Fired EPA Scientists To Release Air Pollution Report They Say Agency Unqualified To Issue (nbcnews.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Nearly one year ago, the Trump administration fired a panel of more than two dozen scientific experts who assisted the Environmental Protection Agency in its review of air quality standards for particulate matter. Now, as the EPA prepares its report on those standards later this month, 20 of those scientists are meeting independently to release their own assessment of current air pollution levels, with a focus on the particles from fossil fuels that can make people sick.
These scientists and researchers, former members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on particulate matter, said the EPA has stripped the panel down to its core seven members, who are ill-equipped to set air quality standards and don't have the time to do it. "They fired the particulate matter review panel and they said the chartered CASAC would do the review," Chris Zarba, who served as the staff director of the Scientific Advisory Board at the EPA until 2018, said. "In the history of the agency this has never happened. The new panel is unqualified and the new panel has said they were unqualified." The new panel feels their work is necessary for the very reasons that particle pollution is regulated by the EPA: because extended exposure can cause premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function and respiratory issues, according to the agency. EPA said it is confident in its own panel and experts and said it "is committed to scientific integrity and transparency." "EPA has the utmost confidence in its career scientist and the members on its science advisory boards and panels," an agency spokesperson said. "EPA routinely takes comments from the public and outside organizations, including those not employed or associated with EPA, and will continue to take into consideration those comments that meet our scientific standards."
These scientists and researchers, former members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on particulate matter, said the EPA has stripped the panel down to its core seven members, who are ill-equipped to set air quality standards and don't have the time to do it. "They fired the particulate matter review panel and they said the chartered CASAC would do the review," Chris Zarba, who served as the staff director of the Scientific Advisory Board at the EPA until 2018, said. "In the history of the agency this has never happened. The new panel is unqualified and the new panel has said they were unqualified." The new panel feels their work is necessary for the very reasons that particle pollution is regulated by the EPA: because extended exposure can cause premature death, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function and respiratory issues, according to the agency. EPA said it is confident in its own panel and experts and said it "is committed to scientific integrity and transparency." "EPA has the utmost confidence in its career scientist and the members on its science advisory boards and panels," an agency spokesperson said. "EPA routinely takes comments from the public and outside organizations, including those not employed or associated with EPA, and will continue to take into consideration those comments that meet our scientific standards."
I love it. (Score:4)
Scientists gotta science.
Re: I love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
No-- they are not qualified TO PERFORM THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS. That's why they had the other set of scientists, because that's what they specialized in. It's not at all surprising that the remaining scientists admitted (thankfully they're honest it seems) that they are not qualified to report in this subset of the report.
I agree. The vast majority of scientists are comfortable in admitting ignorance because that's precisely why we became scientists: To tackle our own ignorance.
An analogy: I wear my Navy ball cap to advertise that I want to meet other veterans. When I do, we grin real big and we're glad to see each other because we have been best friends going back to a minute ago.
Scientists wear their ignorance and they share their ignorance with others. Admitting ignorance is a virtue. It is ethical, respectful, and demonstrates competency and a dedication to the field. It is admirable.
Both groups of scientists in the OP have my respect. The administration? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Moderators, please note.
Orange Man Bad, Obama Bad, Jesus FuckingChrist Bad (Score:3)
I've got a new idea for politics/law. Instead of only making votes anonymous, the lawmakers themselves (indeed, in general the origins of a law) should be anonymous..not allowed to be, *must be*. If you have a name, humans will frequently take that as a shortcut and judge it by the name at the top rather than the idea itself. So if a voter is tired, and maybe just wants to phone it in, this naming allows them to group sources together in a way that shortcuts the actual idea. We know this is a human behavior
Re: Orange Man Bad, Obama Bad, Jesus FuckingChrist (Score:2)
The reason we live in a republic is because the average person is not qualified to make these sorts of decisions. There are problems with trusting in the people's ability to designate representatives, but direct democracy would be so much worse.
Re: Orange Man Bad, Obama Bad, Jesus FuckingChris (Score:2)
Minority rule? By what definition? Our reps are elected by the majority. I can only assume what you mean by "majority rule" would be to have 190 million people in Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I love it. (Score:5, Funny)
Thing is, the summary is all about self-serviing "fired scientists"
I'd really like to hear from economists?
Why would you trust economists not to be self serving? Do they not grasp the essence of their field?
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, the summary is all about self-serviing "fired scientists"
I'd really like to hear from economists?
Why would you trust economists not to be self serving? Do they not grasp the essence of their field?
I'm reminded of a quote I'm too lazy to credit:
Economists do for the economy what weathermen do to the weather.
Re: I love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What economists? Can any of them explain why 8 years of quantitative easing and low rates didn't kickstart inflation?
Yes. Krugman predicted this in 2008 and has been screaming about it for YEARS, while the usual suspects were crooning about "debasement of the currency" and the need to cut welfare.
Re: I love it. (Score:3)
The same Krugman who admitted recently that he and other mainstream economists didn't understand the impact of globalization when they directed us to create a neo-liberal "utopia"? The same Krugman who tells us now that he was wrong, but we shouldn't undo his proposed policies because it would be worse?
Re: (Score:2)
The same Krugman who admitted recently that he and other mainstream economists didn't understand the impact of globalization
Links?
The same Krugman who tells us now that he was wrong, but we shouldn't undo his proposed policies because it would be worse?
Links?
Re: I love it. (Score:2)
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The same Krugman who tells us now that he was wrong, but we shouldn't undo his proposed policies because it would be worse?
JFYI, Krugman is not defending globalization. It's not "his policies", he's simply commenting on the common economic views.
Re: I love it. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
How much is even one human life worth in dollars?
I don't know the answer to that, but there is a number. Your life may be infinitely valuable to you, but it is not to society.
Or is your view that all lives are the sum of the value they create for corporations?
Could be. Or you could assume the lives of people who use cars are worth at least what it costs to fund NHTSA for instance. Plane passengers lives are worth the cost of the FAA.
But when it gets down to the argument "if it just saves one life", then it is probably approaching too expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many ways to value a human life. The value of the minerals and chemicals in a body has been estimated at around $160. Lawyers in disability or wrongful death cases often calculate the foregone earnings of somebody. But since this story is about EPA, here's their take on the subject: https://www.epa.gov/environmen... [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to value a human life. The value of the minerals and chemicals in a body has been estimated at around $160. Lawyers in disability or wrongful death cases often calculate the foregone earnings of somebody. But since this story is about EPA, here's their take on the subject: https://www.epa.gov/environmen... [epa.gov]
Thanks. That is informative, and frankly it seems high. Would be curious to see how health insurance companies feel about that number. I'll bet theirs is lower.
Re:I love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if i can come up with a way of profiting from poisoning you, you will be totally OK with that?
Free hint: there is no fucking benefit that offsets poisoning thousands or millions of people, or even one person. And if you think there is, you're a fucking corporate-nazi apologist.
Fuck you and the economists. I wish you a all a long an unpleasant swim in a PCB-polluted river.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the vast majority of them are because they know which side their bread is buttered on.
the few who aren't are dismissed as fringe weirdos and ignored, because the only effective response to their data and their conclusions is socialism, and we all know that "socialism is bad".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nordhaus is a Nobel Prize winning economist
No. He is not.
Let me make it simple for you and other fools. There. Is. No. Nobel Prize. For. Economics.
Not now, and not ever in the past.
A bank funded by a marketing group funded by a consortium of US corporations setup a similarly named "prize" to confuse people so that shills like Friedman could be awarded a "Nobel" prize.
[sigh] Sometimes it's difficult not to say "liar" or "fool"
Re: (Score:2)
You're greatly failing at being pedantic.
Re: (Score:2)
it is not technically a Nobel Prize [wikipedia.org]
I check my facts. You should try it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can read, you should learn how.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Nobel Prize in economics comes from a different funding source and despite its name has no direct connection Nobel's original bequest. That's true. I'm struggling to see how that's relevant to the discussion at hand. Are you claiming that because it isn't a "real" Nobel prize that it somehow makes Nordhaus getting it irrelevant? Are you disagreeing that it is one of the most prestigious awards given in economics?
I'm incidentally curious about your focus on Friedman; my guess is that you are unh
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're arguing with the GP ( Demonoid-Penguin).
I'm simply defending someone who said Nordhaus got a Nobel Prize. And, he did - not one of those funded by the original grant, but definitely one handed out by the Nobel Prize committ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I love it. (Score:2)
I think the vast majority (that don't work for tech giants as data scientists) are academics who don't think too hard about how the press, laymen, and corporations are going to spin their work.
Re:Roads Should be Private (Score:2)
Nice try but EVERYTHING is a tradeoff between costs and benefits. People make this choice for themselves all the time! For example, living near a noisy freeway is cheaper but comes with health problems [latimes.com]--costs and benefits! And simply getting an education can be bad for your health in the short term as any student who has stayed up all night studying will tell you. Costs and benefits!
Re: (Score:2)
So if i can come up with a way of profiting from poisoning you, you will be totally OK with that?
Free hint: there is no fucking benefit that offsets poisoning thousands or millions of people, or even one person. And if you think there is, you're a fucking corporate-nazi apologist.
Fuck you and the economists. I wish you a all a long an unpleasant swim in a PCB-polluted river.
I agree. We've already dealt with your analogy in the form of tobacco:
- Physicians: (1600s): This shit kills
- King James: I need the taxes
- Internal tobacco scientists 19th century: This shit kills
- Tobacco: Keep it quiet
- Scientists (1950s): This shit kills
- Tobacco: We have filters
- Scientists: (1950s): This shit kills
- Tobacco: Jobs
Re: (Score:2)
Economists are given as much credit as climate scientists. Only liked when they say something that the populist wants to hear. Otherwise condemned as partisan puppets of the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
Economists are given as much credit as climate scientists. Only liked when they say something that the populist wants to hear. Otherwise condemned as partisan puppets of the other party.
I will agree with you if you restrict the audience to the lay with an agenda.
Economists and scientists who present findings that are biased are not legitimate and are outliers ... and out right liars.
Re: (Score:2)
But that wasn't "pm 2.5" inhalation... black lung is due to mass and prolonged inhalation of macroscopic particles.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can't conclusively tie lung diseases to the causes on an individual case by case basis doesn't mean those causes aren't causes. Sometimes strong co-relation is the only evidence available and there is no way of proving lung diseases cause on a 1:1 basis.
Roughly 1 third of the population die of lung disease, your insinuation is that there was no cause to those diseases because they can't be proven on a 1:1 basis. Science doesn't always work that way and that is a dishonest line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
What I wrote was: show me evidence of anyone dying from this.
That is all. I'm not going to argue with straw-men.
Re: (Score:2)
You are implying that air pollution doesn't kill people. It does, it kills millions of people.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
https://erj.ersjournals.com/co... [ersjournals.com]
https://investigativejournal.o... [investigativejournal.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But that wasn't "pm 2.5" inhalation... black lung is due to mass and prolonged inhalation of macroscopic particles.
PM2.5 is most dangerous because it's smaller than cilia, so it cannot be effectively removed from lungs. Coupled with its carbon-based stability, that makes PM2.5 from coal dust a persistent irritant, which would make it carcinogenic even if it didn't contain thorium and uranium alongside the carbon-based compounds. It's also why gassers are more carcinogenic than diesels (except for diesels with DPFs, which burn large soot particles down to smaller sizes.) They put out just as much soot as diesels do, but
Re: (Score:2)
The researchers, however, we not able to show any ill effects... or for that matter any lasting effects at all.
Re:I love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than smoking tobacco, not ONE person, in the history of the United States, has been shown to have died or even been hospitalized due to particulate inhalation.
ORLY? Particulate pollution causes increased ground-level ozone (surface of microparticles provide a nice substrate for ozone-generating reactions). Ozone is a known carcinogen and we can estimate the additional cancers from it.
Particulate pollution exacerbates asthma, and results in a significant increase in ER visits during episodes of bad air quality: https://www.aafa.org/air-pollu... [aafa.org]
TLDR; version - you're lying piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; version - you're lying piece of shit.
I don't know why everyone assumes someone they disagree with is lying. There are actually idiots out there, isn't a chronic case of ignorance a far more likely default?
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; version - you're lying piece of shit.
I don't know why everyone assumes someone they disagree with is lying. There are actually idiots out there, isn't a chronic case of ignorance a far more likely default?
Not everyone assumes. Some do, however, lie and I think that's the case here. The "piece of shit" is a valid point of debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent made a claim. It is up to him to back up that claim. He didn't. He won't. He can't.
He doesn't have any evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
No lies.
Parent made a claim. It is up to him to back up that claim. He didn't. He won't. He can't.
He doesn't have any evidence.
While I, too, enjoy references, they are not required when a poster has an original thought.
I often cite myself as a primary source when I'm discussing things that are in my wheelhouse.
I am my citation (sometimes).
Re: (Score:2)
Other than smoking tobacco, not ONE person, in the history of the United States, has been shown to have died or even been hospitalized due to particulate inhalation.
ORLY? Particulate pollution causes increased ground-level ozone (surface of microparticles provide a nice substrate for ozone-generating reactions). Ozone is a known carcinogen and we can estimate the additional cancers from it.
Particulate pollution exacerbates asthma, and results in a significant increase in ER visits during episodes of bad air quality: https://www.aafa.org/air-pollu... [aafa.org]
TLDR; version - you're lying piece of shit.
I agree. The only criticism I have is that the last sentence should have been first.
Re: (Score:2)
Allergens? Gases?
Funny: they don't actually say.
*I* happen to be an asthma sufferer, dumbass, and I know what "exacerbates" it. PM 2.5 particulates aren't it.
Re: (Score:2)
*I* happen to be an asthma sufferer, dumbass, and I know what "exacerbates" it. PM 2.5 particulates aren't it.
With all due respect, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. [azdeq.gov]
Seriously, none [pnas.org]. I have asthma as well, but that's wholly irrelevant, because the plural of anecdote is not data. What prevents you from using google and looking this shit up? Too much PM2.5? [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Our findings suggest that adults may be at elevated risk of asthma-related hospital encounters during the fireplace season.
They found no evidence of increased risk in children, and nobody died.
The latter of which was the context of this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Again: evidence (even in that paper) is scarce.
Re: (Score:3)
There are actually a whole bunch of studies. If you wanted to know about them, you would google "Asthma PM2.5". But you clearly prefer ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me the evidence that it has killed anybody.
Here you go: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-en... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So let's do this: we tie you down to a chair and force you to breathe ozone for a couple of days. It's totally safe after all - nobody has ever been even admitted to ER because of it. Agreed?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The "show me one person who died from X" gambit is specious. To show that X kills people, you look at populations, some of which were exposed to X and some of which were not. With proper analysis (including the handling of potentially confounding factors) you may uncover evidence that X is dangerous to health. Or not. But asking for evidence that one single person died from X is doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, only one paper on the subject was presented here, and that evidence was weak at best.
Re: (Score:2)
What an asshole thing to do.
Show me the evidence that PM 2.5 causes a significant increase in ozone.
In fact, back up ANY of your claims with real evidence. So far all we've gotten is more claims and hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that you actually do research on the topic. Vs just pinging a message board on the Internet. Because a person with the info you want to see may see your post. Probably doesn’t have the time to explain a complex topic to someone who just doesn’t want to believe there is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of talk here. But no evidence of anyone dying from this.
Can they not find any?
Re: (Score:2)
But that's off-topic. This is not about allergies, it's about damage from the particulates themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof by ignorance? “I don’t know of an example so I must be right”
There are people who die all the time. Paint fumes, cleaning agent fumes, gasoline exhaust... yes these examples are in high concentration. But people get ill especially with long term exposure to such toxins.
Chances are I walked into a room filled with Tobacco smokers I am not going to get lung cancer for that occurrence. But if I spend hours every day in that room my chances rise.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making the claim. It is up to you to back it up. It is not up to me to disprove it.
That's how logical argument works.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to have to tell you, but no, I did not lose. You did.
Re: (Score:2)
Auto exhaust includes, e.g., carbon monoxide which would kill me quickly.
But that has nothing to do with particulates.
The EPA, under the Obama administration, *DID* do such a study, in collaboration with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. [eelegal.org]
Illegally.
They did not get informed consent for their experiments.
They did, however, pipe exhaust from a diesel truck directly into the lungs of the volunteers.
They could not demonstrate any lasting effects.
Re: (Score:2)
In before (Score:1)
Memento Mori.
The partisan bickering over temporary solutions may now resume.
UK clean air... think of the children... (Score:5, Insightful)
clean air in the UK has become a hot political issue with the murdoch uk times newspaper campaigning for it
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/join-our-campaign-5lnvhcl3c
basically it does not matter how much money you have if your children breath in pollution they are compromised...
better clean that up then...
regards
John Jones
If you have a lot of money in America (Score:2)
I think this is the biggest probably capitalism has. In an era of telecommunications a
Re: (Score:2)
Murdoch papers are dishonest sacks of shit, I wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Hardly surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to be the modus operandi of the current administration: make oversight agencies ineffective by defunding them, forcing attrition by moving them to other states, or in this case, outright firing the competent contributors who have messages you don't agree with.
This can only go so far, until you run out of truth-tellers. And then what? You'll be left with people who echo the administration's message.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
A stable democracy needs to prevent that kind of thing and make its institutions independent and impossible to defund/relocate without a supermajority. Otherwise stuff like this happens and it will take a decade to undo, because those good people won't just come back when the administration changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many democracies have a problem where their head of government is restrained more by cultural norms and the customs of good conduct than hard legal boundaries. This leaves them vulnerable to being severely damaged by the election of the first norm-and-custom-smashing human wrecking ball willing to work at least up to if not past the legal boundaries, which are vastly less restrictive than the norms. The US and Donald Trump represent one of the direst examples, the UK and Boris Johnson are now another.
Fu
Re: (Score:3)
It remains to be seen if trump stuck to the limits of legality.
Not just this administration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Blog with more info (Score:2)
https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretch... [ucsusa.org]
EPA still has scientists? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EPA has the utmost confidence in its career scientist
Note the singular usage.
Re: (Score:2)
EPA in exile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
January 2021, when Trump leaves the Whitehouse.
Re: EPA in exile (Score:2)
January 2021, when Pence leaves the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
January 2029, when the people storm Trump Castle Pennsylvania Avenue and depose MechaTrump.
Re: EPA in exile (Score:5, Interesting)
It's got precedence. When the conservative Tiny Abbot government fired the climate change council , a scientific council tasked with keeping an eye on climate change in Australia , the member scientists just reconvened in private and kept working on it unpaid because *someone* has to keep an eye on that shit. Scientists gotta science class especially when the stakes are so high
conditioning conflict averted (Score:1)
Checked out the comments to see Libertarian fuckhead-nazis almost explode their tiny brains because of the hard choice between "Government is evil" and "SJWs are evil" before their brainwashing kicked in and made them come down heavily in favour of "whatever lets corporations fuck everyone over as much as they want".
Was not disappointed.
Current EPA is a farce (Score:5, Interesting)
14 more months, folks, then maybe we can start getting some credibility and sanity back in this country.
Re:Current EPA is a farce (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Current EPA is a farce (Score:2)
You obviously don't live in CA. The air quality is bad, I assure you. It's better than the 70's for sure, but to claim CA air quality is good is ridiculous, and borderline extremist.
Re: Current EPA is a farce (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously don't live in CA. The air quality is bad, I assure you. It's better than the 70's for sure, but to claim CA air quality is good is ridiculous, and borderline extremist.
The OP did not say CA air quality is good. This is what was posted: " takes away Californias' ability to set their own vehicle emissions standards, then points a finger at them for having bad air quality (which isn't even true)." The OP was pointing to the absurd Trump logic that the CA air quality is bad so he's going to take away their ability to try to make it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the Boeing executive who said... (Score:2)
Quit hyperventilating, learn the facts (Score:2, Troll)
From the GAO [gao.gov], we learn that the board "shrank" from 47 members to 44. So that's 3, not 12. What happened was that academics, who used to make up 76% of the board, now represent "only" 50% of the board (the rest being the other stakeholders such as Government employees, NGOs, industry, etc). See page 24 of the report.
So 12 professors "lost" their extra Government position (if you read the report, you find out they essentially "aged" out, after their 3 year term expired and it was not renewed), and were r
Literal quote? (Score:2)
""EPA has the utmost confidence in its career scientist and the members on its science advisory boards and panels," an agency spokesperson said. "
They only have one scientist left?
Re: Trust No One (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Trust No One (Score:2)
Yeah, because non-anonymous Slashdot discussions are always so evidence based. Your ad hominem attack, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I am very familiar with some of the so-called experts. I would not believe that either group is correct.
Your identity is also known to some of us, despite your efforts to remain anonymous, and it is you who is not to be believed, not these experts. You are a known troll with no genuine knowledge of this topic, and little knowledge of how to anonymize your ridiculous comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)