about time...small article but still noteworthy

http://nytimes.com/2004/02/18/scien...ND-RESE.html?hp

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: February 18, 2004


The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

The White House had no immediate comment on the statements.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said.

While I can see where many of these scientists are coming from, what gets me is the quote from the prior head of the EPA. It's funny to hear someone from the EPA, an organization famous for its politics coupled with horrible science complaining about the Bush administration doing the same thing. The EPA needs a drastic overhaul in both scope and process. "Blanket" environmental policies hurt rather than help as the agency bullies those it "serves" into conforming to their non-sensical guildlines. I have some wonderful examples if anyone would like them.

/rant

Bush refused to sign MTBE Ban

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/021704G.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53137-2004Feb18.html

quote:

President's Science Policy Questioned Scientists Worry That Any Politics Will Compromise Their Credibility By Guy Gugliotta and Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A02 In two independent reports released yesterday, groups of prestigious scientists raised concerns about the role of politics in the formulation of Bush administration science policy and urged greater oversight by independent organizations. A National Research Council report praised the administration for its revised climate-change research plan, but it questioned whether new initiatives would receive adequate funding and warned that participation of political appointees in the program could cause it "to be influenced by political considerations." "Having high-level administration officials in management is a double-edged sword," Anthony C. Janetos, an NRC committee member and senior fellow at the Washington-based H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said in a telephone news conference. "It's positive because scientists are talking to people that make decisions and create funding, but it creates a challenge in maintaining scientific independence and credibility." That was precisely the concern raised by 60 leading scientists and former federal agency heads who released a statement yesterday accusing the Bush administration of systematically suppressing and distorting scientific information to further its political goals. The statement's signers -- and an accompanying report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based advocacy group -- claim that politicization of science by the administration has seriously undermined the integrity of the nation's research enterprise and has misled the public about the implications of recent policy decisions. "Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," said UCS Chairman Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. "Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans," Gottfried said. The statement -- whose signatories include 12 Nobel laureates, 11 winners of the National Medal of Science, three recipients of the prestigious Crafoord Prize, the heads of some of the country's leading universities and biomedical research institutes, and two former presidential science advisers -- calls for congressional hearings to look into the issue and a renewed administration commitment to public access to objective scientific information. In a hastily called telephone news conference yesterday afternoon, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, addressed the claims of politicization made by the scientists and sought to minimize the document as being more political than scientific. That so many prestigious scientists seem to feel that politics is trumping science in this administration, he said, is not evidence that the claim is true, but is "evidence that we are not communicating with them as well as we should on these issues." He referred to the Union of Concerned Scientists report's 37 pages of examples -- including incidents in which administration officials changed Web sites, revised or eliminated wording in reports, or altered the makeup of advisory committees in ways that appeared to bolster political priorities -- as "a collection of more or less disconnected cases." Asked whether he would raise the issue with the president at their next meeting, Marburger said he did not expect to. The two reports refocused attention on the administration's science policy, frequently criticized by environmentalists and other advocacy groups for being overly beholden to its political supporters: "Across the board there is an attempt to muzzle and silence scientists who disagree with either the administration's ideological agenda or the agenda of its corporate constituents," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. But the National Research Council, a branch of the independent National Academies of Science, acknowledged in the introductory pages of its report, "Implementing Climate and Global Change Research," that the final strategic plan for the administration's 10-year U.S. Climate Change Science Program has "set a high standard" that could "effectively guide research on climate and associated global changes over the next decades." The report praised program directors for including new agenda items, such as the effects of climate change on ecosystems and humans, but expressed concern that these endeavors would lack funding. "If you have a program that is adding substantial new components and not eliminating some other components, it either requires a higher level of funding or [a change in] prioritization," said Yale University industrial ecologist Thomas E. Graedel, chairman of the NRC study committee, during the news conference. Assistant Commerce Secretary James R. Mahoney, director of the program, agreed that the newer programs needed more money, and suggested officials could achieve this by reallocating existing funds: "We need to keep alert to those areas where the goals have been achieved and where we should be refocusing money," Mahoney said. Mahoney said he "may well accept the suggestion" that the program install an outside review board to mitigate political influence. He noted, however, that "we are already committed to having the National Academies of Science do things for us on a repeated basis."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono While I can see where many of these scientists are coming from, what gets me is the quote from the prior head of the EPA. It's funny to hear someone from the EPA, an organization famous for its politics coupled with horrible science complaining about the Bush administration doing the same thing. The EPA needs a drastic overhaul in both scope and process. "Blanket" environmental policies hurt rather than help as the agency bullies those it "serves" into conforming to their non-sensical guildlines. I have some wonderful examples if anyone would like them. /rant

I'd like to hear them if you don't mind.


Let's rumble.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Feb-19-2004 at 11:14

GWB is politically moderate compared to John Ashcroft. Ashcroft is the real religious extremist of the Administration, and is very anti-science:



http://www.4religious-right.info/states_rights2.htm

quote:

States' Rights There is an inconsistency from leaders of the Religious Right between a belief in states rights, or minimal federal government, and a drive for control and domination of a nation. As a member of the Federalist Society and leader of the Religious Right, Attorney General John Ashcroft espouses the value of state's rights. His effort to overturn the state of Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law, however, demonstrates how quickly he will intervene in a State's democratically legislated law when this law conflicts with his religious beliefs. Much of the work of the Justice Department is now focused on overturning state laws. Inspite of Ashcroft's efforts to fight California's proposition 215, a state law that legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, the courts have sided with the state of California. New York Times, February 1, 2003. http://www.4religious-right.info/ma...times_feb1.html Ashcroft is not only interfering with democratically legislated State laws. He is also interfering with academic freedom. He is investigating a case at a Texas University where a Biology professor refuses to write references for students who don't believe in evolution. The University lets professors decide for themselves what criteria to use for making references, but the Justice Department, using precious resources, has declared that issues of "religious freedom" will be a priority for their department. The Ashcroft Justice Department not only demands the harshest prison terms, but actually goes out of its way to track federal judges who do not give them. At the same time state lawmakers are following the opposite track, openly advocating less time for the same crime and giving judges more discretion in choosing punishments. "Rethinking the Key Thrown Away," New York Times, Sept. 28, 2003. http://www.4religious-right.info/as...pt28_times.html Ashcroft is interfering with the right of states to not use the death penalty. He has directed federal prosecutors in New York and Connecticut to seek the death penalty in a dozen cases in which they had recommended lesser sentences. http://www.4religious-right.info/As...times_feb7.html We saw the members of the United States Supreme Court, who are the strongest advocates of States' Rights, intervene in Bush vs. Gore rather than let Florida decide the meaning of its own election laws. The Bush administration is even joining in a lawsuit to prevent the state of California from setting its own automobile emission standards because California's standards are tougher than those of the federal government. It appears that states' rights apply when the federal government imposes regulations on corporations, or upholds the separation of church and state. When states attempt to address problems of pollution or global warming, then "states' rights" are not applicable. The words in the Texas Republican Party Platform "unfettered by government" are echoed in the Federalist Society's push for deregulation. The effort to defund the federal government with lavish tax cuts supports the efforts of corporations to end an era of government regulation and oversight. The most significant result of government "fading into the background", in recent time has been the massive looting of public corporate assets no longer overseen by a financially starved and indifferent Securities and Exchange Commission. While advocating local control and minimal federal government, churches of the Religious Right are using a federal mandate to bypass local zoning ordinances. Hundreds of new megachurches are springing up in suburbs across the country in conflict with local zoning laws. They sprawl across vast amounts of land, and compete with local businesses by building hotels, gyms, day care, bookstores and amphitheaters in addition to churches and classrooms. They create constant traffic on quiet country roads, add fumes and noise in sleepy neighborhoods. Yet, these same megachurches rely on federal law to avoid zoning ordinances, so local citizens are helpless to question their impact. To make matters worse, local residents have to bear an increase in taxes to pay for the megachurches' impact on infrastructure since the new complexes are tax-exempt. It's possible that as the Religious Right increases its dominion over courts and the federal government, those advocating states' rights will support a strong central government, and those supporting a strong central government will campaign for local control. States Rights and the Environment From the Los Angeles Times: by staff writer, Elizabeth Shorgun: No recent president has been quicker than George W. Bush to embrace the virtues of state and local control. But when it comes to the environment, William Becker discovered, that commitment can evaporate when state regulation would be tougher on industry than federal rules. Becker, who represents administrators of state air-pollution programs in Washington, met with White House officials last month to appeal to them not to weaken the Clean Air Act. He used the administration's own rhetoric about the value of local decision making to support his case. Surely, he said, the administration would not stand in the way of states that wanted to enforce tougher clean-air rules on utilities and major polluters. Wrong. "My argument was totally ignored," said Becker, executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Assn. of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. "They talk about states' rights, but they take away key tools states have needed to clean up the air." Becker's experience reflects a pattern apparent throughout the Bush administration's implementation of environmental policy, according to state officials and environmental activists. When state and local interests collide with what industry wants, these activists and officials say, the administration has tossed its states' rights ideology out the window. "We've seen a dramatic curtailment of states' rights," Becker said. "The States' Rights Principle" by Gene Karpinski, Executive Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group: "The record shows that the Bush administration trumpets states' rights when strong federal law displeases its campaign contributors but quickly and conveniently abandons this principle when the interests of its corporate cronies are threatened by state governments acting to safeguard the environment and consumers."

So when it's in defense of slavery and Jim Crow, "State's Rights" are good, but when it comes to cleaning up the air so little children with asthma can breathe better in LA, to hell with "State's Rights."

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Here are a few different articles written on the wisdom of the EPA.

This one is by Bill Graves (Kansas Governor)

quote:

It starts with a hammer held over states' heads by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Highway Administration. These agencies threatened to pull the plug on federal highway construction and improvement dollars unless we agreed to "opt in" to a federally mandated program to sell what's called reformulated gasoline (RFG) at the pumps in Johnson and Wyandotte counties. We had until July 28 to decide. If we "opted out," it would have meant the loss of $250 million for highway projects in those two counties alone. We all agree on the need for clean air, but tying states' hands by "offering" the lone option of RFG is short-sighted, at best. With their actions, the federal government could force Kansas fuel refiners out of the Kansas City market, and force Kansas City-area fuel consumers to pick up the tab. A number of viable options were presented to the EPA to meet their own clean air standards, including the production of a state-formulated blend, the introduction of fume-free gasoline pump technology and giving refiners the freedom to develop new fuels. All were turned aside, in favor of their July 28 deadline. The response was, in essence, "Opt in -- or else." As if that wasn't frustrating enough, on the day before the deadline, the EPA's own advisory board declared that a major additive to RFG has polluted at least 10,000 groundwater sites in California alone, and causes tumors in rats. In response, the EPA says they'll work to "reduce" the use of the dangerous additive. It gets worse. This whole episode was driven by only five instances in which Kansas City exceeded EPA-mandated air quality standards. For parts of five days from 1993 through this year, the air in the Kansas City metro area was out of compliance. In other words, because the air quality failed to meet the mandates less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the time, we'll lose $250 million in highway funding unless we "opt in" to a federal plan to force fuel retailers to sell gasoline that may pollute our groundwater and cause cancer. EPA now has a year to try to sort out its mess in suburban Kansas City. I have asked EPA Administrator Carol Browner to review again the alternatives we presented to her before the deadline. I am confident that a performance-based state fuel blend, which could include ethanol, will continue to improve Kansas City air quality and meet the EPA standards. I may be a misguided optimist, but I have to believe there is room here for some logic and common sense to prevail.

This is from "The Death of Common Sense."

quote:

When, after years of hearings, the Environmental Protection Agency EPA passed rule requiring that specific equipment be put in waste pipes to filter benzene, a harmful pollutant, the Amoco Oil Company readily complied. In the late 1980s, it even let a team from the EPA into one of its Virginia refineries to see how environmental rules - written in windowless rooms in Washington, piled high with scientific evidence and legal briefs - actually worked in practice. The EPA team found that the refinery was emitting significant amounts of benzene, but nowhere near the waste pipes. The pollution was at the loading docks, where gasoline is pumped into barges. Just as fumes escape when you use an old-style nozzle when filling up your car at the gas station, large quantities of benzene were escaping as Amoco annually pumped several hundred million gallons of gasoline into barges. Once EPA and Amoco officials actually stood on the dock together and realized the problem, the solution was easy and relatively inexpensive. Meanwhile, pursuant to the rigid dictates of a 35-page rule that many government experts had spent years fine-tuning, Amoco had spent $31 million to capture an insignificant ar Dunt of benzene at the smokestack. The rule was almost perfect in its failure: It maximized the cost to Amoco while minimizing the benefit to the public. It is no wonder that environmental laws and rules, which now fill 17 volumes of fine print and have cost $1 trillion in the last 20 years, often seen to miss the mark or prove counterproductive.

Also from that book (paraphrased).

quote:

In 1972, the newly created EPA was assigned the task of examining 600 pesticides and determining which should be removed from the market because they were hazardous. The Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act gave the agency three years to carry out this project. More than 25 years have passed since then, and for most of this time over a thousand EPA employees have been hard at work on it. They have come to conclusions on the safety of about 30 pesticides. The rest, including those with regard to which the data indicate a significant risk, remain on the market.

I'll find some more after I'm done with work.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono This is from "The Death of Common Sense." Also from that book (paraphrased).

Did you take my recommendation?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...227#post1216227

I would like to emphasize the fact that everyone should read this book!



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...2549411-2412838

It appears that the scientists' statement had a little bit of influence:

quote:

White House admits altering health study Sun, Feb. 22, 2004 The New York Times WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care but that it soon will publish the full, unexpurgated document. “There was a mistake made,” Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services, told Congress on Feb. 10. “It's going to be rectified.” Thompson said that “some individuals took it upon themselves” to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data. The reversal comes in response to concerns of Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican. They are pushing bills to improve care for members of minority groups. “African-Americans and Native Americans die younger than any other racial or ethnic group,” Frist said. “African-Americans, Native Americans and Hispanic Americans are at least twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and experience serious complications. These gaps are unacceptable.” President Bush's budget would cut spending for the training of health professionals and would eliminate a $34 million program that recruits blacks and Hispanics for health-care careers. Last week, more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement criticizing what they described as the administration's misuse of science to bolster its policies. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, said the changes in the report on health disparities were “another example of the administration's manipulation of science to fit its political goals.” The theme of the original report was that minorities “tend to be in poorer health than other Americans” and that “disparities are pervasive in our health-care system,” contributing to higher rates of disease and disability. By contrast, the final report began: “The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century.”

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...