4 ms·

EPA is falsifying risk assessments for dangerous chemicals, say whistleblowers

63 points by webmaven 5y ago

throwawaysea 5y ago
I’m not surprised by this because my personal bias is to expect a government that serves interests that financially support them, either directly (contributions) or indirectly (revolving door). But are there examples of agencies (not necessarily EPA) that are performing falsifications in the other direction, favoring populist or activist positions instead of corporate ones? And how do we design our government to protect against either direction of bias?
- perl4ever 5y ago
  It has been brought up many times, by libertarian types, more in relation to the FDA, that institutions underweight how many lives could have been saved by an approval that didn't happen, which could well be a very large number. In principle this sort of bias might apply to the EPA too. For instance with the controversy over DDT. The issue with rhetoric about bias, I think, is that it ends up being an excuse for believing what you want to believe, rather than gathering actionable data.
Hokusai 5y ago
> Agency scientists say management silences and harasses them to appease chemical industry > 'Managers seem to think their job is to get as many new chemicals on the market as fast as possible,’ Kyla Bennett said. > It’s money, it’s greed, but it doesn’t make sense. Don’t these people have any children or grandchildren? Don’t they care? You get what you pay for. If you pay your regulators to approve as many things as possible, you end with planes crashing into the ground. EPA is not different. Give them the right incentives and you will solve the problem.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Or everything will be banned, and it no longer becomes possible to get anything done. Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose.
  - riedel 5y ago
    I personally would want factor 10 margin here. First I would assume that it is a distribution and if you are unlucky it still could be 10 years for a small quantile. If you think like this you will easily gets hundreds of those chemicals in your environment, so you will want that quantile to be really tiny. Additional I would assume that in reality even not all toxicity is independent. So effects might even add up. So better be safe than sorry. Also regulation is a driver for innovation. Without pressure, you will less likely get better products. It is better if companies put their dollars in research rather than lobbying.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. > Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose. There are plenty of non-lethal effects on humans that you wouldn't be happy with, and a lot of stuff that kills wildlife but humans tend not to encounter lethal concentrations.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Like endocrine//nervous disruption, and other such fun diseases.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  eh, they aere given the trump administration..
xyzzy21 5y ago
We need to publicize who these managers are - 100% Doxing.

63 points by webmaven 5y ago

I’m not surprised by this because my personal bias is to expect a government that serves interests that financially support them, either directly (contributions) or indirectly (revolving door). But are there examples of agencies (not necessarily EPA) that are performing falsifications in the other direction, favoring populist or activist positions instead of corporate ones? And how do we design our government to protect against either direction of bias?

perl4ever 5y ago
It has been brought up many times, by libertarian types, more in relation to the FDA, that institutions underweight how many lives could have been saved by an approval that didn't happen, which could well be a very large number. In principle this sort of bias might apply to the EPA too. For instance with the controversy over DDT. The issue with rhetoric about bias, I think, is that it ends up being an excuse for believing what you want to believe, rather than gathering actionable data.

Hokusai 5y ago

> Agency scientists say management silences and harasses them to appease chemical industry > 'Managers seem to think their job is to get as many new chemicals on the market as fast as possible,’ Kyla Bennett said. > It’s money, it’s greed, but it doesn’t make sense. Don’t these people have any children or grandchildren? Don’t they care? You get what you pay for. If you pay your regulators to approve as many things as possible, you end with planes crashing into the ground. EPA is not different. Give them the right incentives and you will solve the problem.

treeman79 5y ago
Or everything will be banned, and it no longer becomes possible to get anything done. Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose.
- riedel 5y ago
  I personally would want factor 10 margin here. First I would assume that it is a distribution and if you are unlucky it still could be 10 years for a small quantile. If you think like this you will easily gets hundreds of those chemicals in your environment, so you will want that quantile to be really tiny. Additional I would assume that in reality even not all toxicity is independent. So effects might even add up. So better be safe than sorry. Also regulation is a driver for innovation. Without pressure, you will less likely get better products. It is better if companies put their dollars in research rather than lobbying.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. > Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose. There are plenty of non-lethal effects on humans that you wouldn't be happy with, and a lot of stuff that kills wildlife but humans tend not to encounter lethal concentrations.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Like endocrine//nervous disruption, and other such fun diseases.
cyanydeez 5y ago
eh, they aere given the trump administration..

xyzzy21 5y ago

We need to publicize who these managers are - 100% Doxing.