-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:38:15 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Is it wrong to fund a study on something you want to know about?
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Is it wrong to fund a study on something you want to know about?  (Read 5282 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« on: November 20, 2015, 09:07:37 AM »

Moved from page 6 of "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: the Gun Thread"
To see the beginning of the discussion, go there.

OK. I found the Breitbart article. It's here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

The reason that this was only reported on Breitbart, then linked to by sites with similar political affiliations, is that the article is presenting bogus information. The gist of the article is that this statement, which quotes one of the researchers, is a lie:
“The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.”
The article supports this notion by establishing that:

"A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA’s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency’s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.

A July 15, 2014 email from Driscoll to an EPA staffer boasts of “considerable interest” in their analysis from unnamed outside “groups.” One sentence after buttering up the EPA staffer, Driscoll asks her if they could have a phone call to discuss fundraising for a conference Driscoll is organizing. No appearance of attempted financial conflict there?

A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, “We would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.”


However, what the article fails to report is that the study was published on May 27, 2014, before these interactions took place. So, they were discussing how to make use of the results after they'd been found.

Here's a press release about the publication of the research: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Press-Release_Co-Benefits-Study-5.27.pdf

FilleDePlage, with all due respect, maybe your verification process would be better aimed at your sources that smear university researchers rather than university researchers. Our little unscientific study here has shown that the reports of corruption are more questionable than the research they are reporting of.

Frankly, I suspect that Breitbart was intentionally misleading its readers.
In red above is particularly egregious and manipulative. First, there's nothing wrong with soliciting funds for a conference. Second, he was doing it after he concluded and published his research. The slur by Breitbart.com is almost suable. The only way they avoid defamation is by putting it as a question rather than statement.
The EPA is an administrative agency branch of the government, subject to political manipulation. They have 15,000 people on the payroll. Their job is to protect the environment, and generally that includes the outdoors, and does nothing for indoor pollution, or those who get sick from cancer, etc. from indoor air quality.  So if poison from outdoors kills you, they might do something if it hits the press, and becomes high profile, they get involved.  

Several years ago, a group came up with this system called "cap and trade." It was devised to combat acid rain.  And I'm filtering it because I am not a scientist, there are "credits" given to energy companies, to use as currency to "pollute"  that I would compare to monopoly money for that board game.  Everyone seems to start out the same.  And, if there is an "energy company" who doesn't pollute they have have their monopoly money left over.  So the big polluters barter to purchase those credits. They may limit the total amount of emissions, as I understand the program, but those who pollute, get to keep doing it if they can buy the credits from another company.  Each energy company is not held to a uniform standard.  They can buy their way out of their emissions.

And,where was the EPA with inspection for the Diesel Volkswagens?  I am not giving the EPA one bit of cred, because this "clean diesel" (and I've driven VW diesels in the past, both in the States and Europe) because they haven't done their job. These VW diesels cars were in the US since 2009.  Where have they been? It took them 6 years to investigate? They have 15,000 "payroll patriots" who let this go for all that time?
 
I hope you're verifying your sources now, I would hate if you're slamming the EPA with the same sort of input you used to slam universities.
However, this is not to do with either gun control or the previous tangent. While I have no problem discussing the value of the EPA or whether they are corrupt or incompetent, it would probably be best to do it on another thread.
Emily - you may not care for the sources. Not my problem. You don't agree and that is fine.  I've been involved on some level with higher ed for several decades and continue to be. And it is common knowledge now, with recent lawsuits about the nonfeasance of the EPA laxity.  

If EPA didn't investigate VW, there must be a reason. Six years with a "clean diesel" campaign and inspection stations all over the country, taking fees to inspect these cars annually.  I am not buying that. I suspect it is "undue influence."

That letter from Harvard was generated by a professional public relations firm, hired to minimize damage.  Interesting client list...

Universities are political organizations.  The state run universities rely on politicians to ensure programs for their different departments.  The state budgets tell how much goes for higher education.  They hire lobbyists and P.R. firms to advance their interests. Higher ed is a business.  


There was no damage to minimize. Harvard has that PR firm issue press releases regarding new publications all the time. It's standard.
There was no damage to minimize because the things that Breitbart was complaining about had not yet happened. And what they were complaining about (that a study's author discussed the results of a study after the fact with the body that would have a primary interest in the results and that the study's author would discuss with that body putting together a conference to discuss the results) is not wrong in any way.
Seriously, the fact that you don't view your news sources with the same skepticism that you view science should alert you to a bias. That article is a transparent unfounded hit-piece and yet you continue to look for ways, that don't exist, to imply there was some meat behind it. You need to rethink your approach to information gathering, unless you are consciously deciding to select information to support your preexisting views.
You lose credibility when you keep defending a discredited piece.
Emily - The conflicts of interest are blatant.  And running a "conference" can be an expensive proposition.  I recently attended a conference for continuing education where they flew one professor from Hawaii, and many others from all over the country.  Hotels, meals, cars, speaker fees...and on and on.  

It is naive to think there is no crossover or no undue influence.  And that Breibart site had the actual email chain.  Syracuse got $3.6 mil from the EPA.  Resources for the Future got $2 mil.  Harvard got $31 mil.  Are you kidding?  EPA gave "input" - and there is no conflict?  Follow the money.  It drives the policy.  

The "agenda" was to close coal fired plants.  It is called "checkbook science."
Just to get conferences out of the way: yes they are expensive, so what? Who cares, other than the people who have to pay for it? Why do you put it in quotes? What's the insinuation?

To the main topic, please answer these questions:
1. What's wrong with the EPA funding a study on issues it's their job to manage? Should they just make stuff up, or should they try to actually get real information when making decisions?
2. I will first repeat a matter of fact regarding the Breitbart piece that doesn't seem to be being absorbed: those emails were dated AFTER AFTER AFTER (is there a way to make text flash?) AFTER the study results were published. Given that there's no evidence that the EPA interacted with the study's authors during the study, including the design phase, what influence or input do you think they had and what is your evidence?
3. What blatant conflict of interest was there for the authors?
4. What do you suppose the motives are for the EPA wanting to close coal fired plants? Why is that on their agenda and what's wrong with the reason it's on their agenda?
5 Why do you put 'agenda' in quotation marks? What's the insinuation there?
6. Why doesn't it bother you that your source lies? Your source reports that the study's author lied when he stated that the study was done with no involvement by the EPA. Then your source cites, as evidence to support the notion that the author was lying, emails dated after the study was published which of course do not show that the EPA was involved in the study. Your source leads its readers to believe that this is evidence of involvement by neglecting to report when they must have known that the emails were not written concurrent to the study. So it is proven that your source was lying and that your source failed to prove its claim that the study's author was lying. Knowing this, you are still defending the proven-to-lie source and declaiming against the not-proven-to-lie study author. What do you think it is that motivates you to defend a proven liar while arguing so intently that we should dismiss the work of people not-proven-to-lie?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 12:26:24 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2015, 09:14:42 AM »

One more question:
If a study has important information regarding your work, is it wrong to discuss the study with the authors or to fund a conference to discuss it with your colleagues?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2015, 11:02:09 AM »

One more question:
If a study has important information regarding your work, is it wrong to discuss the study with the authors or to fund a conference to discuss it with your colleagues?
Emily - first, I thought you were joking about starting a thread.  

Second, you may not like breitbart as a news outlet, but they had to likely have filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get the interoffice email.  You have the staff emails.  Not an editorial. That is not misleading.  

If the EPA is funding a study, with millions of American tax dollars, and keeping "researchers" on the university payroll, do they exercise any "influence" over the outcome? They got called out.  There is an aversion politically to this news source instead of looking at the interoffice documents and funding sources.

It has all the indicia of an "inside job" to get policy change legislation.  You get the desired result as the outcome if you pay.  The EPA did not put the study out to independent scientists.  They found friendly institutions, with insiders to get their job done.  
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 11:07:14 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2015, 12:10:25 PM »

One more question:
If a study has important information regarding your work, is it wrong to discuss the study with the authors or to fund a conference to discuss it with your colleagues?
Emily - first, I thought you were joking about starting a thread.  

Second, you may not like breitbart as a news outlet, but they had to likely have filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get the interoffice email.  You have the staff emails.  Not an editorial. That is not misleading.  

If the EPA is funding a study, with millions of American tax dollars, and keeping "researchers" on the university payroll, do they exercise any "influence" over the outcome? They got called out.  There is an aversion politically to this news source instead of looking at the interoffice documents and funding sources.

It has all the indicia of an "inside job" to get policy change legislation.  You get the desired result as the outcome if you pay.  The EPA did not put the study out to independent scientists.  They found friendly institutions, with insiders to get their job done.  

Not joking. CSM expressed unhappiness that the other thread was hijacked by this topic.
You didn't answer any of the questions.

I'm really getting confused about what you are not understanding about the timing of the emails. If I publish work and then talk to someone about it, how can that person influence the work? The work is done, Discussing it after it's done is not an ethical problem. The article was tricking its readers, and you still are being tricked, into thinking that the discussions happened while the work was in progress. It wasn't. The discussions were after the work was published. Is there another way to say it?

So all the article showed is that the author of a study discussed his study with the EPA AFTER the study was published. What on earth could be considered unethical about that?
The article lies and intentionally misleads.
This is not me saying something general about Breitbart. This is something specific and factual about that article. They received emails. The emails showed no wrong-doing. So they fudged their reporting to imply that the emails were exchanged during the study. They hid the fact that the study was complete and published before the emails were exchanged.
The fact that they didn't report any emails that were exchanged during the study most likely indicates that there were none. Thus, the article misleads its readers intentionally into believing they found wrong-doing when they did not. Because some readers are so fired up that now they believe that for the EPA to communicate with a scientist is bad. That is a crazy position. You are essentially taking the position that the EPA should operate blind. That it should not learn what it needs to know in order to do its job.

So, will you answer any questions?
Will you answer this one - because this is all that the scientists can be accused of according to that article:
What is wrong with a scientist talking to the EPA about the results of his completed study?

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 12:12:32 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2015, 12:56:12 PM »

One more question:
If a study has important information regarding your work, is it wrong to discuss the study with the authors or to fund a conference to discuss it with your colleagues?
Emily - first, I thought you were joking about starting a thread.  

Second, you may not like breitbart as a news outlet, but they had to likely have filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get the interoffice email.  You have the staff emails.  Not an editorial. That is not misleading.  

If the EPA is funding a study, with millions of American tax dollars, and keeping "researchers" on the university payroll, do they exercise any "influence" over the outcome? They got called out.  There is an aversion politically to this news source instead of looking at the interoffice documents and funding sources.

It has all the indicia of an "inside job" to get policy change legislation.  You get the desired result as the outcome if you pay.  The EPA did not put the study out to independent scientists.  They found friendly institutions, with insiders to get their job done.  

Not joking. CSM expressed unhappiness that the other thread was hijacked by this topic.
You didn't answer any of the questions.

I'm really getting confused about what you are not understanding about the timing of the emails. If I publish work and then talk to someone about it, how can that person influence the work? The work is done, Discussing it after it's done is not an ethical problem. The article was tricking its readers, and you still are being tricked, into thinking that the discussions happened while the work was in progress. It wasn't. The discussions were after the work was published. Is there another way to say it?

So all the article showed is that the author of a study discussed his study with the EPA AFTER the study was published. What on earth could be considered unethical about that?
The article lies and intentionally misleads.
This is not me saying something general about Breitbart. This is something specific and factual about that article. They received emails. The emails showed no wrong-doing. So they fudged their reporting to imply that the emails were exchanged during the study. They hid the fact that the study was complete and published before the emails were exchanged.
The fact that they didn't report any emails that were exchanged during the study most likely indicates that there were none. Thus, the article misleads its readers intentionally into believing they found wrong-doing when they did not. Because some readers are so fired up that now they believe that for the EPA to communicate with a scientist is bad. That is a crazy position. You are essentially taking the position that the EPA should operate blind. That it should not learn what it needs to know in order to do its job.

So, will you answer any questions?
Will you answer this one - because this is all that the scientists can be accused of according to that article:
What is wrong with a scientist talking to the EPA about the results of his completed study?
Emily - It doesn't pass my smell test. The agenda was to close coal plants and the result is to skew the market, with one fewer resource. 

Then, EPA moves to ban most wood stoves...people save between $1,000 and $2000 every year by burning wood.  That is money not going to gas or oil and reduces dependence on

oil, while were are still at war over oil.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves-in-a-corrupt-scheme-fireplaces-next/

I've been watching this one for two years.  And it is party driven and not independent.  It removes a heat source alongside coal. 

First, wood is a source of renewable energy. Trees grow, we cut them down, and plant more to grow, etc.

Second, it is means of getting off the grid for those who wish to be "off the grid" for heat.  Getting off the grid hurts big oil, the gas companies, and they are already unhappy with

solar.

It is a big picture item.  So, you will have to excuse my skepticism.  Any $45 mil expenditure on a study mandates scrutiny.  And while your position is passionate, I'm looking at an EPA

that is consistently influenced.  You don't think they are but I do.  The emails show an ongoing correspondence showing "methods of analysis" - if scientists are independent, they

aren't consulting with the EPA on "methods" as that calls into question the scientific and academic independence they really have. 

And I call your attention to an email of July 8, sent at 11;14 AM with those who were "copied." (EPA and Harvard) "Do any of the following dates and times work for you for a

conference call with our team to discuss methods for out next set of analyses:" - if that doesn't convince you that the EPA was part of the process and not completely removed from

the process, then we aren't on the same page as to what is really going on here.  And, I'm looking at what looks like corruption in science. 

They were all in the tank. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2015, 03:29:41 PM »

You haven't answered any questions. You've made a lot of assertions with no evidence.
Regarding the email to which you refer, which once again was written after (really?) the results were published, what's wrong with the EPA working with academics to analyze the results of a study?
I consider it responsible for policy makers to work with experts in analyzing and understanding data. If you showed evidence of them influencing the generation of data (the study), that would be one thing. All you're showing is them consulting with the experts on understanding the already published results.
Can you answer any of my questions? Can you offer any support of your assertions?

That the EPA thought it made sense to close coal-fired plants since coal-mining is evidently awful environmentally is not a sign of corruption, just a sign of them doing their job.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2015, 04:02:07 PM »

OK, this article.

1. It alleges corruption all over the place, but shows no evidence of it. Just evidence of the legal process being followed. This process is followed by right and left wing organizations under Republican and Democrat administrations.
The article insinuates that if any case is settled (a perfectly ordinary procedure in our courts, much cheaper than going to trial) then the parties must be corrupt.
If I gave you examples of right wing organizations suing the government under a Republican president and the government settling, would you consider it evidence of corruption?

2. The article itself gives the reason, though it wants it dismissed, for the banning of the stoves in question:
"The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space."
Based on this argument alone (I haven't read about the issue further), I don't support this measure either. But, seeing as just about every jurisdiction in the country has banned people from generating 12 micrograms per cubic meter, or really they've banned people from generating 0.0001 (any) micrograms per cubic meter, of cigarette smoke in any enclosed space (let alone a "small confined space") with other humans is it surprising or evidence of a suspicious agenda that they want to ban a higher level of particles from wood stoves? Just because you don't support a law does not mean it's generated out of corruption or evil agendas. Some people just disagree with you.

3. The top of the article has this graphic:

You can not be serious in thinking this will be an unbiased article about the EPA. You're punking me, right?

Can you provide ANY evidence for all of these allegations of corruption in the EPA and academia?
Can you provide a single study or article or anything that supports these assertions with evidence?
And I don't mean articles that say there's one guy who did something wrong or articles that say the EPA isn't doing what I want it to therefore it's corrupt or articles that say the EPA shouldn't discuss science with scientists.
Articles with actual evidence of even thinly-spread corruption.

And, can you answer any of my questions?

If you can't it would be reasonable for you to question the conclusions you've drawn and rethink.



« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 04:08:33 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2015, 05:46:37 PM »

OK, this article.

1. It alleges corruption all over the place, but shows no evidence of it. Just evidence of the legal process being followed. This process is followed by right and left wing organizations under Republican and Democrat administrations.
The article insinuates that if any case is settled (a perfectly ordinary procedure in our courts, much cheaper than going to trial) then the parties must be corrupt.
If I gave you examples of right wing organizations suing the government under a Republican president and the government settling, would you consider it evidence of corruption?

2. The article itself gives the reason, though it wants it dismissed, for the banning of the stoves in question:
"The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space."
Based on this argument alone (I haven't read about the issue further), I don't support this measure either. But, seeing as just about every jurisdiction in the country has banned people from generating 12 micrograms per cubic meter, or really they've banned people from generating 0.0001 (any) micrograms per cubic meter, of cigarette smoke in any enclosed space (let alone a "small confined space") with other humans is it surprising or evidence of a suspicious agenda that they want to ban a higher level of particles from wood stoves? Just because you don't support a law does not mean it's generated out of corruption or evil agendas. Some people just disagree with you.

3. The top of the article has this graphic:

You can not be serious in thinking this will be an unbiased article about the EPA. You're punking me, right?

Can you provide ANY evidence for all of these allegations of corruption in the EPA and academia?
Can you provide a single study or article or anything that supports these assertions with evidence?
And I don't mean articles that say there's one guy who did something wrong or articles that say the EPA isn't doing what I want it to therefore it's corrupt or articles that say the EPA shouldn't discuss science with scientists.
Articles with actual evidence of even thinly-spread corruption.

And, can you answer any of my questions?

If you can't it would be reasonable for you to question the conclusions you've drawn and rethink


Emily - The graphic that you parody has an "E" - resembling the old hammer and sick of the Old USSR.  Disparaging the source doesn't help. 

Contained within the emails is the time line of cooperation.  And, I maintain that one doesn't sponsor a study without expecting an outcome.  It is naive.  The press releases were heralding the study. 

First press release speaks of a new study.  May 27, 2014 - this was the Media Advisory  This was Part One.

EPA release of proposed rules one week later June, 2, 2014  - pretty quick implementation of a study they commissioned.  Harvard tuition is about $60,000 a year.  That is enough to pay independent researchers and then publish in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Part Two of the study was September 30, 2014, and there is a second press release. The work was ongoing and not "done" as implied. 

That link is http://eng-sc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Press-Advisory_Co-Benefits-Study_FINAL.pdf

Before, between and after are emails between and among the participants.

Checking this out has been interesting.  I stumbled across an article about documented, litigated EPA corruption in the 1990's involving Dr. William Marcus who was at the EPA as a senior scientist, who had involvement in research showing that fluoride in water caused cancer.  Robert Reich intervened as the Secretary of Labor, after he was let go, and "Administrative Law Judge David Clark ordered the EPA to give him back his job with back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages.   They found that EPA officials had forged some of his time cards, then accused him of misusing his official time.

Another Doctor, Dr. Bob Carton, VP of the union representing 1200 scientists, engineers and lawyers at the EPA presented Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of EPA with evidence of scientific fraud in the preparation of EPA's fluoride in drinking water standard."  Dr. Carton was with the US Army Medical Research and Material Command, Fort Derrick, Maryland.  He accused the EPA of fraud.  He didn't lie.

The Natural Resources Defense Council objected to the EPA's 1985 standards to raise the level of fluoride in water.  EPA refused to quantify the threshold level of an acceptable daily dose of water with fluoride. The EPA said that 4 mg of fluoride per liter was acceptable and the PDR - Physician's Desk Reference said 1 mg, as a "prescription dose."   

http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/politics/carton.htm     

http://www.doctoryourself.com/carton.html 

Getting info from any resource can be of value, regardless of political agendas, in my opinion.  Left, right or center, or international. It is all good. Wink





 



Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2015, 06:27:47 PM »

OK, this article.

1. It alleges corruption all over the place, but shows no evidence of it. Just evidence of the legal process being followed. This process is followed by right and left wing organizations under Republican and Democrat administrations.
The article insinuates that if any case is settled (a perfectly ordinary procedure in our courts, much cheaper than going to trial) then the parties must be corrupt.
If I gave you examples of right wing organizations suing the government under a Republican president and the government settling, would you consider it evidence of corruption?

2. The article itself gives the reason, though it wants it dismissed, for the banning of the stoves in question:
"The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space."
Based on this argument alone (I haven't read about the issue further), I don't support this measure either. But, seeing as just about every jurisdiction in the country has banned people from generating 12 micrograms per cubic meter, or really they've banned people from generating 0.0001 (any) micrograms per cubic meter, of cigarette smoke in any enclosed space (let alone a "small confined space") with other humans is it surprising or evidence of a suspicious agenda that they want to ban a higher level of particles from wood stoves? Just because you don't support a law does not mean it's generated out of corruption or evil agendas. Some people just disagree with you.

3. The top of the article has this graphic:
You can not be serious in thinking this will be an unbiased article about the EPA. You're punking me, right?

Can you provide ANY evidence for all of these allegations of corruption in the EPA and academia?
Can you provide a single study or article or anything that supports these assertions with evidence?
And I don't mean articles that say there's one guy who did something wrong or articles that say the EPA isn't doing what I want it to therefore it's corrupt or articles that say the EPA shouldn't discuss science with scientists.
Articles with actual evidence of even thinly-spread corruption.

And, can you answer any of my questions?

If you can't it would be reasonable for you to question the conclusions you've drawn and rethink


Emily - The graphic that you parody has an "E" - resembling the old hammer and sick of the Old USSR.  Disparaging the source doesn't help. 


Contained within the emails is the time line of cooperation.  And, I maintain that one doesn't sponsor a study without expecting an outcome.  It is naive.  The press releases were heralding the study. 

First press release speaks of a new study.  May 27, 2014 - this was the Media Advisory  This was Part One.

EPA release of proposed rules one week later June, 2, 2014  - pretty quick implementation of a study they commissioned.  Harvard tuition is about $60,000 a year.  That is enough to pay independent researchers and then publish in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Part Two of the study was September 30, 2014, and there is a second press release. The work was ongoing and not "done" as implied. 

That link is http://eng-sc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Press-Advisory_Co-Benefits-Study_FINAL.pdf

Before, between and after are emails between and among the participants.

Checking this out has been interesting.  I stumbled across an article about documented, litigated EPA corruption in the 1990's involving Dr. William Marcus who was at the EPA as a senior scientist, who had involvement in research showing that fluoride in water caused cancer.  Robert Reich intervened as the Secretary of Labor, after he was let go, and "Administrative Law Judge David Clark ordered the EPA to give him back his job with back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages.   They found that EPA officials had forged some of his time cards, then accused him of misusing his official time.

Another Doctor, Dr. Bob Carton, VP of the union representing 1200 scientists, engineers and lawyers at the EPA presented Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of EPA with evidence of scientific fraud in the preparation of EPA's fluoride in drinking water standard."  Dr. Carton was with the US Army Medical Research and Material Command, Fort Derrick, Maryland.  He accused the EPA of fraud.  He didn't lie.

The Natural Resources Defense Council objected to the EPA's 1985 standards to raise the level of fluoride in water.  EPA refused to quantify the threshold level of an acceptable daily dose of water with fluoride. The EPA said that 4 mg of fluoride per liter was acceptable and the PDR - Physician's Desk Reference said 1 mg, as a "prescription dose."   

http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/politics/carton.htm     

http://www.doctoryourself.com/carton.html 

Getting info from any resource can be of value, regardless of political agendas, in my opinion.  Left, right or center, or international. It is all good. Wink


Regarding the Carton stuff, your links go to an interview with Carton and a short monograph by Carton. So you've got one guy in 1985 making allegations that were never proven. OK.
Here's a random internet source showing a different point of view: http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/
You might not be into fluoride in drinking water. I don't have much of an opinion, but I don't think there's any evidence of corruption here.


For the other thing, the link is dead. I'm searching for the document...
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2015, 06:48:49 PM »

Reasonable minds can differ, and I am going to leave it at that.  Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2015, 07:09:17 PM »

OK. Found it. And read the emails and looked at the history of the proposals.
1.March, 2012 - EPA proposes carbon standards for new power plants, presented as an environmental (global warming and ozone-related) benefit http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/clean-power-plan
2. Sept, 2013 - EPA withdraws March 2012 proposal and issues new proposal for carbon standards for new power plants, presented as an environmental (global warming and ozone-related) benefit
3. May, 2014 - Driscoll publishes results showing that reducing carbon pollution is beneficial for plant and animal health (is this surprising? do you think one must be corrupt to find this?); EPA sees this is an added benefit to report concerning the already proposed standards.
4. June, 2014 - EPA proposes carbon standards for modified and reconstructed power plants - note this is not affected in any way by the afore-mentioned study.
5. July, 2014 - Driscoll and EPA scandalously arrange calls and conferences and presentations regarding his research results. Schwartz and Buonocore included. emails are available here: https://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/epa-driscoll-foia.pdf  There is no hint of impropriety, no discussion of research methodology. It's all about presentation.
6. Sept. 2014 - Schwartz and Buonocore release an analysis comparing 3 models of regulations to determine which is likely to have the optimal outcome in terms of health. ETA: I was too bored to find out if any of these models is the EPA's model. It's irrelevant anyway.

To note:
-The main EPA proposal (two versions of it) predated the studies.
-None of the EPA's proposals relied on the studies. The studies just showed added benefits to already planned actions.
-All of the email discussion regarded presenting analyses of Driscoll's already published findings.
-There is no there here. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

sources:
http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/clean-power-plan
http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/ghg-standards-for-new-power-plants
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/carbon-pollution-standards-new-modified-and-reconstructed-power-plants
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html
http://eng-cs.syr.edu/our-departments/civil-and-environmental-engineering/research/nature-climate-change-clean-air-article/
http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/health-co-benefits-carbon-standards-existing-power-plants
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504121029.htm
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/fig_tab/nclimate2598_F4.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2598.html

Benefit for me: I learned a bit about a really boring topic.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 07:14:34 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2015, 08:08:13 AM »

Emily - When new laws are enacted, there are usually public hearings held for public comment.

So, being on a few EPA "list serves" for environmental health issues I am involved in, over the last nearly 20 years or so, I didn't remember getting a notice about this one which was conducted in EPA region 1.  And, now I know why. Six New England States -- and not one hearing in each state.  This process should have taken a minimum of a year. Not late May to Mid-October. Now, I believe that public comment by stakeholders and citizens was deliberately restricted to advance this trend of ruling with Executive Orders.

There are 10 EPA regions and most of the "work" for this new rule happened in Region 1. Their voices were not asked for nor heard. There were hearings held during the week of July 28, 2014. Summer vacation time. Who is thinking about heat in July?

When I looked to see on the EPA website, there were a total of 4: 

Atlanta, GA
Denver, CO
Pittsburgh, PA (where there were demonstrations)
DC

The official comment period closed on December 1, 2014, which had been extended by 45 days according to a WV Newspaper called Metro News.  "We got a number of requests from a variety of different stakeholders suggesting they would like additional time. " So, commentary would've closed by about October 15, 2014.  That was only two weeks post the Sept. 30, 2014, Part Two release. 

So, first, each EPA region was not given an opportunity to comment.  Many in the New England area use a combination of wood and coal or more recently, wood pellets to heat their homes. So they are stakeholders in the outcome of any policy change regarding the coal industry.   

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/comments-are-in-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/338783/

And, I had forgotten about this...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-investigation-blames-epa-for-toxic-spill/article/2574710

The Gold King 3 million gallon spill of toxic sludge caused by the EPA, and which caused a release in the waterways of three states. 

And from Russia Today, whose network had pretty good coverage I thought with good photos. 

https://www.rt.com/usa/319439-epa-caused-colorado-mine-spill/

And, Emily, for me this far from boring information.  What the EPA does or fails to do, affects all of us, whether we are forced to remain on a grid that makes us slaves to big energy companies, or pollutes our waterways or what happens indoors in an HVAC climate, in schools or workplaces, and especially to children, about whom they don't give a damn. 

But it is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your passion.  And you have very good taste in music.  Your dad gave you good exposure to the best.  Wink

 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2015, 02:12:00 PM »

OK, FdP, you got me with the compliment of my dad.  Grin
Seriously, we keep butting heads, but you seem like a really nice person.
ETA: I do not deny AT ALL the importance of these issues. I don't know why, but environmental science, while I care just never caught my fancy as something to think about.
Something to do with my high school chemistry teacher, perhaps.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 02:46:00 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2015, 03:42:05 PM »

OK, FdP, you got me with the compliment of my dad.  Grin
Seriously, we keep butting heads, but you seem like a really nice person.
ETA: I do not deny AT ALL the importance of these issues. I don't know why, but environmental science, while I care just never caught my fancy as something to think about.
Something to do with my high school chemistry teacher, perhaps.
Thank you, Emily for those very kind words.  What goes on with environmental areas, has to do with a lot of science areas, biology, geology, microbiology, marine biology, and (yuk) chemistry. (That made me laugh.) I never liked the smell of the chemistry lab.   

But it is more a function of politics and monitoring public policies which don't require a lot of specific knowledge, except watching who the players are, and whether one entity has a relationship with another.  And the legal process they are supposed to follow, and often don't.  That is watching human behavior.   (I suppose that is "psychology" but I was afraid of taking Statistics, so that was out for me!)

You're articulate with this BB music passion, and that is a "transferable skill" to activism.  Hope you are using your well-earned GI Bill benefits.  It put my father through college, grad, and post-grad, and he started at 27.

A good, honest scientist, who won't ever compromise his or her credentials to sign-off on nonsense, is worth his or her weight in gold.

And that is the key.  Citizens have to be watchdogs and make sure environmental policies are good for people and not just business. 

Thank you again for your service.   Drumroll
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.661 seconds with 21 queries.