Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

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

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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?
    You "dazzle them with brilliance", but only if you fail to "baffle them with BS".

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    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?
    Yeah, that'd be a neat idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Well, it'll probably be delivered before the Tesla you put on order is...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    and here is an example of personal information used in a study of ozone effects ( and funded by the EPA ) which cannot be revealed. On the other hand, the methods of the study are publicly available...

    Bold mine


    http://journal.chestnet.org/article/...463-X/fulltext


    Ozone Exposure and Lung Function

    ...



    Materials and Methods
    Study Population
    Subjects in this study were part of the Veterans Administration Normative Aging Study,26 a longitudinal study established in 1963, details of which have been published previously. Briefly, the study enrolled 2,280 men from the Greater Boston area, ages 21 to 80 years, who were determined to be free of known chronic medical conditions by an initial health screening. Participants visited the study center repeatedly to undergo physical examinations, including pulmonary function testing, and fill out questionnaires approximately every 3 years. We included the subset of 904 subjects whose lung function was measured between January 1995 and June 2005 and whose AHR was measured during the same visit or at a prior visit. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of all participating institutions, and informed consent was obtained from all subjects
    and notice the end

    This work was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency grants R827353 and R832416 and by National Institute of Environmental Health Services grants ES015172-01 and ES0002. The VA Normative Aging Study is supported by the Cooperative Studies Program/Epidemiology Research and Information Center of the US Department of Veterans Affairs and is a component of the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center, Boston, MA.

    The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
    So, should somebody dismiss this study based on the fact that the identities of the persons cannot be revealed?
    Last edited by pamak; 31 Mar 18, 05:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    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
    WIH?????????????

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    and here is the law

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/241


    d) Protection of privacy of individuals who are research subjects
    (1)
    (A) If a person is engaged in biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or other research, in which identifiable, sensitive information is collected (including research on mental health and research on the use and effect of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs), the Secretary, in coordination with other agencies, as applicable—
    (i) shall issue to such person a certificate of confidentiality to protect the privacy of individuals who are the subjects of such research if the research is funded wholly or in part by the Federal Government;

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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, 05:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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, 03:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Did not take me long to find the EPA asbestos regulations...

    https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/asbesto...nd-regulations

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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, 03:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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, 03:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X