The Bushite War on Science, Pt. 146
by DavidNYC
Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:57:37 AM PDT
What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.
That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author. (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, the Democratic response to this latest outrage doesn't seem to be getting much traction. I think environmenal issues which directly affection people's health can be very powerful (just think of the TV ads you can run), so I hope we don't let this one just slide by.
(Via the Daou Report.)
Update [2005-3-23 14:8:20 by DavidNYC]: Via Aggie in the comments, I see that The Onion also has this story:
WASHINGTON, DC — Days after unveiling new power-plant pollution regulations that rely on an industry-favored market-trading approach to cutting mercury emissions, EPA Acting Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that the agency will remove the "E" and "P" from its name. "We're not really 'environmental' anymore, and we certainly aren't 'protecting' anything," Johnson said. "'The Agency' is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls." The change comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services' January decision to shorten its name to the Department of Services.
- ::