Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

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

  • pamak
    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
    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, 02:59.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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, 02:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Pfff! That's nothing compared to Gina McCarthy and the EPA, NOAA, et. al., refusing to make their science public. That's a major scandal, especially when their proposed regulations based on that so-called science is going to cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Even if Pruitt were somehow being influenced by these lobbyists, it isn't costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars.

    But, this is really just a red herring. You get an award!





    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

    The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a major change to the way it assesses scientific work, a move that would severely restrict the research available to it when writing environmental regulations.

    Under the proposed policy, the agency would no longer consider scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry groups to examine. As a result, regulators crafting future rules would quite likely find themselves restricted from using some of the most consequential environmental research of recent decades, such as studies linking air pollution to premature deaths or work that measures human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

    The reason: These fields of research often require personal health information for thousands of individuals, who typically agree to participate only if the details of their lives are kept confidential.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    !!!

    Now, wait just a damned minute. I've been waiting for one of those to be delivered for quite a while now.
    Well, it'll probably be delivered before the Tesla you put on order is...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    You paid for the F-35 program, but you're not getting one of those, either.
    !!!

    Now, wait just a damned minute. I've been waiting for one of those to be delivered for quite a while now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    Latest out of the EPA is that those ridiculously unrealistic CAFE standards are going to be rolled back. Just listen to the dying wail of the Greenies.

    Tuebor
    Good.

    The core mission of the EPA is important, even critical, but they have wandered far from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    This is good news. The EPA needs to be brought to heel. It has done enough damage to the economy and the environment.
    Latest out of the EPA is that those ridiculously unrealistic CAFE standards are going to be rolled back. Just listen to the dying wail of the Greenies.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by tmal711 View Post
    As a taxpayer I paid for those studies therefore they ought to be available to me.
    You paid for the F-35 program, but you're not getting one of those, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • tmal711
    replied
    As a taxpayer I paid for those studies therefore they ought to be available to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    This is good news. The EPA needs to be brought to heel. It has done enough damage to the economy and the environment.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Just read it...

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/30/polit...use/index.html


    If this is true, it is a case of corruption and essentially bribing in my book...
    Pfff! That's nothing compared to Gina McCarthy and the EPA, NOAA, et. al., refusing to make their science public. That's a major scandal, especially when their proposed regulations based on that so-called science is going to cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Even if Pruitt were somehow being influenced by these lobbyists, it isn't costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars.

    But, this is really just a red herring. You get an award!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X