3 ms·
here is the problem I have with the way it was done before this bill was passed: The EPA was allowed to used scientific research that was not publically availab
by SDQAGUY 9y ago
here is the problem I have with the way it was done before this bill was passed:
The EPA was allowed to used scientific research that was not publically available for review.
This seems contrary to everything I have been taughgt about critical thinking and the scientific method of research
Am I wrong?
- sitkack 9y agoReproducible is different from "available for review." The purpose of the bill was most likely for any corp to cast doubt on a finding, and/or pay for shill-scientists to not be able to reproduce it, giving reason to incapacitate the EPA. I think the EPA should be allowed to err on the side of caution. Their job should be to regulate chemicals and practices for the protection of the environment. It isn't mistake to prevent a company from harming the env. I'd like the logic to be inverted; Everything that interacts with the environment should be guilty until proven benign. Default to deny. As we get more technologically advanced, the number of mistakes that can only-happen-once is ever increasing.
- delazeur 9y agoI've heard this claim a few times before (always from people trying to handcuff the EPA rulemaking process, funny enough) and I haven't looked into the specifics too closely, but my experience working with and around EPA on regional air quality issues has been that the regulations lag at least 10 to 20 years behind the science.