EPA Chief Pruitt to End Use of “Secret Science” (death, cost)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public.
…
EPA has primarily relied on two 1990s studies linking fine particulate pollution to premature death. Neither studies have made their data public, but EPA used their findings to justify sweeping air quality regulations.
...
Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith... “If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what — rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt explained.
...
“A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released,” Union of Concerned Scientists representative Yogin Kothari told E&E News.
“It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission,” Kothari said.
I don’t see how this hamstrings anything. No one is asking for private data, but the methodology should be available for all – especially since government spending and private company compliance costs come into play with the EPA.
What is there to hide? It's allows more people to experience the science behind the regulations. Sounds like as good thing.
The devil is in the details. This sounds reasonable enough, but I'd like to hear more on the justification for the studies being non-public.
The only other thing I found favoring the non-public approach is about protecting patient data. It would seem like most of what the EPA does is not in the medical area.
Even with that - the focus is on methodology, not private data. They can make data generic in its presentation.
“A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released,” Union of Concerned Scientists representative Yogin Kothari told E&E News."
Really, why not? What kind of total bs is that? As soon as these morons start pretending American citizens aren't "smart enough" to get it, then you know they are hiding something.
Most of the regulations and rulemaking I have seen made information public, the coal fired plant regulations were not done in secret. What studies is Pruitt referring.
Maybe our water and air is too clean, has the EPA gone to far. Maybe that toxic green slime on some lakes and the smog is just fake.
The only other thing I found favoring the non-public approach is about protecting patient data. It would seem like most of what the EPA does is not in the medical area.
Even with that - the focus is on methodology, not private data. They can make data generic in its presentation.
They just don't want the scrutiny.
Dunno. But patient data doesnt cut it. I DO support anonymizing individuals, and not revealing that, but the rest should, and could be public.
Dunno. But patient data doesnt cut it. I DO support anonymizing individuals, and not revealing that, but the rest should, and could be public.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Most of the regulations and rulemaking I have seen made information public, the coal fired plant regulations were not done in secret. What studies is Pruitt referring.
Maybe our water and air is too clean, has the EPA gone to far. Maybe that toxic green slime on some lakes and the smog is just fake.
EPA has primarily relied on two 1990s studies linking fine particulate pollution to premature death. Neither studies have made their data public, but EPA used their findings to justify sweeping air quality regulations.
Reported benefits from EPA rules are “mostly attributable to the reduction in public exposure to fine particulate matter,” according to the White House Office of Management and Budget report. That’s equivalent to billions of dollars.
In fact, one of EPA’s most expensive regulation on the books, called MATS, derived most of its estimated benefits from reducing particulates not from reducing mercury, which the rule was ostensibly crafted to address.
EPA estimated MATS would cost $8.2 billion but yield between $28 billion to $77 billion in public health benefits. It’s a similar story for the Clean Power Plan, which EPA estimated would cost $8.4 billion and yield from $14 billion to $34 billion in health and climate benefits.
In other words - the science behind regulations that cost us a bunch of money aren't even public. If the science is good, there should be nothing to fear - and in fact should boost the motivation to want to help the environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
