
    0.00%
    0
    I don't care.
    0.00%
    0
    No... The EPA would never do anything stupid, dishonest, fraudulent or Marxist.
    0.00%
    0
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X