Technological progress, our very standard of living, depends upon the scientific method. We know very well that the heart and soul of science is accurate and verifiable research findings. Research findings can be properly verified only if the underlying data and
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed two bills aimed at reforming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One targeted secret science: their standard procedure of using data immune from review and replication. Not acceptable.
ACSH friend and former trustee, Dr. Henry Miller of Stanford s Hoover Institution, has another of his typically-erudite and incisive op-eds, this one in today s
Pregnant women are inundated with information about what to do and what not to do during pregnancy, what to eat and what not to eat, and often that information varies depending on who
Steve Savage, an expert on agriculture, pesticides and GM foods has posted an intriguing piece on Science 2.0 (the same site on which ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom now regularly contributes). Savage has a lot to say. In his piece, entitled Our Farmers Get An A+ For Low Pesticide Residues, he discusses a recent report by the USDA which examined pesticide residues on food. From the USDA report: "The Pesticide Data Program provides reliable data through rigorous sampling that helps assure consumers that the produce they feed their families is safe."
Well, we can all rest a little uneasier today: thanks to a new EPA appointee, there will be a sudden and profound uptick in the environmental agency s integrity when evaluating research and formulating scientific policies. Not.
Back in July 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new air quality standards to tighten ozone and particulate matter (soot) pollution to provide additional protection for children and asthmatics. This regulation, however, is ill directed and a misuse of public health funds.
Self-appointed protectors of the environment have a long history of advancing their agendas by postulating sinister threats to our children, distorting the views of mainstream science, and dismissing their critics as profit-hungry plunderers of public health. Advocates of more stringent "air quality" standards are keeping up the tradition. If they succeed, we will soon be harnessed with extraordinarily costly new regulations that could harm public health more than improve it. When air is heavily polluted, human health suffers. Specific episodes throughout this century confirm that pollution can increase respiratory distress and, in some cases, even cause premature death. No argument there.