Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Science.house/ Bill Prohibits EPA from Using Secret Science


twa

should all regs be based only on transparent and reproducible science?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. all regs should be based only on transparent and reproducible science?

    • No, I like mystery
      1
    • Yes, I prefer transparency and reproducible science
      7


Recommended Posts

why wouldn't the results be reproducible?

Because people are not test tubes?

Hard to run the same 20-year experiment, on the same person, under identical circumstances, twice.

Would you consider telling some other person "go out and pick your own 200 people, and keep track of them for 20 years, and publish your results" to be "reproducible"?

(Note, by the way, that if that IS your definition of "reproducible", then they've already got all the information needed to reproduce the experiment. And have had it ever since it was published.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your position is going to be the only requested data missing was personal identifiers?

 

 

look squirrel

 

No.  My position is going to be that twa started a partisan thread to howl about something, without even beginning to demonstrate first that the subject is howl-worthy.   

 

That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to run the same 20-year experiment, on the same person, under identical circumstances, twice.

 

 

different people would change the results significantly?

 

 

No.  My position is going to be that twa started a partisan thread to howl about something, without even beginning to demonstrate first that the subject is howl-worthy.   

 

That's all.

 

curious I'm not the one howling and deflecting from the original bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

different people would change the results significantly?

That's my question for you.

Does running the same experiment on different people, in different cities, in a different decade, fit your definition of "reproducible"?

(And, do you think it fits the law's definition?"

And I will point out, again. If your answer is "yes, that's reproducible enough for me", then they've had all the information they needed, since the day the survey was first published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

curious I'm not the one howling and deflecting from the original bill

 

No, you are the one who didn't explain the original bill when you posted it, originally.   The bill smells like the usual partisan ****fest, as demonstrated by the usual partisan fingerpointing press release, and was posted on the Tailgate by the usual partisan ****poster, so I thought it might be prudent to wait for more information

 

rather than jump in to say "of course I love openness and Mom and apple pie twa how could I ever condone such evil behavior by those so-called scientists doing their so-called science in SECRET!!!!!"    :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my position is all studies and data used by the EPA to make rules should (after personal identity is protected) be released.

 

it ends the questions....ya know....transparency  :)

 

Maybe you missed this part. Here, read this:

 

 

 

As Johnson has noted time and again, EPA supplied the committee with data that had been "de-identified" to protect the privacy of the study participants. 

 

You may commence shouting about squirrels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my question for you.

Does running the same experiment on different people, in different cities, in a different decade, fit your definition of "reproducible"?

(And, do you think it fits the law's definition?"

And I will point out, again. If your answer is "yes, that's reproducible enough for me", then they've had all the information they needed, since the day the survey was first published.

I would say yes....but then I'm not the one trying to limit this

to one study(nor personal identifiers)

if that is not reproducible enough then using the results to apply to different people, in different cities, in a different decade would be bad science....correct?

 

 

 

 

rather than jump in to say "of course I love openness and Mom and apple pie twa how could I ever condone such evil behavior by those so-called scientists doing their so-called science in SECRET!!!!!"    :)

 

Wouldn't the issue be the EPA using science/data not disclosed or reproducible?....if they are not using it we all bask in transparency .

 

If data (other than personal identifiers) is secret should the science be used for public rule making? ....Yes?/No?

 

I'm not too trusting of the IRS either  :)

Maybe you missed this part. Here, read this:

 

 

You may commence shouting about squirrels.

 

Is it your position the only thing not released was personal identifiers ?

 

add

 

I find it curious that the subpoena specifically allowed for personal identifiers to be removed from the requested data (as is common with govt)

 

Do you find it curious they would bother issuing a subpoena excluding exactly what you seem to think they desire or lack????

 

Oh look....a squirrel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it your position the only thing not released was personal identifiers ?

That certainly seems to be what the article says.

Although I do observe that lots of information can be used to identify someone. Not just name, address, birth date. But, say, the date and city where somebody had a particular medical procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I find it curious that the subpoena specifically allowed for personal identifiers to be removed from the requested data (as is common with govt)

 

Do you find it curious they would bother issuing a subpoena excluding exactly what you seem to think they desire or lack????

 

Oh look....a squirrel

 

Do you have a source for that? Have you actually read the subpoena to know what it is asking for and what it isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say for sure, since I don't know firsthand what was released and what was not, but I have no reason to believe there was anything else that wasn't released. What is your position?

I addressed in a addition above you

 

 

I find it curious that the subpoena specifically allowed for personal identifiers to be removed from the requested data (as is common with govt)

 

Do you find it curious they would bother issuing a subpoena excluding exactly what you seem to think they desire or lack????

Do you have a source for that? Have you actually read the subpoena to know what it is asking for and what it isn't?

 

I linked it earlier....it was the second junkscience one....instructions sect 3

 

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/epa-subpoena.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do find it curious that they are issuing a subpoena for information they have already been given, according to other sources. It makes one wonder what they hope to accomplish. It seems like partisan political grandstanding, trying to cast the EPA as a nefarious government agency out to do who-knows-what evil things.

 

If one wants to disbelieve enough, nothing can ever be proved. For example, that subpoena that is on junkscience, how can anyone be sure that's the actual subpoena that was served? (I'm sure it is legit, just giving an example). Maybe that's a doctored version that just looks like the real thing. Unless you filed the paper yourself, how can you be sure?

 

I have a feeling no matter what data the EPA hands over, it won't be enough to convince certain skeptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the thing.

1). Yep. They're demanding the Six Cities Study, for which they already had all of the data. And something called the Cancer Prevention Study II.

2). And they're demanding all data for all studies which are based on or related to these studies. They specify several by name.

3). And they're demanding everything, in any form, which in any way discusses these studies or any related studies. Every draft of every document. Every document which contains any mark which was not on the original. Notes and records of any discussion related to the studies. Every computer program used during the studies.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-Know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-You-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-

Officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say . . "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be so. But I assume his copy of the subpoena is legit.

(If for no other reason than, I suspect that I could have made a fake one that would look a lot more scary).

 

Oh, I believe the copy of the subpoena is legit.  That is hardly the end of the story - unless you want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

Secret Science is not science.

This. I don't care what the research is about, but if you don't publish the methodology with the results, and fail to have it peer reviewed, it should not be accepted in the scientific community.

However, this seems more political than scientific. In that case, they should extend this stuff to FDA and USDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are not skeptical of those other sources?

Squirrel......

Oh I thought that was the game we were playing since you did the exact same thing to Predicto as he questioned the trustworthiness of your source.

But everyone here knows that the ONLY reason you're worked up about this is that you have a beef against anything that sniffs at environmental protection or Obama and like any good shill who thinks he smells blood in the water you're gonna do your work.

Here let me save you the trouble.......

Squirrel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Squirrel......

 

 

Obama supports transparency and if avoiding environmental protections was the goal it would be simpler to just disband or defund the EPA or override them....not to simply bind them (and future ones) to open science.

​odd ya'll would think my source was junkscience or Milloy when the source is clearly the house science committee heads...next the color background on the hosting web page will matter to ya'll I suppose  :P 

 

I find it curious.....and all too predictable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it curious.....and all too predictable. 

That's not what's predictable about this.

Crafting legislation for the EPA to not use secret science is no different than crafting a bill that says that in the future twa won't beat his wife. The victory isn't in it's passage, but instead the implication that a bill was needed to prevent you from beating your wife in the future. Again, this is just more red meat for the anti-EPA crowd.

BTW, I invite you to come on up and visit our neighbors in West Virginia, namely Charelston, and ask them if they support the EPA now more than they did six months ago.

Oh, and just to be on the safe side, I'd drink bottled water. The governor says that the tap water is clean now and isn't flowing with coal washing liquid anymore, but I don't know if I'd trust all that secret science they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 if avoiding environmental protections was the goal it would be simpler to just disband or defund the EPA or override them....

 

No, it's not.  Many in the Republican party have wanted to ax the EPA and the Dept of Education for years, if not decades.  They clearly lack the votes or power to do so.  What they can do is work towards defunding them or hack at their role or credibility. When we look at the where Republicans aim their spending cuts I suspect you'll find several bullseyes right at the EPA's doorstep.  And today, it is an understaffed and underfunded institution without the means to conduct the degree of tests most of us should like to see them administer.

 

However, while the ability to kill the EPA entirely is beyond them some are attempting a death by a thousand papercuts technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what's predictable about this.

Crafting legislation for the EPA to not use secret science is no different than crafting a bill that says that in the future twa won't beat his wife. The victory isn't in it's passage, but instead the implication that a bill was needed to prevent you from beating your wife in the future. Again, this is just more red meat for the anti-EPA crowd.

BTW, I invite you to come on up and visit our neighbors in West Virginia, namely Charelston, and ask them if they support the EPA now more than they did six months ago.

Oh, and just to be on the safe side, I'd drink bottled water. The governor says that the tap water is clean now and isn't flowing with coal washing liquid anymore, but I don't know if I'd trust all that secret science they do.

 

Did you feel the same when Obama helped draft transparency rules for the EPA?

 

WV is a good example of piss poor priorities....despite all the money we spend on environmental and clean water issues and yet large quantities of a odorous and colored liquid can make it undetected not just into the waterway,but through a water treatment plant.

 

I'm sure the EPA will write a report and collect fines though :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not.  Many in the Republican party have wanted to ax the EPA and the Dept of Education for years, if not decades.  They clearly lack the votes or power to do so.  What they can do is work towards defunding them or hack at their role or credibility. When we look at the where Republicans aim their spending cuts I suspect you'll find several bullseyes right at the EPA's doorstep.  And today, it is an understaffed and underfunded institution without the means to conduct the degree of tests most of us should like to see them administer.

 

However, while the ability to kill the EPA entirely is beyond them some are attempting a death by a thousand papercuts technique.

 

the funding certainly looks like it has expanded

http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/epa-budget.htm

 

you must mean the cut to the 2014 EPA budget obama proposed?.....CRICKETS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...