Pesticides can be very dangerous; they're also vital tools farmers use to produce our food. Here's a guide to help you navigate the media maze of sloppy reporting on pesticide safety.
The other day, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, hosted a webinar for stakeholders on maintaining the scientific integrity of their work. I have pulled a few images from their “slide deck” to share.
This week, Jay Barber, one of our readers wrote to us asking about an article he had seen in The Intercept regarding the EPA ignoring a possible cancer risk. Luckily we have two toxicologists among our Board of Scientific Advisors, one of who was able to offer a critique.
The new infrastructure bill provides the perfect opportunity to create an incentive-based approach to improve drinking water.
A few weeks ago the EPA approved specific anti-coronavirus labeling for two Lysol products. But the two are part of a larger list of 470 other disinfectant products that "meet EPA's criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2." In other words, you can use them to kill the virus. I promise that this isn't nearly as boring as it sounds. But, just in case, have the NoDoz handy.
The pandemic isn't making the world any brighter. Insecticides are being sold online to treat or prevent COVID-19 -- and people are buying them. Speaking of pesticides, you probably had a healthy dose of one this morning and it's more toxic than DDT. Drink up!
In short, the public is often worried about chemical exposure, as they should be when such exposure exceeds a safe dose. The public’s interest is best served by trusting experts dedicated to public health protection and not by withholding scientific data from independent analysis.
In criticizing the journal Science, when it rains it pours.
A niche publication, E&E News, reports to a wide variety of institutional stakeholders on environmental and energy issues before Congress and federal regulatory agencies. Last week, in its report on the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, its editors felt it better to report half-truths.
It’s been 50 years since cleaning up the air in the United States began in earnest. Skies are much clearer now than in the mid-20th century. Leaded gasoline is gone, power plants have been abandoning coal and sulfur dioxide has dropped by 91%. Despite these growing improvements, why have epidemiologists been unable to show the demonstrable public health benefits that their computer models predict?
One of the significant concerns surrounding the proposed "science transparency" changes at the EPA has to do with revisiting older "pivotal regulatory" science. For example, consider this study, which set the stage for air pollution standards. That paper is now more than 25 years old; you have to wonder how it has withstood the test of time. Let's take a look.