Pruitt insists that the EPA only uses data that is public

aloysious said:
Then you've never been to remote Chicken, Alaska.
Click to expand...

There is something really toxic about Gold Mining.. and I can't quite remember what it is.. There was a huge fight over it in South Carolina some 40 years ago...


Here it is.. cyanide..

The waste, usually a gray liquid sludge, is laden with deadly cyanide and toxic heavy metals. Many gold mines dump their toxic waste directly into natural water bodies. ... Toxic waste can easily seep into soil and groundwater, or be released in catastrophic spills.
Environmental Impacts of Gold Mining | Brilliant Earth
https://www.brilliantearth.com/gold-mining-environment/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea I heard about this the other day at work. The general consensus was to roll your eyes, shrug your shoulders, chuckle and say “Well there goes Pruitt again.”.

You’re becoming a real anti-environmental ideologue Tom and it’s preventing you from thinking things through.

Pruitt’s decision will never survive court challenge Tom. You know why? I’ll tell you right now that it has nothing to do scientific peer review.

Much of the data used in formulating environmental regulation is based on public health data. Particularly where emission and exposure standards are concerned. Now in public health studies , by its nature, people are involved. Now this may come as a surprise to you but in the US people have a right to privacy. Public Health data often has strictures on making information public because it exposes personal information about private individuals.

So what Pruitt is attempting to do is to prevent such public health studies from being used. That will never fly Tom. Protecting people’s private information is an integral and legally protected aspect of public health studies. In no way does protecting personal information prevent proper scientific peer review. If that were so almost all major medical scientific research would have been halted a long time ago.

So what you and Pruitt are arguing is a false dichotomy that scientific enquirery and protecting personal privacy are incompatible. That notion is absurd. The only purpose this serves is to deny valid data from being used to formulate regulation if it prevents private personal information from becoming public. That only purpose that will serve will be to undermine the regulatory process.

Now when you consider that Congress created the laws for environmental protection and protecting privacy then you might understand this policy will not survive court challenges. Pruitt does not have the right to create law or disregard laws created by Congress. Only Congress has this right.

So ultimately Pruitt will waste a lot of tax payer money in court challenges and he will lose.
Click to expand...
Really, after what has happened at Facebook?? I am damn sure there are ways to anonymously present data but you cannot seriously be telling me that the EPA is unable publish its data and the studies it commissions to arrive at policy. That sounds like the Michael Mann school of scientific methodology.

It's incredibly convenient that they can just say, we don't need to show you our data, but trust us, we wouldn't lie to you. Mott, with all that you know about government secrecy and cover-ups over the years, you'd think that supporting that would be against your principles. Sounds very much like you've gone native!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
Really, after what has happened at Facebook?? I am damn sure there are ways to anonymously present data but you cannot seriously be telling me that the EPA is unable publish its data and the studies it commissions to arrive at policy. That sounds like the Michael Mann school of scientific methodology.

It's incredibly convenient that they can just say, we don't need to show you our data, but trust us, we wouldn't lie to you. Mott, with all that you know about government secrecy and cover-ups over the years, you'd think that supporting that would be against your principles. Sounds very much like you've gone native!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Tom that's conspiracy theory lunacy. The data is available for scrutiny and scientific peer review. It just simply cannot be made public where peoples personal right to privacy is concerned.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom that's conspiracy theory lunacy. The data is available for scrutiny and scientific peer review. It just simply cannot be made public where peoples personal right to privacy is concerned.
Click to expand...
Oh don't talk rot, I am bloody sure that they won't be publishing names and addresses, that is the province of Facebook etc. If the data gathered, studies commissioned and the rationale behind policy decisions are revealed then all is well and good. Why should decisions be taken being closed doors, and as for peer review give me a break. It should be renamed pal's review.

Look at Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann. He steadfastly refused to release his proxy tree ring data, he even sued in Canada because Tim Ball said that instead of being in Penn State (University) he should be in the state pen. He finally lost after six years, serves the scumbag right!

https://principia-scientific.org/update-tim-balls-huge-courtroom-win-now-targets-michael-mann/



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom that's conspiracy theory lunacy. The data is available for scrutiny and scientific peer review. It just simply cannot be made public where peoples personal right to privacy is concerned.
Click to expand...
Now that's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've seen on this board since midcan5 said I was a racist for eating a healthy diet (I'll never let her live that one down). How the hell is publishing results going to invade the authors' privacy if their personal information is not published? It never is other than the institution they are affiliated with.
I thought you were some kind of scientist. Who are you with, the Union of Concerned 'Scientists' ?
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Now that's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've seen on this board since midcan5 said I was a racist for eating a healthy diet (I'll never let her live that one down). How the hell is publishing results going to invade the authors' privacy if their personal information is not published? It never is other than the institution they are affiliated with.
I thought you were some kind of scientist. Who are you with, the Union of Concerned 'Scientists' ?
Click to expand...

I don't know what's happened to Mott, he works in the waste disposal industry and he seems to have developed Stockholm Syndrome.
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Now that's got to be the most ridiculous statement I've seen on this board since midcan5 said I was a racist for eating a healthy diet (I'll never let her live that one down). How the hell is publishing results going to invade the authors' privacy if their personal information is not published? It never is other than the institution they are affiliated with.
I thought you were some kind of scientist. Who are you with, the Union of Concerned 'Scientists' ?
Click to expand...
Have you ever worked in the area of public health or industrial hygiene...or practiced medicine? There are very strict laws on publishing data on private individuals. Whether you like it or not or think it is stupid or not those privacy protections are in place for a reason nor do they prevent good science or peer review from occurring. The notion that they do is absurd.

It's a gambit by Pruitt to undermine the intent of congress and it simply won't pass muster in the courts.
 
Havana Moon said:
I don't know what's happened to Mott, he works in the waste disposal industry and he seems to have developed Stockholm Syndrome.
Click to expand...
Hardly. You guys are buying into conspiracy theory nor are you informed on the issues involved. All sorts of data generated in research on public health have provisions to protect the privacy of people. The notion that this prevents sound science is simply dumb. The data is available for anyone to study as long as they abide by those strictures. Like I said...if what you guys were saying was true virtually all medical research would come to a halt. Guess what? It hasn't.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Have you ever worked in the area of public health or industrial hygiene...or practiced medicine?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Mott the Hoople said:
There are very strict laws on publishing data on private individuals. Whether you like it or not or think it is stupid or not those privacy protections are in place for a reason nor do they prevent good science or peer review from occurring. The notion that they do is absurd.
Click to expand...
I've co-authored 2 peer reviewed articles myself. They certainly didn't need my private information to publish them. I have no idea what you're talking about that studies done by private citizens can't be published because they have to protect their private information. That's utter nonsense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly. You guys are buying into conspiracy theory nor are you informed on the issues involved. All sorts of data generated in research on public health have provisions to protect the privacy of people. The notion that this prevents sound science is simply dumb. The data is available for anyone to study as long as they abide by those strictures. Like I said...if what you guys were saying was true virtually all medical research would come to a halt. Guess what? It hasn't.
Click to expand...
I must admit that if condescension was an Olympic sport, you'd win gold, Mott.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Sinkholes open at homes near Pennsylvania pipeline project


March 05, 2018
WEST WHITELAND TWP., Pa. (WPVI) -- Residents in one Chester County neighborhood say they're fed up with an ongoing pipeline project.

The latest issue: sinkholes that are forcing some residents out of their homes.

Work crews were out all day Monday, but the state senator representing the community in West Whiteland Township said he may call for an emergency to halt construction.

The latest sinkhole appeared in the 400 block of Lisa Drive on Saturday. Neighbors said residents had to evacuate.

But it's nothing new for the neighborhood, which isn't far from the construction site for the Sunoco pipeline project.

continued

http://6abc.com/sinkholes-open-at-homes-near-pa-pipeline-project/3178650/
 
Havana Moon said:
How shocking Scott Pruitt wants to force the EPA to act in a scientific manner and publish all the data it uses.


In a bombshell, Scott Pruitt is expecting scientists to act scientifically. My God what a dangerous precedent that is, whatever next?



http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/pr...e-data-that-is-public-no-more-secret-science/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hard to believe but lots of data that is collected, especially from patients, is collected by promising them confidentiality. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...uitt-secret-science-policy-health-regulations
 
Nordberg said:
Hard to believe but lots of data that is collected, especially from patients, is collected by promising them confidentiality. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...uitt-secret-science-policy-health-regulations
Click to expand...
By all means go ahead and let the EPA run riot, but don't start crying when they ban the vast majority of wood burning stoves! Of course, they won't stop there as barbecues and open fires will be their next target.

Regulations like these are being forced through with “fake” lawsuits.

The corrupt scheme being used is known as“sue and settle”. It allows the EPA more freedom in advancing harsh regulations on the public. The scheme works like this according to Senator Vitter of Louisiana:

A far-left environmental group sues a federal department or agency, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that the government is not satisfying its regulatory obligations. Then, after the group and the EPA plan and discuss the matter – without the involvement of any others, including affected business, landowners, and state and local governments – they draft a settlement agreement committing the agency to regulate a certain sector of the economy or type of private property. All that’s left is to get the presiding judge to bless their friendly agreement.

There’s even a bonus prize in this scheme. Because such a settlement is counted as a “win” for the environmental group plaintiff, that suing group is awarded all of its costs and attorney’s fees, creating a revolving fund for its continuing activity, courtesy of our wallets.
Click to expand...

http://www.independentsentinel.com/...g-stoves-in-a-corrupt-scheme-fireplaces-next/


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Havana Moon said:
By all means go ahead and let the EPA run riot, but don't start crying when they ban the vast majority of wood burning stoves! Of course, they won't stop there as barbecues and open fires will be their next target.



http://www.independentsentinel.com/...g-stoves-in-a-corrupt-scheme-fireplaces-next/


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So what about all those wood burners out there, care to discuss that? Althea, where are you?



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top