Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the surprise dept.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has chosen to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, the first step in a broader effort by Republicans to change the way the agency evaluates the scientific basis for its regulations.

The move could significantly change the makeup of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises EPA's key scientific arm on whether the research it does has sufficient rigor and integrity. All of the members being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated.

EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that "no one has been fired or terminated," and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers. The agency informed the outside academics on Friday that their terms would not be renewed.

[...] These moves came as a surprise to the agencies' outside advisers, with several of them taking to Twitter to announce their suspensions.

Members of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors had been informed twice — in January, before Barack Obama left office, and then more recently by EPA career staff members — that they would be kept on for another term, adding to their confusion.

We cannot allow Beijing's air quality to beat ours.


Original Submission

Related Stories

EPA Nixes Chlorpyrifos Ban & Training Rule; Farm Workers Sickened 72 comments

[...] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order denying a petition that sought to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide crucial to U.S. agriculture.

[...] In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions.

The public record lays out serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps in the proposal.

EPA press release

Last month, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, freed up the country to continue using a pesticide called chlorpyrifos on everything from strawberries and almonds to Brussels sprouts and broccoli.

This despite a warning from the National Institutes of Health that chlorpyrifos can cause "adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects" in human beings. This despite scientific studies indicating that chlorpyrifos can interfere with fetal brain development, leading to higher rates of autism and lower intelligence.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Arizona Daily Sun (editorial)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:14AM (10 children)

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:14AM (#506738) Journal

    We cannot allow Beijing's air quality to beat ours.

    Just to put the click-bait tagline into perspective:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/2-charts-that-put-the-chinese-pollution-problem-in-perspective/360868/ [theatlantic.com]

    From the article:

    The green and yellow zones in the left-hand column, showing official Chinese government classifications, are for "good" or "OK" air—while those same readings would be in the danger zone by U.S. or European standards.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:45AM (8 children)

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:45AM (#506745)

      The Chinese government aren't stupid, they know the situation. They were suitably embarrassed by the air quality in Beijing that they turned off coal plants and banned cars for the Olympics. The Chinese Government is under enormous pressure to continue delivering economic growth to China's rapidly expanding working and middle class. Coal is the cheapest source of energy they have to drive this economic growth.

      It's worth asking, why is coal the cheapest? The price of fossil fuels are artificially low because the oil, coal, and natgas industries are allowed to avoid paying for all of their negative externalities. We all pay for it, every time we take a breath. If the price of fossil fuels accounted for the damage they cause to our health and to the environment then renewable sources would be more competitive, driving the market to those sources of energy at a faster rate--perhaps at the cost of slower overall economic growth.

      Fearing for their jobs, or maybe wanting to avoid having to run a bunch of people over with tanks again, they've decided that clean air can wait. They need cheap energy and they need it now.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:56AM (6 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:56AM (#506752) Journal

        Nuclear is sufficiently more expensive than Coal to avoid going fully on that route?

        • (Score: 2) by julian on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:11AM (3 children)

          by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:11AM (#506758)

          Once you account for security, long-term storage of hazardous material, safety (then again, it's China), and the lag time from beginning construction to actually turning a reactor on, nuclear starts to lose its advantage. No one has solved the waste storage problem. There are theoretical technologies that deserve more research time and money. Nuclear of some kind definitely has a place in the future, but the promises of nuclear energy never ended up working out once the complexities of reality were accounted for. It looks great in theory, but real life isn't SimCity where you can just pay for the plant and plop it down wherever you want and it runs perfectly fine, barring the occasional Godzilla attack.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:59AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:59AM (#506784)

            Didn't France get most of its electricity from nuclear power for decades?

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:59PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:59PM (#506904) Journal

              Yes, but that is France and thus irrelevant. No lessons to be learned from it.

              This conversation here is about America. Land of the cut every possible corner in order to increase executive bonuses. Safety is an afterthought that does not increase shareholder value.

              Please get with the program, comrade.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:26PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:26PM (#506965)

              Nuclear energy, in the form of fission, is the primary source of energy in France. In 2004, fission energy made up the largest share of France's energy consumption at 39%.[1][2][better source needed][not in citation given] Looking purely at electricity, though, 416.800TWh (76.337%)[3] out of the country's total production of 546TWh of electricity was from fission-electric power stations, the highest percentage in the world.[4]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France [wikipedia.org]

              France also tested the most nuclear weapons after the U.S. and Soviet Union.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:22AM

          by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:22AM (#506773) Journal

          https://ycharts.com/indicators/australia_coal_price [ycharts.com]
          Not *quite* giving it away...

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:00PM (#506952)

          Don't worry. While the West is busy going "nuke-u-lar bad! omgomgomg! nimby!" China is doing research into safer reactor designs and exploring thorium.

          The West is in decline. They don't have ambition any more. They don't take risks any more. "I've got mine, fuck my kids" is now the motto of Western civilization. It may not be until towards the latter half of this century, but BRICS or at least China will likely outpace the West.

          While part of me wishes I could live long enough to see it happen for the "see I told you so" value, I am content knowing that at least I lived through the height of Western civilization.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:12AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:12AM (#506785)

        Coal is the cheapest source of energy they have to drive this economic growth.

        Cheapest in the short run, but as you say, the Chinese government isn't stupid. They are investing enormous amounts in renewable energy and will transition to that as soon as feasible. It will likely be feasible there long before the US seriously turns towards it, especially as the US is seemingly taking such a large step backwards now, and as a result when the time comes they will likely be exporting the technology to the US rather than the other way around. It will mean economic growth for China and another lost opportunity for the US.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:33PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:33PM (#506881) Journal

      Vernon: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
      Betty: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
      [Later]
      Vernon: The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
      Betty: No, the white zone is for loading and unloading. There is no stopping in the red zone.
      Vernon: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading. There's never stopping in a white zone.
      Betty: Don't tell me which zone is for stopping and which zone is for loading!
      Vernon: Listen, Betty, don't start up with your "white zone" shit again.
      [Later]
      Vernon: There's just no stopping in a white zone.
      Betty: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend? We both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
      Vernon: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if it's done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by julian on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:27AM (1 child)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:27AM (#506740)

    Trump's EPA is busy interviewing new scientists who would be willing to reclassify smog as a vegetable.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:46AM (#506746)

      Same old same old, just like Monsanto "Organic GMO-free" vegetables, everyone can play it too!

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by archfeld on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:48AM (5 children)

    by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:48AM (#506748) Journal

    Trump should be citing a clean break with reality, or a total psychotic break.

    --
    For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:42PM (#506947)

      Having is own personal reality has done well for him, per wealth and influence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:14PM (#506961)

        Having is own personal reality has done well for him, per wealth and influence.

        That is certainly true for influence. Apparently Americans like watching massive narcissists who attention whore.

        As far as wealth goes... personal reality probably has a lot less do with it than having a Father that gives you 100's of millions of dollars.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:08PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:08PM (#506957)

      "I reject your reality and substitute my own"

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:44PM (#507000)

      Same shit different department:
      http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/ [freebeacon.com]
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-to-advance-climate-change-plans.html [foxnews.com]

      What did you expect? When one does it it's good, when the other does it it's racist. Fuck your bubbled world view.

      • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:44PM

        by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:44PM (#507139) Journal

        One being a complete asshat does not preclude the other from being a cockholster. Just because I don't like Trump you assume I supported Obama ? Fsck you and the horse you call your mother. I never even mentioned Obama, you just have your head jammed so far up your own ass you assume facts not in evidence. When either does it they are both dirtbag politicians bought and paid for by the large corporations that run this country. Fsck-you very much...

        --
        For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by kaszz on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:53AM (1 child)

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:53AM (#506750) Journal

    We must have more places like Parkersburg, West Virginia [huffingtonpost.com] where the drinking water, soil and air is all C8 and PFOS poisoned all brought to you by Doh Point of Poison. They even gifted the rest of the world with their perfluorooctanoic acid. Bio accumulated, which means it enters your body and stays for life. Present in household products, including carpeting, Teflon pans, waterproof clothes, pizza boxes, dental floss, kitty litter and cosmetics.

    It was all kept out of the public by stonewalling, attacking scientists, misdirection, massaging test results, testing the wrong things with the wrong methods, misleading regulators etc. The consequences are prostate cancer, leukemia, liver swelling, ulcerative colitis and birth defects.

    Want to keep an eye on things like this? pay attention to nearby industries what they use and make, former industry sites, disease cases and do some chemical testing. Expect most people to be on the books or not getting it.

    Love canal [wikipedia.org] in Niagara Falls, New York is another case with similar chain of events.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:54PM (#507116)

      Can we get a "+50, required reading" mod?

  • (Score: 1) by idiot_king on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:57AM (5 children)

    by idiot_king (6587) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:57AM (#506754)

    Would be you be willing to accept American refugees? We are about to be choked to death by a bunch of ignoramus Capitalist pigs.

    Sincerely,
    The handful of educated Americans

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:18AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:18AM (#506759)

      I'll trade you my citizenship for an American one, from a socialist hellhole where nothing will work until the bureaucrat finds out. Heck, I'd even pay 10 to 1!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:06PM (#506933)

        From one anon to another, which hell hole would that be exactly?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:20AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:20AM (#506772)

      If you can handle the Muslim attackers it may work out for you.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:05PM (#506839)

        If you can handle the Muslim attackers it may work out for you.

        Just mansplain them to death, it's not that hard.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:19PM (#506962)

        Another educated (well kinda) American here. I can handle the Muslim attackers, even after I give up my guns. I used to be fluent in German, and I'm certain it would come back to me with immersion and some time to fill in the remaining gaps. My ancestors are from the Netherlands, but my high school offered German and not Dutch. (Which is kind of weird because the town I grew up in had many older people who learned Dutch as a first language alongside English when they were little and fresh off the boat in nineteen dickety two.)

        Might it be possible to set up some kind of permanent exchange program? It sounds like both of us are really unhappy where we live but don't readily have the means to emigrate.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)

    by digitalaudiorock (688) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:00PM (#506932) Journal

    House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) held a hearing on the issue in February, arguing that the Scientific Advisory Board should be expanded to include more non-academics. The panel, which was established in 1978, is primarily made up of academic scientists and other experts who review EPA’s research to ensure that the regulations the agency undertakes have a sound scientific basis.

    Yea...can't have those pesky "academics" and their "science" getting in the way...followed by this gem:

    “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”

    What does this bullshit even mean? Should we be forcing them to do research for free? Where did this theory come from that grants somehow create some motivation to produce false results? The translation here of course is that we should be stacking the board with friendly energy industry shills I guess. Fuck all of these Godless mother fuckers. Seriously.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:34PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @03:34PM (#506944) Journal

      Should we be forcing them to do research for free?

      I think the actual proposal by the Republicans is that anyone who is on these boards should be banned from accepting federal grants not only for the duration of their service on the board but for 3 years afterward.

      And since the federal government is one of the few places with the kind of resources and interest necessary to fund research on stuff like climate change (which isn't really lucrative research), that effectively means that any academic agreeing to be on this board will likely have to stop their research for at least 6 years. Given that most high-profile academic scientists depend on ongoing lab funding etc. (which funds lab facilities, graduate students, etc., and which isn't easy to arbitrarily abandon for several years), as well as obviously depending on publishing research to fund their careers, that would effectively mean that the best experts would likely not be able to serve on these boards. Obviously, that's the Republican plan.

      Where did this theory come from that grants somehow create some motivation to produce false results?

      To be fair, there IS a potential conflict of interest here. On the other hand, the Republican proposal to replace such researchers with industry supporters who actually come from the businesses being regulated is a much BIGGER conflict of interest.

      Also, this isn't frequently mentioned by Republicans -- but it's important to note that members of these boards are forced to recuse themselves in evaluation of their own research, so the direct conflict of interest Republicans claim is there actually isn't.

(1)