• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

EPA embraces the swamp

B

brycejones

Lifer
Scientists who receive grants from the EPA are forbidden from serving on EPA panels. However scientists who are funded by industry can serve.

"In an announcement at agency headquarters surrounded by conservative activists and Republican lawmakers who have long called for an overhaul of the advisory boards, Mr. Pruitt said he made the decision to ensure the agency would receive data and advice free from conflicts of interest or any appearance of a conflict. He said that people currently serving on E.P.A. advisory boards had received $77 million in grant money over the past three years as they were issuing advice on policy.

“Our focus should be sound science, not political science,” Mr. Pruitt said. “We want to ensure independence.”

nytimes link open in a private session should bypass the paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
 
Yeah. Someone send them this study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392264

  • In an article co-authored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists, Dearfield et al. (1993) compared the results from registrant-submitted mutagenicity studies to the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs with those from the published literature. The authors reported a selection bias, in which registrant-submitted studies on atrazine mutagenicity were all negative (no mutagenic activity), whereas over a dozen studies in the published literature reported mutagenic activity.

  • In an analysis of studies submitted to the U.S. EPA on the effects of atrazine on frog reproductive development, Hayes (2004) reported that financial sponsorship was a strong predictor of study outcome (p = 0.009). Funding sources varied for studies reporting adverse effects (including government and industry funding), whereas all of the studies that failed to detect adverse effects were funded by the manufacturer of atrazine.

  • In an analysis of 115 published studies on low-dose effects of the plastics-component bisphenol A, vom Saal and Hughes (2005) reported that > 90% of government-funded studies found significant low-dose effects, whereas none of the industry-funded studies did. More specifically, the authors found that
    Some industry-funded studies have ignored the results of positive controls, and many studies reporting no significant effects used a strain of rat that is inappropriate for the study of estrogenic responses. (vom Saal and Hughes 2005)

  • Studies of documents from the tobacco industry archives have revealed evidence of concerted industry efforts to obscure the contribution of secondhand smoke and other environmental toxics to disease through the development of their own version of “good epidemiological practices” and “sound science” (Ong and Glantz 2001).
Click to expand...
 
It is sad that we've sunk to the point that research funded by industry is considered to be "free of conflicts of interest" by the head of the EPA. Nothing like allowing companies to regulate themselves.
 
brycejones said:
It is sad that we've sunk to the point that research funded by industry is considered to be "free of conflicts of interest" by the head of the EPA. Nothing like allowing companies to regulate themselves.
Click to expand...

What else would we expect an industry lawyer to say?
 
Thankfully California has its own epa type regulations. Let the other states have the freedumb to get weird cancers.
 
brycejones said:
At this point I wonder if Pruitt should be required to register as a lobbyist.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as you can pry him out from behind his squad sized security detail and soundproof booth, both of which are totally normal for an EPA administrator.
 
Well duh I missed this thread and started another lol.

Anyway it's a good thing cause I made a promise to God I don't think I could keep if God got rid of Pruitt. So maybe he won't read it now.
 
God has nothing to do with this administration. Cthulhu on the other hand...

It's like the underworld race from "Pickman's Model" took over.
 
Jhhnn said:
And their descendants, too! Hatin' on people you don't even know is easy. Any fool can do it.
Click to expand...
Yep, damage their DNA with environmental toxins, it will be a gift that keeps on giving for their descendants. They voted for it, let them have it. Adopt a lake in a red state and turn it into a toxic waste dump.
 
I don't understand how some people can be so shortsighted, all in the name of "economy", when in fact the economy won't even matter if where you live becomes too hazardous to do anything useful. 🙁
 
Nuts, I hoped this thread was about the EPA doing something good for wetlands. 🙁
 
thilanliyan said:
I don't understand how some people can be so shortsighted, all in the name of "economy", when in fact the economy won't even matter if where you live becomes too hazardous to do anything useful. 🙁
Click to expand...

yeah but it matters not whether your house is flooded by overrun swamp water or liberal tears, because MAGA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top