Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    I cannot even come close to your level when it is about red herring. Your last post about the hidden studies is just one example


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/c...onest-act.html

    You do not need to ask scientists to violate confidential agreements in order to verify their studies. You can easily verify them by replicating their procedure (which IS publicly available) using a different sample of people. But such things are not mentioned because the narrative must be that these "liberal" scientist hide the truth from us!

    Not to mention that there has been a long list of literature and studies with raw data not related to personal information which is publicly available (such as about global warming) only to be dismissed by people like you. There are also certain issues of public health and cost of human lives which cannot be easily measured in dollars.
    Yea, they're "thinking about changing..." only because the head of the EPA under Trump, Pruitt, is going to force them to.

    As for the rest of your post, unlike private institutions where there is a right to confidentiality, the government has no such obligation nor should it. The government should act transparently. Confidentially should be a rare exception.

    And, no, you can't "replicate their procedure(s)" when you don't even know what procedures they used nor do you know the results they got doing it.

    Let's take the ozone issue. The EPA wanted to institute tougher standards on ozone pollution. They refused to turn over any data, results, and even methodology used to make their claims publically, and even to Congress on a restricted basis.
    They wanted to lower ozone from 75 ppb (the current limit) to 70 ppb, a 5 ppb reduction. 5 ppb is literally almost unmeasurable.
    Their claim was that although this would be expected to cost roughly $75 billion a year from the economy (their detractors and opposition to this legislation said the cost would be about $90 billion running up to $3.4 trillion), the health benefits would be $100 billion in savings and that about 35,000 lives would be saved as a result from not getting asthma attacks, and that sort of thing.

    35,000 lives is equal to the number of people killed in car accidents in the US annually by the way...

    That was their claim that their "science" showed. But, when nobody could come anywhere close to similar results for a 5 ppb reduction in ozone, questions started to be raised and the EPA went on the defense big time. They've refused all efforts, Congressional subpoenas, FOIA requests, and what-not even with court orders to turn over their data. Why? Because they made the %[email protected] up. They know it and they know if they make it public they're going to get their willy's wacked off.

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...pollution-rule

    https://www.politico.com/story/2014/...tandard-113183

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...bama-smog-rule

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ution-program/

    The bottom line is the EPA's scientists are mediocre, their methodology questionable, their testing and results likewise are unreliable. Yet, these bozo's are making decisions that will have massive impact on people's lives and the economy usually in negative ways.

    The EPA and it's environmental advocates also don't ever, never, ask or answer the question: "How much pollution should be allowed and how much will it cost?" Instead, their question is "How much pollution can we eliminate?" The 'Zero tolerance' mentality is gripping the EPA and Obama let them run amok with it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Yea, they're "thinking about changing..." only because the head of the EPA under Trump, Pruitt, is going to force them to.

      As for the rest of your post, unlike private institutions where there is a right to confidentiality, the government has no such obligation nor should it. The government should act transparently. Confidentially should be a rare exception.

      And, no, you can't "replicate their procedure(s)" when you don't even know what procedures they used nor do you know the results they got doing it.

      Let's take the ozone issue. The EPA wanted to institute tougher standards on ozone pollution. They refused to turn over any data, results, and even methodology used to make their claims publically, and even to Congress on a restricted basis.
      They wanted to lower ozone from 75 ppb (the current limit) to 70 ppb, a 5 ppb reduction. 5 ppb is literally almost unmeasurable.
      Their claim was that although this would be expected to cost roughly $75 billion a year from the economy (their detractors and opposition to this legislation said the cost would be about $90 billion running up to $3.4 trillion), the health benefits would be $100 billion in savings and that about 35,000 lives would be saved as a result from not getting asthma attacks, and that sort of thing.

      35,000 lives is equal to the number of people killed in car accidents in the US annually by the way...

      That was their claim that their "science" showed. But, when nobody could come anywhere close to similar results for a 5 ppb reduction in ozone, questions started to be raised and the EPA went on the defense big time. They've refused all efforts, Congressional subpoenas, FOIA requests, and what-not even with court orders to turn over their data. Why? Because they made the %[email protected] up. They know it and they know if they make it public they're going to get their willy's wacked off.

      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...pollution-rule

      https://www.politico.com/story/2014/...tandard-113183

      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...bama-smog-rule

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ution-program/

      The bottom line is the EPA's scientists are mediocre, their methodology questionable, their testing and results likewise are unreliable. Yet, these bozo's are making decisions that will have massive impact on people's lives and the economy usually in negative ways.

      The EPA and it's environmental advocates also don't ever, never, ask or answer the question: "How much pollution should be allowed and how much will it cost?" Instead, their question is "How much pollution can we eliminate?" The 'Zero tolerance' mentality is gripping the EPA and Obama let them run amok with it.


      Ohh really?

      Can I see the health file of a veteran? Heck, it is an issue of even seeing the tax files of the president!
      Not to mention that the government funds private organizations for many if not all of its studies. And this applies everywhere, including in the DOD. Are you aware of the RAND organization?

      https://www.rand.org/about/glance.html

      What about the private universities?

      You do not know what you are talking about!

      And of course, the issue is that the EPA is now forced to change the procedure because this is what the administration and its coal donors want! But as I said (and you did not get ), the reason for this change has nothing to do with a need to have transparency of private information in studies used for the formulation of EPA policies. THIS IS red herring. When people can REPLICATE the results of health studies, there is no problem with their data even if confidentiality reasons prohibit the release or private information. This is how science works! You REPLICATE the results of an original study. When there are no contradictory findings, you can safely accept the claims of the original study even if you do not know everything about the original raw private information data. And I do not accept your claim that the methodology of scientific studies is not known. Scientists NEED replication of their studies. It is PART of peer reviewing. Scientific or health journals do not simply publish studies for which people know nothing about the procedure and data! Open a scientific journal and READ how studies are presented in such journals instead of spending time in sites which promote irrational claims!
      Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 01:41.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pamak View Post
        Ohh really?

        Can I see the health file of a veteran? Heck, it is an issue of even seeing the tax files of the president!
        Not to mention that the government funds private organizations for many if not all of its studies. And this applies everywhere, including in the DOD. Are you aware of the RAND organization?

        https://www.rand.org/about/glance.html

        What about the private universities?

        You do not know what you are talking about!

        And of course, the issue is that the EPA is now forced to change the procedure because this is what the administration and its coal donors want! But as I said (and you did not get ), the reason for this change has nothing to do with a need to have transparency of private information in studies used for the formulation of EPA policies. THIS IS red herring. When people can REPLICATE the results of health studies, there is no problem with their data even if confidentiality reasons prohibit the release or private information. This is how science works! You REPLICATE the results of an original study. When there are no contradictory findings, you can safely accept the claims of the original study even if you do not know everything about its raw private information data
        It is you who doesn't know what FOIA rules are. Read them.

        https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...exemptions.pdf

        Medical records are covered under exemption 6 of the FOIA act.

        There is no general exemption for scientific data that isn't otherwise classified. Data gathered on ozone or climate change are not protected. And, if there were any proprietary data from a private source included that portion alone, not all data gathered might be exempt from disclosure.
        What the EPA is doing is not making any disclosures at all claiming all their data and methodology can't be revealed. That's absolute BS. As a government agency they have a legal duty to be as transparent as possible and release data and methods for public review.

        http://foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html

        So, which of the nine legal exemptions is the EPA using here?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          It is you who doesn't know what FOIA rules are. Read them.

          https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...exemptions.pdf

          Medical records are covered under exemption 6 of the FOIA act.


          There is no general exemption for scientific data that isn't otherwise classified. Data gathered on ozone or climate change are not protected. And, if there were any proprietary data from a private source included that portion alone, not all data gathered might be exempt from disclosure.
          What the EPA is doing is not making any disclosures at all claiming all their data and methodology can't be revealed. That's absolute BS. As a government agency they have a legal duty to be as transparent as possible and release data and methods for public review.

          http://foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html

          So, which of the nine legal exemptions is the EPA using here?

          Which is EXACTLY the issue with HEALTH STUDIES and raw data related to the record of individuals who participate! read again my NYT quote..
          And I said nothing about data on ozone or anything else. This is YOUR claim that they hide such date which does NOT pass the basic test of common sense. In fact, I recall a case in the past of a scandal with one of the researchers whoops caught manipulating his data!
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Pamak you are making it personal with guys you disagree with. This is not allowed. Find another way, maybe baffle them with brilliance?

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              Pamak you are making it personal with guys you disagree with. This is not allowed. Find another way, maybe baffle them with brilliance?

              Pruitt
              I see...

              At least I have not called anybody troll yet! And there is a reason I am saying this!

              http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...3&postcount=28

              Anyway, I will lower my tone...
              Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 01:59.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                Which is EXACTLY the issue with HEALTH STUDIES and raw data related to the record of individuals who participate! read again my NYT quote..
                And I said nothing about data on ozone or anything else. This is YOUR claim that they hide such date which does NOT pass the basic test of common sense. In fact, I recall a case in the past of a scandal with one of the researchers whoops caught manipulating his data!
                Well, we weren't discussing medical records. The discussion was on the EPA and the science they use to make rules and regulations, including recent ozone rules. So, the above response is:




                If on the other hand you were trying to argue that because the government can exempt something like medical records they can exempt whatever else they want, that's clearly wrong.

                Again, I ask, Which of the nine exemptions of the FOIA is the EPA using to deny public access to their scientific data with regard to regulations and rules they are making?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Well, we weren't discussing medical records. The discussion was on the EPA and the science they use to make rules and regulations, including recent ozone rules. So, the above response is:




                  If on the other hand you were trying to argue that because the government can exempt something like medical records they can exempt whatever else they want, that's clearly wrong.

                  Again, I ask, Which of the nine exemptions of the FOIA is the EPA using to deny public access to their scientific data with regard to regulations and rules they are making?
                  You may have thought that we were not discussing medical records. The issue is that health studies and medical records go hand by hand! And my NYT link mentioned this! The EPA by its nature uses extensively health studies.
                  Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 02:05.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    You may have thought that we were not discussing medical records. The issue is that health studies and medical records go hand by hand! And my NYT link mentioned this! The EPA by its nature uses extensively health studies.
                    Personal data of living persons is exempt. General data like statistics on asthma or bronchitis isn't. The NYT is conflating the two. Aside from that, the economic costs, like the calculation of medical costs associated aren't exempt either. Basically 90% + of the data the EPA used to make this rule wasn't exempt. Yet, they are stonewalling.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      Personal data of living persons is exempt. General data like statistics on asthma or bronchitis isn't. The NYT is conflating the two. Aside from that, the economic costs, like the calculation of medical costs associated aren't exempt either. Basically 90% + of the data the EPA used to make this rule wasn't exempt. Yet, they are stonewalling.
                      Well, usually health studies are done with living persons...

                      A\nd your 90% claim is unfounded...

                      I bet that there are many studies related to smoking consequences for which we did not have access to personal information. Same with asbestos effects and so on...Does this mean that these scientists tried to hide something or that theese studies were just "fake science"? And yes, based on the studies, there are some regulations related to them. The case of asbestos is a good example...
                      Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 02:26.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Did not take me long to find the EPA asbestos regulations...

                        https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/asbesto...nd-regulations
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Here's another example of bad logic and science:

                          The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a rollback of emissions regulations and fuel economy standards put in place during the Obama Administration, the New York Times reported Thursday.
                          https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cid=spartandhp

                          That part is good. Now for the ill-logic and nonsense...

                          Pruitt has already submitted a 16-page plan to the White House for approval, according to an EPA spokeswoman. He is expected to frame the deregulation as a move that will make larger vehicles, like trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles, more affordable, say people familiar with the plan.
                          This poses a solution to a problem that doesn’t seem to exist, since trucks and SUVs are routinely top-selling vehicles in the U.S., with the mid-size SUVs and pickup trucks accounting for 55% of all vehicle sales in 2017, according to Kelly Blue Book. The Ford F-series was the best-selling vehicle in the world last year, and has been the top-seller in the U.S. for more than 30 years.
                          The second paragraph doesn't address the first. If the vehicle costs are lower, then consumers save money. How well the vehicles sell has nothing to do with that. The second paragraph is irrelevant to the issue.

                          Then there's this gem of idiot non-thinking.

                          “Rolling back fuel-efficiency and emissions targets would make zero sense economically for anyone but oil companies,” says David Richardson, the executive director of business development at Impax Asset Management. “In fact, it would set back American car companies and those working for them because the global automotive market is moving the opposite direction, away from gas guzzlers and toward cleaner, more efficient cars and associated technology.”
                          If the industry is already moving to reduce fuel use and make more efficient cars why does government have to make regulations on that aspect of vehicle production? Won't the car manufacturers do this on their own because it makes good business sense?
                          Or, does Mr. Richardson actually think that car manufacturers are some sort of evil cabal that if left un-heavily regulated will start making gas guzzlers and forcing people to purchase them even if that's not what consumers want?

                          Then a vested special interest weighs in with this non sequitur...

                          Component suppliers would also take a hit. These companies employ twice as many Americans as the automakers they service and contribute nearly 2.4% of U.S. GDP. Weakened standards could cause losses of $3.3 billion a year between 2022 and 2025 due to lost sales of fuel-efficient technologies, according to analysis by Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit organization.
                          Yea, sure. Pulled that out of your @$$ didn't you Ceres...

                          This one is actually a valid argument, and the only one in the article...

                          This could lead to two separate sets of regulations — one for California and the 12 other states that will follow suit in challenging the EPA’s decision and one for the rest of the country — and therefore two separate markets of car buyers.
                          Of course, that might mean California and the other states that follow California might see higher car prices than other states... Well, too bad for them.

                          And we finish up with this moron's statement:

                          “The current fuel economy standards do not create much incentive for people to move to smaller vehicles,”Lucas Davis, a professor of economic analysis at UC Berkeley told Fortune. “That’s a real limitation of the way the current fuel economy standards work.”
                          Maybe everybody doesn't want or need a smaller vehicle. What an individual needs in a vehicle will vary greatly. I need a truck. I carry lots of materials and equipment all the time. It needs to be a club cab (seats 4 or 5) because of the number of people it regularly carries as well. How would going to a "smaller vehicle" benefit me?
                          How would a Smart Fortwo benefit families with 3 or more members? How does going to an unsafe smaller vehicle benefit me or anyone else?

                          https://carbuzz.com/news/famously-unsafe-smart-fortwo

                          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...kimpy-on-fuel/

                          This is the ill-logic and myopic thinking that makes for bad outcomes, and the government and popular science, particularly as practiced on the Left where ideas and dogma trump sound and logical outcomes comes into play.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Here's another example of bad logic and science:



                            https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cid=spartandhp

                            That part is good. Now for the ill-logic and nonsense...



                            The second paragraph doesn't address the first. If the vehicle costs are lower, then consumers save money. How well the vehicles sell has nothing to do with that. The second paragraph is irrelevant to the issue.

                            Then there's this gem of idiot non-thinking.



                            If the industry is already moving to reduce fuel use and make more efficient cars why does government have to make regulations on that aspect of vehicle production? Won't the car manufacturers do this on their own because it makes good business sense?
                            Or, does Mr. Richardson actually think that car manufacturers are some sort of evil cabal that if left un-heavily regulated will start making gas guzzlers and forcing people to purchase them even if that's not what consumers want?

                            Then a vested special interest weighs in with this non sequitur...



                            Yea, sure. Pulled that out of your @$$ didn't you Ceres...

                            This one is actually a valid argument, and the only one in the article...



                            Of course, that might mean California and the other states that follow California might see higher car prices than other states... Well, too bad for them.

                            And we finish up with this moron's statement:



                            Maybe everybody doesn't want or need a smaller vehicle. What an individual needs in a vehicle will vary greatly. I need a truck. I carry lots of materials and equipment all the time. It needs to be a club cab (seats 4 or 5) because of the number of people it regularly carries as well. How would going to a "smaller vehicle" benefit me?
                            How would a Smart Fortwo benefit families with 3 or more members? How does going to an unsafe smaller vehicle benefit me or anyone else?

                            https://carbuzz.com/news/famously-unsafe-smart-fortwo

                            https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...kimpy-on-fuel/

                            This is the ill-logic and myopic thinking that makes for bad outcomes, and the government and popular science, particularly as practiced on the Left where ideas and dogma trump sound and logical outcomes comes into play.
                            Now you talk about a different subject which is not related to scientific studies but it is more related to a POLITICAL DECISION which has certain advantages and disadvantages. Yes, less strict regulations make cars cheaper and people save money. Of course, if one really needs a cheap car, he can find it in the secondary market. No need to get a new model! Still, we can accept that a decision to roll back regulations makes new cars cheaper. This may sound very attractive for a person who lives in a rural area and does not experience first hand the effects of pollution. But a person in a metropolitan area in which hundreds of thousands cars become less environmentally friendly has probably a different perspective because he is the one who will mostly suffer the effects of pollution.

                            As to what makes good business sense, the answer is whatever brings profit. You can sell death, (cigarettes) and you can still expect profits. You can have cities full of smog, such as the ones you see in China, and still get profits. As long as people need cars, you can push for zero regulations and produce cars with excessive emissions and still people will buy them. And in fact, since they will be cheaper, you will sell more of them. The environmental cost is not calculated as a business cost. See the economic concept of externalities

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
                            Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 02:57.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post
                              Well, usually health studies are done with living persons...

                              A\nd your 90% claim is unfounded...

                              I bet that there are many studies related to smoking consequences for which we did not have access to personal information. Same with asbestos effects and so on...Does this mean that these scientists tried to hide something or that theese studies were just "fake science"? And yes, based on the studies, there are some regulations related to them. The case of asbestos is a good example...
                              No, its not. That's why Congress is passing laws that will make disclosure mandatory. The only people objecting are on the Left.

                              Should the public be allowed to know how bureaucrats develop policies that have major impacts on our lives? Or should we simply be left in the dark?
                              That seems like a silly question, right? Hopefully, the answer is obvious.
                              For some though—including Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator from the Obama administration—transparency seems to be overrated.
                              Recently, current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that his agency would no longer allow the use of secret science in developing federal regulations. Specifically, the agency will only use scientific studies to develop regulations when the data and methodology for those studies are made accessible to the public.
                              https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/...-theyre-wrong/

                              http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...use-of-science

                              Obama's heads of the EPA hate transparency. Apparently, the peasants don't need to know what the elites are doing...

                              http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...ience-argument

                              In fact, your NYT article is making a similar argument to the above one, only the above article points out the fallacy of keeping the science secret, something the NYT seems to agree with Obama era officials on.

                              And more whipping the secret science..

                              https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/...ecret-science/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                No, its not. That's why Congress is passing laws that will make disclosure mandatory. The only people objecting are on the Left.



                                https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/...-theyre-wrong/

                                http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...use-of-science

                                Obama's heads of the EPA had transparency. Apparently, the peasants don't need to know what the elites are doing...

                                http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...ience-argument

                                In fact, your NYT article is making a similar argument to the above one, only the above article points out the fallacy of keeping the science secret, something the NYT seems to agree with Obama era officials on.




                                https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/...ecret-science/
                                I do not know what you are talking about...

                                I repeat: health studies are often based on living persons who have rights of privacy. The reason is that it is difficult to take a survey from "dead samples." If for example you try to examine the effects of smoking you ask questions such as "how long have you been smoking?" The same is true with most other studies of other effects. You cannot get reliable information for such things when you do not have living patients. Ad even if the study does not use a sample of living patients, its bibliography will most probably include studies that are based in some way to living patients. So, in the end the basic issue of confidentiality becomes a factor for most studies, and this creates restrictions with respect to releasing all the available information.
                                Still, raw data not related to confidentiality of personal profiles and methodologies are available to scientists. How do you think journals peer review and publish studies? First of all, do you know what is a peer review? Do you really think that just because someone makes a claim that he conducted a study which produced "x" results is enough to publish it to the scientific community even when the researcher refuses to show his methodology and raw data?
                                Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 04:05.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X