US Scientists Reject Interference

[KNOWTHIS]

So once again we see widespread dissent occurring between thousands of well studied scientists and the ignorant, self-destructive neo-con Bush administration. Pick a side. The line has been drawn in the sand.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.

"It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

The statement was released at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. It is an annual gathering of Earth scientists.

Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.

Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.

"This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop," he told BBC News.

The Union said is was hopeful that the new Congress taking office in January would show a greater commitment to protecting the integrity of the scientific process.

[KNOWTHIS]

All science must now be pre-approved by the Bush administration. Politics, profits, and industry come first apparently?


link
USGS Scientists Object to Stricter Review Rules

A new Bush administration policy for reviewing scientific documents before publication has angered some U.S. Geological Survey scientists, who say the elaborate internal review of their work may impede them from conveying information to the public.

The new requirements, which were unveiled in July but are still being put into practice, call for staff scientists to submit all reports and prepared talks to managers to determine whether they meet the agency's scientific standards. They also require researchers to alert the agency press office of any work involving "potential high visibility products or policy-sensitive issues."

"I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing," Estes said, adding that it will be a cumbersome procedure. "There's been no effort yet other than to intimidate everybody, but to me it's censorship. . . . I think they're afraid of science. Our findings on ecology could be embarrassing to the administration."

[KNOWTHIS]

Thank God king Bush is here to protect us from those devilish environmentalist terrorists that only want to preserve the very air that we breathe. This administration is looking to ensure that we get our toxic daily intake of lead.

cbs13.com/national/topstories_story_340221345.html

Lead Air Pollution Limits Might Be Dropped

The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments.

Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.

A preliminary staff review released by the Environmental Protection Agency this week acknowledged the possibility of dropping the health standards for lead air pollution. The agency says revoking those standards might be justified "given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976" as an air pollutant.

The EPA says concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to "renounce this dangerous proposal immediately," because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children.

"This deregulatory effort cannot be defended," Waxman wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Soon after lead was listed as an air pollutant 30 years ago, the Carter administration began removing lead from gasoline. Other big sources of lead in the atmosphere are from solid waste, coal, oil, iron and steel production, lead smelters and tobacco smoke.

Exposure to lead can also come from food and soil. Lead is one of six air pollutants the EPA is required to review every five years to make sure the health limits are protective enough. The others are ozone, soot, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides.

The EPA has repeatedly missed the deadlines set under the Clean Air Act, incurring the legal wrath of environmental groups.

However, on Wednesday night, Marcus Peacock, the Environmental Protection Agency's No. 2 official, approved new guidance to help the agency follow the law in a timelier fashion.

"Starting with lead, we're going to try to dovetail this in," Peacock said of the new guidance, which he said also would help the agency use the most up-to-date science and keep separate its scientific and policy considerations.

The health standards for air pollutants are intended to protect children, elderly and other "sensitive" populations, keep up visibility and limit damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings.

Bill Wehrum, who heads the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said the agency is "committed to continuing to significantly reduce lead emissions in this country. That's what we're trying to figure out."

John Walke, a former EPA lawyer who is now the clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, disagrees.

"The Democrats just took over the Congress, and they're talking about something as dangerous and idiotic as eliminating the national health standard for air pollution?" he said. "It just doesn't add up."

In July, a Washington-based trade group for all U.S. lead battery makers wrote a top EPA air quality official to urge that the agency remove lead from its list of air pollutants.

"That is not to say that air emissions of lead should be uncontrolled, or that no steps should be taken to address public health concerns arising from lead use," the Battery Council International said. "But many other regulatory vehicles exist for meeting these concerns.

[KNOWTHIS]

link

Thirteen states sue U.S. EPA over soot emissions

Thirteen U.S. states sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency on Monday for failing to set air quality standards that could save up to 24,000 lives a year.

The suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, says the EPA ignored the advice of its own scientists. They recommended that it should lower the acceptable level for airborne soot -- known as fine particulate matter -- to 13 or 14 micrograms per cubic metre of air from the 15-microgram level that took effect on Monday.

The agency's own analysis found that lowering the level to 13 would have prevented 24,000 premature deaths per year from chronic respiratory disease and asthma attacks, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, one of the parties to the lawsuit.

"This case is just one more example of the federal government ignoring sound science in establishing environmental policy and watering down safeguards designed to protect the public," Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty said in a statement.