Perverting science for politics

[Happy Monkey]

The White House performs some minor edits on a CDC climate report.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The White House performs some minor edits on a CDC climate report.

Eight of fourteen pages that were peer reviewed by scientists were suddenly and miraculously found to be unscientific by White House lawyers. Apparently god is talking to this White House.

Normally it would just be a mistake. But when criminal activity - that would make Nixon proud - is so routine, then why not have FEMA fake a press conference.

Anything from the George Jr adminstration is a lie until otherwise proven from honest (independent) sources. White House lawyers are still better scientists? Yes, when the president talks to god. No, that is not even a joke. Only this president is told what to do by god - and admits it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Fish don't vote.... or donate.

[glatt]

Is anyone surprised at this shit anymore?

Bush ignores a unanimous recommendation by the scientific advisory panel at the EPA, which is also supported by the American Lung Association, and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies to reduce ozone levels in the air to 60 parts per billion. Instead he embraces the requests of industry lobbyists and sets the level at 75 parts per billion.

What's the difference between 60 and 75? Well the article doesn't say, but the difference between 70 and 75 is 2,100 extra dead each year.

That's right, Bush is killing well over 2,100 Americans a year so he can side with the lobbyists.

EPA Sets New Ozone Standard, Overrides Advisers

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 12, 2008; 2:26 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to lower the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency's scientific advisers urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The new smog rules -- one of the most important environmental decisions President Bush will make during his final year in office -- will be a major factor in determining the quality of the air Americans will breathe for at least a decade. The standards dictate the amount of nitrogen oxides and other chemical compounds that are allowed to come out of vehicles, manufacturing facilities and power plants across the nation.

A slew of industries, including electric utilities and cement manufacturers, had recently urged White House officials in private meetings to keep the ozone limit at 80 parts per billion in order to minimize the cost of installing pollution controls.

Nearly a year ago, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were "unanimous in recommending" that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion and that the agency should consider reducing ozone levels to as low as 60 parts per billion. Public health advocates, including the American Lung Association, have lobbied for a 60-parts-per-billion ozone limit.

The EPA has estimated that reducing ozone levels to 70 parts per billion could annually prevent as many as 3,800 premature deaths, 2,300 nonfatal heart attacks, 48,000 cases of respiratory problems, 7,600 respiratory-related hospital visits and 890,000 missed work and school days. Setting the level at 75 parts per billion instead, the agency EPA estimated, could annually produce between 900 and 1,100 fewer premature deaths, 1,400 fewer nonfatal heart attacks and 5,600 fewer hospital and emergency room visits.

In a news conference last week, the American Lung Association's Janice Nolen said that when people ask her and other public health experts when they will be satisfied with the nation's air quality, she responds, "I'll be happy when the air we breathe does not make people sick."

William Becker, who as executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies represents officials from 48 state and 165 local governments, questioned why the Bush administration opted for a weaker ozone rules.

"It is disheartening that once again EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers," Becker said. "While an improvement over the current standard, EPA's rule fails to adequately protect the health of millions of people throughout the country."

[Clodfobble]

A slew of industries, including electric utilities and cement manufacturers, had recently urged White House officials in private meetings to keep the ozone limit at 80 parts per billion in order to minimize the cost of installing pollution controls.

Nearly a year ago, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were "unanimous in recommending" that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion and that the agency should consider reducing ozone levels to as low as 60 parts per billion.

Honestly, I'm not even sure this is siding with the lobbyists. I think he (or more likely whoever he appointed at the EPA, I bet this never even got to Bush's desk) glanced at the papers, saw one wanted 70 and one wanted 80--and said, "Great, 75, now let's go home." Apathy in a soon-to-end administration can be even more powerful than earning/repaying favors.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Apathy in a soon-to-end administration can be even more powerful than earning/repaying favors.

Apathy? Hardly. Cheney's agenda is to 'fix' us. Same 'apathy' that seven years ago declared arsenic in drinking water as acceptable - when the universal scientific consensus was otherwise. Nothing has changed. Cheney is still imposing that same political agenda. His agenda is to save America even by making the presidency a dictatorship. The agenda - not the presidency - has long been Cheney's objective. Same agenda also wanted any excuse for war with Iran; even in this past year.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

one wanted 70 and one wanted 80--and said, "Great, 75, now let's go home."

That's reasonable if we are talking about two different lobbying groups, but these were government scientists whose advise he is supposed to value, and they didn't say 70, they said that he should consider 60, and go no higher than 70.

So you have 60 on one end, and 80 on the other, and he went with 75, which was well above the upper limit his science advisers gave him. His own agency says it will result in thousands more deaths each year than the other choice. I guess he doesn't value that figure either.

[classicman]

JUST ASKING - What is the cost differential between say 65 or 70 and 75? Are any of these reasonable limits? Are they reachable, enforceable? Would the mean a loss of jobs or industry.... whatever? Would we have to completely retool and refurbish factories & whatnot?

[glatt]

I imagine that's the tune the lobbyists were singing. The article doesn't discuss that, so I don't know the costs.

Do some research and let us know. Make sure to include the health care costs of the dying people.

[Undertoad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031202362.html

The EPA estimated that it will cost polluting industries $7.6 billion to $8.8 billion a year to meet the 75-ppb standard, but that rule will yield $2 billion to $19 billion in health benefits.

$2B to $19B. That's some nice estimatin' there EPA

Even northern New Hampshire has a number of 70. I bet 60 is a dream. It looks like it has never been reached, anywhere; the dotted line is the previous "limit" of 84. Looks like there is a lot of play around that word "limit". It doesn't appear to mean what we think it does anyway.

I remember the shitty air we had in Philly summers in the late 80s. It is definitely better now.



Via: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html

[Undertoad]

California set its limit at 70 three years ago

Heritage Foundation (yeah I know) takes the opposite side. Interesting point, for some time, conditions that are actually too clean have been implicated in asthma:

The EPA identifies a number of health risks associated with breathing ozone, most of which involve harmful respiratory effects. Still, the correlation and severity of these risks, especially for asthma, are unclear. From 1980 to 2005, when levels of ozone and other pollutants fell in the United States, the number of asthmatics increased by 75 percent. In fact, some of the lowest asthma rates in the world are found in highly polluted developing countries in the former Soviet Union, while countries in Western Europe have considerably higher asthma rates and relatively lower levels of air pollution.

They also note that ground-level ozone has the same protective effect against UV radiation as upper-level, so reducing ground-level ozone will increase skin cancer rates. Interesting.

[glatt]

Damn, UT. Thanks for looking all that up. I saw the article you linked to this morning, but didn't have a chance to read it.

So according to the EPA, either this rule change will easily pay for itself with lower health care costs, or it won't at all.

[HungLikeJesus]

The real question is, what are each of you doing to reduce ozone levels?

[lookout123]

I kill cows every chance I get.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

The real question is, what are each of you doing to reduce ozone levels?

Personally I make really big fires in my outdoor fireplace in my back yard.