Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’

Published on February 1, 2017 Written by John O'Sullivan @ Principia Scientific International

In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.

After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):
“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent.

Till now Dr Ball had been eager to make good use of up to a month’s worth of courtroom time granted to him to win over jurors. He had carefully prepared and assembled an array of the best scientific brains from the skeptic side.

Ball’s opponent is formidable in his field. At the turn of the millennium Mann was the golden boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They touted Mann’s graph (appearing on page 3 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report [TAR]) as the smoking gun of man-made global warming. As you can see from the press header below, Mann’s still ‘world-leading’ to them.

 


The “concession” to Ball is a hugely embarrassing development. This is especially so in a week when Mann has been on the charge leading the wide media assault against President Trump for his alleged attacks on climate science. Government climate researchers are the keenest to discredit the new president on science policy.

For almost a generation literally thousands of climate scientists and science publications world-wide have relied on Mann’s graph as the cornerstone of the science to persuade governments to act on ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

For the “world leading climate scientist” the upside is that by giving ground to Ball Mann dodges the deadly bullet – for now. He has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors (and Joe Public) access to his disputed data in this protracted legal battle that has already eaten up six years and millions in legal fees.

Fake News and Media Misdirection

Meanwhile holding court back in the alternative universe of the MSM  fake journalists abound promoting their fake scientist. In his latest article for the Hill website sees a defiant Mann scolding President Trump because he:
 “barred the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing studies or data prior to review by political appointees and has told them to remove mention of climate change from their website”.
Propaganda can cut both ways, you see. Journalists may now be regretting touting Mann as “one of the world’s leading climatologists” fomenting “rebellion” against Trump for dismissing dangerous man-made climate change as a “hoax.”

For surely, if Mann’s data is pristine and irreproachable why hide it?

If Mann were to lose to Ball anytime soon then Trump’s skepticism would be entirely vindicated and the case for de-funding/dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proven as fiscally prudent.

Unbiased observers are urged to contrast and compare for themselves how much Mann’s latest public pronouncements conflict with his less public courtroom strategy. And certainly don’t expect to see any mention of this legal development in the biased media.

For instance, take a look at the latest newspaper puff-piece in UK’s Independent (February 1st 2017). Here we see the usual hyperbole as their beloved “World-leading climate change scientist” calls for mass “rebellion” against Donald Trump.

Ian Johnston, author of the article declares:
“Professor Michael Mann, whose work was key in demonstrating that global temperatures had risen dramatically because of human activity, said academics and researchers were usually reluctant to take to the streets in protests.”
To Johnston Mann laments:
“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”
Really?

Seems more like it is Mann who is assaulting science. If temperatures have risen “dramatically” and Mann’s work is “key” to proving it then journalists should do their job and challenge him for cynically keeping secret his disputed R2 regression data – not Donald Trump.

Readers can see for themselves what Mann cobbled together and tortured and cherry-picked from 1,000 years’ worth of proxy tree ring temperature data (graph shown below). Mann’s version clearly contradicts the widely-accepted earlier depiction underneath it which is supported by Ball and many others because it is based on openly-available data.
 


Those secret R2 regression numbers used for Mann’s  ‘hockey stick’ graph, which first hit the headlines in 1998 are the big issue. It is called a hockey stick because it shows the official temperature reconstruction for the last 1,000 years starts off being monotonously flat (the ‘handle’) before a dramatic uptick (the ‘blade’) coming at the end of the 20th century.

The world has long been on notice about the vast international climate conspiracy. The ethics of Michael Mann and his co-conspirators was exposed in those leaked Climategate emails (2009).
So, can the media blame the public for losing trust in scientists who have to rely on withheld, secret data to argue for trillion dollar tax increases?

Ramifications for Mann in the United States

Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. He defends his own words against Mann’s Washington DC SLAPP suit and claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann.

Also Steyn has written a book ‘A Disgrace to the Profession‘ detailing Mann’s misconduct.  Likewise, Dr Ball has written his own book,  ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘ thoroughly exposing the fraud. Well worth a read for those not sold on mainstream fake news. Readers note: the book sales go towards their respective defense funds.

While Mann is posturing and prevaricating over whether to defend his reputation or his dodgy data President Trump need not be so timid. If Mann won’t come clean soon enough about cherry-picked bristlecone pines and those disputed verification r2 statistics (MBH98) then a prod from a federal government RICO investigation may bring it all into the light.

Via his Facebook page I asked Michael Mann for a reply to the “concession” set back. Here was his response:



Ball Takes on Second SLAPP Lawsuit

Dr Ball is increasing his reputation as hero of the climate skeptic cause. Not only is he taking on Mann he is also defending a SECOND big money climate libel lawsuit (Andrew Weaver-v-Tim Ball)
That case involves Professor Andrew Weaver also called out by Dr Ball six years ago for scientific misconduct. Weaver is now head of the British Columbia (BC) Green Party and sitting member in the BC legislature. At the time, he was a computer modeler at the University of British Columbia and four-time contributing author for the IPCC Reports, (1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013).

It is usual for scientists to permit other scientists access to their calculations. But climate science is such a politicized arena of government research where the normal rules of the scientific method haven’t been applied. No wonder criminality has reigned free in government quarters.

In his remorseless battle in defense of the traditional scientific method Dr Ball declares:
“You can rest assured they will not shut me up.”
****
Read more from Dr Ball at his website: drtimball.com
 

Mann vs. Steyn likely to head to Supreme Court

/ @ Watts Up With That?
 
Mark Steyn writes on his webpage:

There was some modest activity yesterday in the Mann vs Steyn climate-change hockey-stick case, which will shortly be entering its eighth year. As that ludicrous fact testifies, it has been procedurally bollocksed by the District of Columbia courts, which is why it will almost certainly be headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, it will be the most consequential free-speech case since New York Times vs Sullivan fifty-five years ago.

Lest you doubt that, consider yesterday’s request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case – that’s to say, on the danger Michael E Mann’s victory would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not – including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society in demanding the courts adjudicate public-policy disputes.

Also, apparently, Mike Mann picked up a friend to help him in the Tort wars, a conservative no less.

Read all about it here

My Take - I've been following this for years and wondered what was happening with the Steyn SLAPP suit.  Mann lost in Canada in his SLAPP suit against Dr. Tim Ball because he refused to turn over his data.  I expect the same here, and remember, Steyn counter sued so it will be interesting to see what Steny does when Mann loses.  Steyn notes this is a huge issue regarding free speech, but this could also be one of the biggest game changers in the war for valid science and scientific transparency. 

Chemicals Ad Campaign

Please follow this link....there is much more. 

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Meet the Mosquito With a Big Appetite—for Other Mosquitoes

By Ed Ricciuti

It sounds like classic cloak and dagger. A band of assassins is fielded to infiltrate and kill enemies that are spreading dangerous diseases among the general population. That’s the idea behind using mosquito against mosquito, a tactic described in a new article published this month in the Journal of Insect Science.

Scientists in Harris County, Texas—Houston is county seat—have come up with what could lead to a better way of producing, in their words, “lab-reared, native mosquito assassins,” Toxorhynchites rutilus septentrionalis, that prey on other mosquitoes, notably Aedes species, which spread human disease viruses such as dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever. Previously, the tactic has been used infrequently, because it is relatively inefficient. For one, the predatory mosquitoes are not available commercially so must be raised in house. And it is difficult to produce enough of them in a laboratory to make a make a dent in disease vector numbers after release in the environment. But this new research may change all that............Instead of raising killer mosquitoes all together in batches.....has been inefficient.........when reared all together (the old way) Tx. rutilus larvae cannibalize one another, sharply reducing the output.

Larval Tx. rutilus voraciously hunt and gorge on the larvae of disease-vector mosquitoes sharing the same water. One of them can consume up to 5,000 prey larvae before it matures..........To Read More.... 

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Latest ecological fake news scare: Like the ‘honeybee armageddon’ narrative, pesticide-driven ‘insect-pocalypse’ claim is collapsing

| | March 21, 2019


beebomb
Credit Image: The New York Times


unknownIt was only a few years ago that headlines in Europe and North America were screaming about the coming “bee armageddon”. Honeybees were going extinct, we were told, and because these vital pollinators are vital to our food supply, we were on the verge of global starvation. And pesticides were mostly to blame for the crisis.


The problem with that thesis was that honeybee populations aren’t declining, let alone headed for extinction. As I’ll explain below, the media have finally updated their doomsday reporting (years behind the Genetic Literacy Project, which has been documenting the faux crisis for years).

 However, no sooner does one apocalypse slip from the headlines than another springs up to take its place. Recently, news and advocacy groups sites have been afire with dire warnings that man’s days on earth are (once again) numbered, this time due to the accelerating extinction of all of the world’s insects.

More on the impending insect crisis below.  later. But let’s first review the botched narrative also known as the “bee-pocalypse.” Yes, bees do face some health challenges as the result of a variety of factors, most prominently their loss of habitat and the explosive growth of their mortal enemy, the Varroa mite. But balanced analysis by independent scientists put the use of pesticides way down on the list of pollinator threats. Even some advocacy groups finally abandoned the crisis rhetoric.
“Save the bees’ is a rallying cry we’ve been hearing for years now,” wrote the Sierra Club in a stunning reversal in 2018, abandoning its long held position, parroted by the press, that honeybee doomsday was upon us. “Honeybees are at no risk of dying off.”

While diseases, parasites and other threats are real problems for beekeepers, the total number of managed honeybees worldwide has risen 45% over the last half century.............To Read More...

Monday, March 25, 2019

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: March 25, 2019

By -- March 25, 2019

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Wind & solar are always ruinously expensive
President Trump Seeking Major Cuts to Renewable Subsidies
How did  Rick Perry and DOE get into the Ditch???
Excellent Video: Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet
100% renewable energy isn’t a response to climate change — it’s a retreat
Report: Will Batteries be the Savior of Big Wind? NO — and they’re NOT Green!
USA Launches Test Reactor Project
The American way of life will be on the 2020 ballot
Carlson video: Dems Say The End of the World in 12 Years!
The Green New Deal Is Unserious and Juvenile
The Physical Impossibilities of the Green New Deal
Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee
It’s Time To Expose The Shoddy Climate Science Of The Obama Years
Dr. Happer will set them free
Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria
Climate Science’s Myth-Buster
New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal could ‘rewind the emissions clock’
It’s Not about the Climate—It Never Was
Powerful video: Nicholas Lewis and Climate Sensitivity
Media touts ‘clear sign of human-caused climate change.’ Here are the facts
Revealing Worldwide Poll as to What Our Priorities Should Be
House Climate Hearing off to Bad Start
Feds Push Climate Alarmism to our Children
Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the Leftist Takeover of the College Campus

Greed Energy Economics:
 
NY Turbine Leaseholders hit with Liens for Wind Developer’s Unpaid Bills
Wind & solar are always ruinously expensive
President Trump Seeking Major Cuts to Renewable Subsidies
The Costs of Decarbonization…
Green Tyranny Leaves EU Households, Economy in the Red
Another Blue State (Maine) Rejects A Carbon Tax
The Disappearing Reappearing Vermont Carbon Tax
Wind industry tax protests disrupt school financing
Problems With Aging Wind Turbines

Turbine Health Matters:
 
A Major Human Health Bullet Dodged by a Southwest Wind Project
The Green Ethical Supply Chain is not yet Transparent

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:
 
India orders wind industry action over rare bird deaths

Miscellaneous Energy News:
 
How did  Rick Perry and DOE get into the Ditch???
Excellent Video: Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet
100% renewable energy isn’t a response to climate change — it’s a retreat
Report: Will Batteries be the Savior of Big Wind? NO — and they’re NOT Green!
USA Launches Test Reactor Project
Lawsuit Alleges Wind Turbines Near Residential Communities are a ‘Nuisance’
Excellent Presentation: The Crisis of Europe’s Green Energy Agenda
EPA chief tells world to buy “cleaner” American energy
Grid exec sees risks in gas, renewables reliance
Global Warming Energy Restrictions Threaten US National Security
An Unsurprising Wind Energy Fail: It Can’t Handle the Weather!
Carbon Dioxide: The Newest Form of Renewable Energy?
With Ethanol And Biomass No Longer Viewed As “Green,” Will Other Renewables Soon Follow?
Global Data: Global coal production set to grow to at least 2022
California County Says No to Big Renewables
The UK Offshore Wind Sector Deal: A Reality Check
Siting renewable energy projects needs local input
Should Renewable Energy Be An Adirondack Park Priority? No!
Report: EIA’s 2019 Annual Energy Outlook
Updated US Wind Turbine database
Tesla Factory Store Uses Diesel Generators to Recharge its Inventory
Wind developer seeks to bury transmission lines along railroad corridors
Policy implications of ‘clean’ vs. ‘renewable’ energy
Shenanigans at FERC?
President Trump Mocks Wind Power
New York, A State of Unreality, Where the Truth Dare Not Be Uttered
Navy may oppose wind Turbines off Morro Bay (California)
State mandates for renewables is driving new wind, solar power projects
The Folly of Solar Energy

Miscellaneous Energy News— Green Manifesto:
 
The American way of life will be on the 2020 ballot
Carlson video: Dems Say The End of the World in 12 Years!
The Green New Deal Is Unserious and Juvenile
The Physical Impossibilities of the Green New Deal
In the US, Socialism is no longer a Dirty Word
Short video: President Trump (at CPAC) re the GND
AOC Invited to Debate Climate Catastrophe Skeptics
Debate Green New Deal to Put Its Nonsense to Rest
McConnell: Democrats’ radical Green New Deal would uproot our lives
Short video: The GND is Not About Energy
Short video: GND: Money and Jobs
The ‘Green New Deal’ Ignores the Wonders of Fossil Fuels
Unions split with Democrats over ‘Green New Deal’
Green New Deal: Collateral Damage
The Chaos and Calamities the Green New Deal Promises
The original Green New Deal (2009)
GND wouldn’t slow climate change, but your electricity costs would skyrocket

Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS):
 
Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee
It’s Time To Expose The Shoddy Climate Science Of The Obama Years
Dr. Happer will set them free
Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria
Time for a Full and Independent Review of Climate Science
Does Climate Change Threaten National Security?
Joint letter to President Trump in support of proposed PCCS
Frigid Global Warming and the Presidential Commission on Climate Science
Anti-Science Climate Totalitarians
Science Magazine Goes Nuts over Whitehouse PCCS Committee
A Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) is needed now
It’s time for a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security” (PCCS)
Short video: Alarmists Try to Bury Trump Climate Panel, Realists Fight Back
America needs President Trump’s Climate Science Committee
Who Needs a Presidential Committee on Climate Security?
Stop Fake Science. Approve the PCCS!
Dr. Happer is the Right Person to Lead an Objective Federal Climate Commission
Make America Greater: Approve the PCCS!
Manmade CO2 Does Not Cause Measurable Warming
Point — Finally, climate objectivity
Time for a Full and Independent Review of Climate Science

Manmade Global Warming Articles:
 
Climate Science’s Myth-Buster
New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal could ‘rewind the emissions clock’
It’s Not about the Climate—It Never Was
Powerful video: Nicholas Lewis and Climate Sensitivity
Media touts ‘clear sign of human-caused climate change.’ Here are the facts
Revealing Worldwide Poll as to What Our Priorities Should Be
House Climate Hearing off to Bad Start
The Garbage Science Behind The AP’s Latest Global Warming Report
Here Are 5 Modern Hysterical Environmentalist Claims
Ten Years after Climategate, the Global Warming Fraud Is on Life Support
Short video: 60 Minutes Softball
Short Video: Six Points About Global Warming
Study: Solar influence on climate is much larger than is generally recognized
Reality vs Climate Alarmism
The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming
‘Tornado drought’ dampens Democrats’ climate change narrative
No, climate change is not reducing global fish catch
A new interesting website: Climate Discussion Nexus
The views of three sea level specialists
Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore Destroys Beto’s Climate Claim
Inconvenient Fact: Apple Burns App That Embarrasses Board Member Gore
Planet-Sized Experiments – we’ve already done the 2°C test
Franco-German alliance splinters over climate policy
US Dems divisions deepen over approach to climate change
DEBUNKED: Great Lakes Climate Change Hysteria
CFACT corrects the AP on climate

Miscellaneous Education& Science:
 
Feds Push Climate Alarmism to our Children
Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the Leftist Takeover of the College Campus
50 Actual College Courses Proving America’s Universities Are Training Students To Be Socialists
School lessons targeted by climate change doubters (Good!)
A CT lawmaker wants to eliminate climate change from science curriculum in public schools
Sorry kids — The next energy alternative is not here, yet
Open letter to students marching for ‘the climate’
Brainwashed at the Blackboard
Here’s What a Real Meritocracy Looks Like
The Rise of Unfreedom in the West
Why Postmoderns Train—Not Educate—Activists
See Prior AWED Newsletters
Attachments area
 
Nic Lewis disputes necessity for zero emissions in 2050
Preview YouTube video Trump Mocks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal at CPAC 2019 | NowThis
Trump Mocks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal at CPAC 2019 | NowThis
Green New Deal: Not About Energy
Green New Deal: Money and Jobs
Preview YouTube video Green New Deal: Collateral Damage
Green New Deal: Collateral Damage
Top Headline – Alarmists Try to Bury Trump Climate Panel, Realists Fight Bac
“60 Minutes” Softball
Good News on Climate Change! We’re Safe. We’re Adaptable. Six points for Discussion.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

George Will Attacks Environmentalists

By Rich Kozlovich Origianlly published in 2008, RK

I have been away for a couple of days and so I haven't been able to do my searches, read the information, organize it or post it. I should be back in form this coming week. The most highly important event to take place this week was the Sackett victory over the EPA; with a unanimous decision coming from the Supreme Court.  This has, in my opinion, large long term ramifications.

 I am working on an article dealing with this, and I have been told that there is more behind this story than is commonly known involving the state of Idaho; but I haven’t been able to verify the information. I have sent an e-mail to a local blogger in Idaho to see if what I have been told is true and asked them to contact the Sacketts. I haven't heard back yet. At any rate, this video is from 2008! That is the beauty of truth. It stays truth forever. As a result…that's how it becomes traditional wisdom.

 

Cartoon of the Day

This New Green Deal will surly deliver socialism. If Venezuela wants clean water, food, medical care, and yes, toilet paper, they're going to have to stand up on their own hind legs and get rid of the socialists they brought in to give them free stuff.   Until then, they can have all the free stuff they can find.
 
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Clearing the air on the EPA

EPA grants to its advisers triggers conflict-of-interest query.

By Steve Milloy

This appeared in the Washington Times on March 8, 2012

Rep. Joe Barton last week took the first official baby step in exposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s corrupt scientific advisory process.

In his opening statement at last week’s House Energy and Commerce hearing about the EPA’s 2013 budget, Mr. Barton of Texas came as close as any Republican ever has to reading EPA Director Lisa P. Jackson the riot act about the agency’s ever-increasing contempt for science, economics, Congress and even the Constitution.

While much of the aforesaid is widely known but typically left unsaid by timid congressional Republicans, Mr. Barton also raised an issue that should shock the conscience of anyone concerned about ethics in government: financial conflict-of-interest among EPA science advisers.

“I want to discuss the EPA’s science and research funding and support activities such as the quality assurance supervisory budget and the committees that monitor the EPA’s internal activities,” Mr. Barton told Ms. Jackson.

“You fund research with grants to people who also serve on your review committees. Is this a conflict of interest? Almost every single member of your Clean Air Science Advisory Committee has been directly or indirectly funded for research. This hand-and-glove policymaking by those appointed to also do your research and being funded by you at the same time is not appropriate. They are often asked to review other research they themselves were a party to on the original research team.How could one possibly expect them to be objective in any way?”

JunkScience.com undertook to put some meat on the bones of what Mr. Barton alleged and discovered that of the seven members of CASAC, six have received or still are receiving substantial sums in the form of research grants from the agency.

According to EPA records, CASAC Chairman Jonathan M. Samet is listed as a principal investigator on grants from the agency totaling $9,526,921. The other CASAC board members have received grants from the EPA: George Allen ($3,907,111); Ana Diez-Roux ($31,343,081); H. Christopher Frey ($2,956,432); G. Armistead Russell ($20,130,736); and Helen Suh ($10,962,364).

Although EPA records do not list seventh board member Kathleen Weathers as a principal investigator receiving any grants from the agency, her employer, the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, is listed as the lead institution in EPA grants totaling $3,570,926.

Other than for Ms. Weathers, these sums don’t include any grants awarded to the CASAC members’ institutions in which the CASAC member is not listed as the principal investigator. So these sums could just be the tip of the iceberg.

While the above-mentioned information is available to the public, not only do you have to look for it, you’ve got to first imagine that such immense and obvious conflicts are possible in the first place.

The EPA, after all, dissuades the public from even considering the possibility of this issue, as the first statement on the agency’s website is, “The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical bases for EPA’s national ambient air quality standards.” I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “independent” is.

So exactly what is the “independent” aspect of a process in which researchers are paid millions of dollars to conduct research and then get to review and rubber-stamp that research so it invariably advances the EPA’s own political, regulatory and bureaucratic interests?

Mr. Samet, the CASAC chairman, recently opined in the New England Journal of Medicine that air-quality rules should be tightened “for ozone and particulate-matter pollution, because no thresholds have been identified below which there is no risk at all.”

Given that the Clean Air Act technically prohibits the consideration of cost in setting ozone and particulate-matter standards, the view of the handsomely compensated Mr. Samet effectively provides cover for the Obama EPA to regulate industry, agriculture and the public as it chooses, regardless of scientific reality or economic practicality. It has done so already with rules such as the recently promulgated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which will cost our economy tens of billions of dollars for no benefits in public health.

Coming down the pike are the recently delayed, more stringent standards for ground-level ozone and the tightening of fine particulate-matter regulations – rules that could cost more than a trillion dollars and millions of jobs by 2020.

America’s air is clean and safe. But Americans will not be learning this from CASAC’s advice to the EPA. Whether this is because CASAC’s members are incompetent or corrupt is anyone’s guess.

But thanks to Mr. Barton, the subject has been broached. Let the debate and investigation begin.


Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009). I would like to thank Steve for allowing me to republish his works. Tomorrow I will be posting another article dealing with how to fix the EPA by Steve Milloy and Dr. John Dunn.

Holding the EPA to Account

John Dunn and Steve Milloy Originally published 3/29/12 and the problem with EPA remains.  RK

Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton asked for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's attention in his opening statement at a Feb. 28 House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, berated her and held her to account.

Congressman Barton's opening statement ticked off the following list of problems he had with the EPA, including agency:
1. Failure to comply with Obama Executive Order 13563 requiring regulations that promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and jobs with the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends, taking "into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative" (quoting from the Executive order);
2. Promulgation of power plant regulations that have driven energy costs higher without reasonable justification;
3. Failure to Congressional criticism of regulatory actions, including requests for public health and economic research data and justifications of policy decisions;
4. Disregard of blatant conflicts of interest among its science advisers who receive tens of millions of dollars in research grants from the agency wile also posturing as independent reviewers of agency science;
5. Failure to require that its sponsored researchers follow established rules of public health research with respect to toxicology and epidemiology;
6. Inappropriate reliance on the precautionary principle;
7. Circumvention of Congressional oversight; and
8. Grant-giving to advocacy groups that then enter into collusive lawsuits and aggressive regulatory requests that promote the agency's agenda and expand its regulatory and political power.  (bold highlight is mine)
As Congressman Barton pointed out, "I believe that the American public and taxpayers should not be paying for an agency that manipulates data and funds researchers in the form of exterior grants, who in turn serve on the internal committees within the EPA to create policy and work in an oversight capacity. This is an incredible conflict of interest to the American public."

What are some solutions to the EPA's faults and shortcomings?
1. Shrink EPA. Most environmental protection is done at the state-level. Most environmental regulatory work is done by the states. The Federal agency has too much time and money and that results in overreach and aggressive policy making. (Editor's Note: This also one of the recommendations made by my friend Dr. Jay Lehr, who was one of the original scientists who helped create the EPA. RK)

2. End inherent conflict of interest. Research and regulation need to be separated into independent agencies. At a minimum, EPA science reviewers should not be grantee researchers or affiliated with grantee institutions.

3. Risk assessment (RA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA). All rules must be subject to the two. RA and CBA should be judicially reviewable. This could be done through a super mandate that modifies review criteria for all agency activities.

4. Judicial review. Aggrieved parties should have easier opportunities to challenge the agency in court. The "arbitrary and capricious" standard in the Administrative Procedures Act needs to be replaced with a standard that allows proper challenges, such as the standard of review for workplace rules administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This could be done with a "super mandate" that overrides all existing statutory law.

5. Impose stricter scientific standards. Obligate the Agency to research that is subject to objective, non conflicted peer review and appropriate evaluation of data and methods. Require that taxpayer funded research be reviewable for data and methods and that research comply with the scientific standards from authoritative resources such as the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,written by truly independent experts to provide federal judges with guidance on what constitutes reliable scientific evidence in federal courts. If the Reference Manual is good enough for courts, it ought to be good enough for the EPA.
Congressman Barton's dressing down of EPA and its administrator was a first step in the right direction. But now Congressman Barton and his colleagues need to follow through by implementing real solutions that will stop the EPA's regulatory excesses.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009). I would like to thank Steve for allowing me to republish his works.

Friday, March 22, 2019

Avoiding the Ranks of the Insane

By Rich Kozlovich, Originally Published May 16, 2012

Originally I found this on ….where else…. Steve Milloy’s Junkscience.com.   Steve and his editor Barry are amazing. I can’t imagine how much work it must take for them to find and read all of this stuff in order to link it every day. I subscribe to a number of news services to avoid having to spend so much time finding the news that I think is important. I even have some Google alerts based on certain topics, such as DDT and the Endangered Species Act; and I just can’t keep up with it all. It’s difficult when you have a job that interferes with your life.

But….back to the point. This article, “Caffeine: Is there really A Welcome Lift In Every Cup"? By Michael D. Shaw was really worth the time and effort. He starts by saying;
Readers of a certain age might recognize this tag line from a 1950s era promotional campaign, ran on behalf of the Pan-American Coffee Bureau. Back then, the stimulant effect of caffeine was regularly touted, along with an equal number of commercials in which taste was the most important thing. (Mountain grown...the richest kind!)

It should hardly come as a surprise that caffeine is by far the most widely consumed psychoactive drug in the world. In his 2005 article in New Scientist, science fiction/fact writer and Renaissance man Richard A. Lovett notes that "In North America, around 90 per cent of adults report using caffeine every day." The major dietary sources of this compound are coffee, chocolate, and cola drinks.
I never really thought about caffeine as a ‘psychoactive’ drug, but that is how it has to be defined. This lays foundation for two points; toxicity and reaction; all issues related to the potential impact of all chemicals. Regarding studies showing the impact of caffeine on the body he states;
Perhaps the best known scare study came out in 1980, and was done by FDA scientist Thomas Collins (no relation to the cocktail). Collins said to be equivalent to 200 cups of coffee in one gulp. Not surprisingly, a large number of birth defects appeared in their offspring. However, when Collins redid the study in 1983, he simply added the caffeine to the rats' drinking water, and the dose was spread out through the day. This time, the birth defects returned to whatever the normal level is for lab rats.

When the dust settled, the consensus became nothing more than common sense: Caffeine taken in moderation, via conventional dosing methods, poses no danger to most people. This viewpoint is echoed by respected holistic physician Wayne R. Bonlie, MD of Timonium, Maryland. But then, folks don't always have common sense.
Did you get that? Being “force-fed pregnant rats ridiculously high doses of caffeine” causes an adverse physiological reaction but when exposed to normal doses the impact is meaningless. That is basic science. The dose makes the poison, yet when it comes to pesticides these types of studies are touted as definitive proof that pesticides cause _____ (fill in the blank).

The reality is that we need to have society become better scientists because we can’t trust those who have a battery of letters behind their names. Scientific integrity has been made an oxymoron by government grant money. Global warming has exposed them for what they are. This became obvious to those of us who watched university researchers promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for structural pest control.

I have stated over and over again that if the only government grant money available to them was to prove that there was no such thing as IPM in structural pest control they would do an about face so fast that you would think they were a color guard in a military parade. The same is true of Global Warming, chemicals and carcinogenicity, ADHD, autism….and oh well… you get the picture.

In the real world versus the lab, where real life takes place, the universe works on certain principles such as threshold effects and the reality that when the molecular load of anything is too small cells will not react to it. The greenies would have you believe otherwise and they have plenty of ‘scientists’ on their side who are so corrupt that they will say anything in order to attain grant money and recognition for the things they spout, which brings them outside financial rewards by way of speaking fees. This, in spite of the fact that so many of them almost have a monopoly on being wrong; from Malthus on population to Rachel Carson on DDT to James Hansen on global warming. So why do we listen to these people?

As I see it we have four options. Ignorance; which is fixable; stupidity; which is ignorance coupled with complacency; insanity which is unavoidable if you accept their conclusions; or clear rational thinking which means accepting the reality that to be green is irrational and misanthropic and everything the greenies say are lies of commission and lies of omission.

As Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 C.E.) once noted; "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Keeping track of toxic exposure

January 28, 2019 By Michael D. Shaw @ HealthNewsDigest.com.
  | | Comments (0)

It was William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, aka Lord Kelvin who said, “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
 
Few would argue with his contention, and these days we have in place countless measuring devices deployed in every conceivable environment. Ever since I was a student, it was understood that temperature was the most measured variable. But, one wonders…is that still true? How many millions of people frequently test their blood glucose; how many millions of websites measure their traffic every day?

In the world of public health, starting around 100 years ago, and then being energized by the creation of agencies such as EPA and OSHA, monitoring of exposure to air contaminants occurs now in virtually every country. In the US, OSHA promulgates Permissible Exposure Limits for more than 500 substances. Additional standards are published by other agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Per 29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2), these PELs–for the most part–are based on an 8-hour time-weighted average of the worker’s exposure to the substance. Thus, not only must the concentrations be measured, but the data must be archived and processed such that the appropriate average is calculated.

But here’s the problem. The PELs date back to the early days of OSHA, founded in 1971. Even then, measuring instruments did exist for some of the specified substances. And, virtually all of them were provided with an output that–in theory–could be captured by some sort of recording device.

Microcomputers were still a decade away. Expensive data loggers would be introduced in the early 1970s, but did not see widespread usage in the occupational health market.

As a consequence, before the advent of microprocessors, most 8-hour averages were based on wet chemical analytical methods, whereby an air sample is collected over a period of time, and this “single number” concentration–thus determined–became the average. However, no time history was available, and even though this average might be below the PEL, there may have been episodes of high exposure, that were literally averaged out. For many substances, in addition to the PEL, there are also limits on short-term exposure.

Before microcomputers, if an occupancy had continuous gas detection instruments installed, which provided instantaneous readings–along with user-adjustable alarms–OSHA did not press too hard on the 8-hour average matter. Besides, many companies also had wet chemical analysis reports on file for the analytes in question.

In 1984, Interscan introduced the DOS version of its Arc-Max® package–one of the first data acquisition products intended to support PEL compliance. The first customers were in the healthcare field, mostly involving applications for monitoring ethylene oxide, a sterilant.
There have been many updates to Arc-Max since then, and it is still a popular product, providing data acquisition, archiving, and reporting to a long list of end-users.

For many years, software packages such as Arc-Max have traditionally been deployed on local or networked computers, with true Cloud data logging being the rare exception. The advantage of a Web-based program is that users can “watch their sensors on their phone,” or any other compatible device. While such packages exist, they are usually costly and proprietary, in that they are not easily open to any sensor.

Interscan is now alpha testing a Web-based package that will accommodate any sensor with a standard output, and will support most communications protocols. The beta testing will involve end-users in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. Sensor data is ported to a platform hosted at Amazon Web Services, with various levels of access available. Averaging and trending are calculated in the Cloud, with the report dashboard available at a Web portal.

More information on this new package will be released as available.

Pseudo-science alert: For $9,500, Politico provides disinformation about crop biotechnology, GMOs and pesticides

| | March 19, 2019

The Politico news website is known for its political coverage in the United States, posting stories on a wide range of topics, mostly cataloguing the infighting in the nation’s capital.

But more recently, the site strayed into territory outside of its comfort zone, into science and the controversial issue of agricultural biotechnology — GMOs and the pesticides used by farmers, organic and conventional — and its ideological naiveté and lack of science expertise showed through, much to the embarrassment of the political news site.

The site’s graphics editor, Patterson Clark, who has no background as a working scientist or journalist writing about crop biotechnology, produced an infographic that illustrated how food has been genetically modified by corporations, and purported to offer a “deep dive” into gene editing — for as much $9,500! But the information they offered was poorly sourced and inaccurate. And when given the chance to address the actual science behind the issue of breeding, they declined.

Here’s the story..........To Read More.....


Primer on bees, varroa mites and the ‘Beepocalypse’ that never was

This time it’s all about the bees! From the composition of a working hive to the diseases that plague honey bees, plant pathologist Steve Savage delves into the basics of bees.

| March 19, 2019

A world-famous expert on bees once said, “you can never tell with bees.” That was none other than Winnie the Pooh. Okay, so he is just a fictional character who really likes honey, but there is a grain of truth in what he said that is relevant today. Over the last 14 or so years there have been many dramatic warnings of a pending “bee apocalypse” that will threaten a significant part of the human food supply. Although this apocalypse has not materialized, and bee populations are healthy in many regions, that does not mean it isn’t a topic of importance.

Back in 2006, there was a phenomenon known as “colony collapse disorder,” in which many hives of bees mysteriously failed to survive through the winter. Much of the blame in the media and among activists focused on a particular class of widely used agricultural insecticides called neonicotinoids, or “neonics” for short. While this misguided focus is considered sensational “news” and great for the fundraising efforts of environmental groups, it’s really not that simple and it’s why I like to cite Pooh’s acknowledgment of some uncertainty and complexity when it comes to bees.

In a future PopAgriculture episode, I’ll get into the question of whether certain insecticides are or are not threatening a “bee apocalypse,” but on this episode I want to get into the basics on bees because they are an interesting component of the human food production system...........To Read More...

Monday, March 18, 2019

We Get What We Ask For!

By Rich Kozlovich

Paradigms and Demographics was created to disseminate information that defends the pesticide applications industries, especially if that information that isn’t being disseminated by the information deliverers of our industry.

Many of those in leadership positions are completely aware of this kind of information, so it isn’t that our leaders are ignorant, it is just they are not crusaders. This is true of the trade journals, it is true of our state and national associations, and it is certainly true of the Ph.D.’s who are part and parcel of our industry. Why? First and foremost, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. No one likes being the rock in the current. Secondly, they don’t perceive this as part of their job description. Thirdly -and this is by far the most important reason of all - we don’t insist that they do it. Our leaders and information deliverers give us what we want. If we are not willing to demand more from them, if we're not will to stand up with them and be counted - then the fault is ours and ours alone! Why should they take shots for us if we don't care?

This brings me to the most important kind of science that everyone needs to use in order to understand all of these claims. The science of observation, i.e., “Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!”

I have used this basic concept since I first started researching all these claims of the green movement. Initially I had a favorable, although erroneous view of environmentalism; whose claims I later found to be emotionally charged and unscientific. Very quickly I realized that they spew out lies of omission, lies of commission, misdirection, emotionally charged scaremongering, supposition, junk science studies that are full of weasel words and logical fallacies as the basis for all that they say and do.

The article published by ASCH goes on to say;
“A new study published in the Journal of Toxicology lays to rest any claims about “toxic pesticide residues” that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publicized with their annual “Dirty Dozen” list. This compilation of “tainted” fruits and vegetables would have everyone scared to touch the majority of produce in the average grocery store. We are pleased, then, that this study, from the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis, looked at the dietary exposure of consumers to pesticides found in twelve products at the top of the EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” list and found…little to worry about.”
The article continues saying;
“To be more precise, the researchers, led by ACSH advisor Dr. Carl Winter, found that all pesticide exposures were well below established chronic reference doses. Dr. Winter concluded that, not only does exposure to these pesticides pose negligible risk to consumers at the levels they are present, but also, substituting organic forms for conventionally grown ones does not result in any appreciable reduction of risk. And, finally, the researchers write: “the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility.” In other words, the EWG’s claims are empty.”
The chemistry lesson for parents? The "dirty dozen is down to zero".

One of the favorite lines from the green movement, and their acolytes in government when they wish to pass legislation that will seriously restrict pesticides (or any chemical for that matter) is, “it’s for the children”. Unfortunately most of what they are doing ends up being “to the children” versus “for the children”.

We have to start thinking critically about these things. As we look all around the world we see that  dystopia (misery, squalor, disease, suffering and death) is rampant where green policies are implemented. They stand against modern food production, pesticides, power production of every type (many in the green movement are now against ethanol, solar and wind energy production as well as oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy), roads, bridges, dams and even the chlorination of drinking water, which is one of the greatest advances in public health ever. They are against everything that makes people live longer and healthier lives. So if dystopia is what results everywhere else the world where their principles are adopted, why would we think it would be different here?  Dystopia follows the green movement like the plague follows rats. 

We, the pesticide applicators of the world, are the defenders of public health; we are the food providers for the people of the world; we are the true defenders of humanity; we save lives.  As one author who was very familiar with exterminators noted; they "are the hunters that keep the tribe healthy".We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says to society, "no on will harm you on my watch"; and we had better start believing and acting on that fact. 

###

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Bedbugs and Reality; Part II

By Rich Kozlovich (Originally published in 2011. RK)

For those who have asked; I know that most people split the word bed and bug to come up with bed bug….however, I find that the dictionary allows for both….and I like this spelling; bedbug, get over it!

Renee Corea has been in the forefront of New York City’s battle against bedbugs and is part of their Bed Bug Task Force. I first became aware of her web site, New York vs Bed Bugs ,some months back when she highlighted two articles I did on the subject in her post of May 24, 2009, called, Blaming EPA is not the answer either.

She went on to say, “I have been wanting to write about this for a while but the most credible public proponent of the idea that the great bed bug debacle of the 21st century is all EPA’s fault was Rich Kozlovich who has written two passionate posts on this subject, Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment and The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II,but writing about Kozlovich’s views seemed daunting because he has already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings and, well, what do you do with that, engage, laugh? For someone on the outside, even selective engagement would be acquiescing to the futility and politicizing."

I thought it worthwhile to respond by saying, “I have just become aware of your site and I will put you in my favorites. Having said that I would like to add my views to this posting. I would also like to correct one of your statements in that I have already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings. Actually I have divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains, Quislings and Churchills. Every organization is divided in this manner; appeasers, traitors or defenders.”

She responded, “Hi Rich, thank you for your comment. I will have more thoughts I expect but I just wanted to say for now that I believe that EPA is showing leadership now. Whether it is late or not, it is necessary as the situation is indeed dire, and I want to hang on to the hope that they will be able to do just that, lead. As for IPM, it’s too complex and politicized a debate for me to engage. I will have to write for an explanation of the Kilgore comment, however. It’s been hard to smile this week and your pointing out my Churchill omission did the trick, so thanks for that.”

We have corresponded ever since. I have yet to find a site that follows this issue any better and she has taken great efforts to trace the history of bedbugs and their control. I would like to recommend the site to everyone. You will have to go back some way to get it all, but the trip is worth it!

Recent articles on her site are worth exploring as she writes, “I was moved by this post: Bedbugs: A Modern-Day Leprosy. Seriously. – Bart Campolo – God’s Politics Blog (Cincinnati)”,  which clearly outlines the problem with all of these so-called solutions that are being touted and promoted, whether it is IPM (whatever that really means, after all, we must remember that Phantom is now IPM, so I don’t know why Dursban can’t be IPM!) or heat treatments, freezing treatments or fumigation. Whether they work or not isn’t the issue; they are out of reach financially to the vast majority of the population of the U.S.; and if that is true, and it is, where does that leave the rest of the world? If the least of us cannot rid themselves of this plague, we will never be rid of them again.

An article that was highlighted involved an interview with Ron Harrison, Entomologist, Ph.D., is director of technical services for Orkin, Inc., which was informative but meaningless as far as outlining the real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone!

And there was a posting regarding “Bed Bug Central is coordinating charitable bed bug treatments for the holidays. Details of the program and how to apply here:” Good heartedness, compassion and kindness are not to be eschewed, but what about tomorrow and the day after that and the months and years that follow? It is the same problem and the same real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone! I say this over and over again because it is true.

Although the history of this event doesn’t correspond to this issue, Cato’s words ring in my ears; Carthago delenda est! -- Carthage must be destroyed, because it clearly shows that you must stand for something and say so….often…..if anything is to be accomplished.

The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part I: The Problem

By Rich Kozlovich (Originally published in 2011 RK.)

In recent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. It is almost like one of those overnight movie star sensations who won an award only to find out that he has been in the entertainment business for fifteen years. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be back.

After 1994 the Congress made an attempt to fix the Delaney Act, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FFDCA).   The Delaney Clause states that nothing can be used if "it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal". But because it was so extremely complicated and convoluted (made mores so by a court case Les v. Reilly) it was implemented in such a way that it basically declared that if something was carcinogenic at any level it was carcinogenic at every level and nothing that tested carcinogenic could be used in any food additives in processed food.

Since Delaney required zero risk versus negligible risk the whole thing became so perverse that Delaney would forbid the EPA from registering new pesticides that were perceived safer if they tested carcinogenic. This was known as the Delaney Paradox. This clearly had created a regulatory nightmare based on a law that had no basis in real science. Because of this the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a statement in 1987 outlining four principles that pesticide law should meet

1. All pesticides should be regulated on the basis of a consistent standard, so that there is no "double standard" for raw vs. processed foods or for old vs. new pesticides. The NAS found no public health reasons for treating residues on raw or processed foods differently.

2. A uniform "negligible risk" rather than a "zero risk" standard for carcinogens in food, consistently applied, would best enable EPA to improve the overall safety of the food supply, and would result in only modest reductions in the benefits of pesticide use to farmers.

3. EPA should set its regulatory priorities by focusing first on the most worrisome pesticides used on the most-consumed crops.

4. The Agency should adopt a comprehensive analytical framework for forecasting the broad-scale impact of its pesticide-specific regulatory actions on the overall safety of the food supply.

This clearly seems to be more than reasonable and justified. Unfortunately the fix ended up being as bad as the problem. Possibly worse because the EPA was being forced by lawsuits to enforce Delaney to its fullest extent, and if that had occurred we might have gotten rid of it entirely, instead we ended up replacing it with another compromise now based on risk assumptions.

The FQPA changed the rules regarding the 100 fold safety factor tied up in pesticides by a potential factor of ten, ratcheting up the safety factor from 100 to a potential of 1000. (This explanation is a “really” shortened and simplified version of this subject. Please go to Frank B. Cross’s extremely well done and lengthy examination of this subject in the article, “THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONSENSUS: DANGEROUS COMPROMISES OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT”)

At this point I think it worthwhile to explore this issue of carcinogenic testing. The EPA bases it judgment on rodent testing. Make no mistake about this; a mouse isn’t a little man and using rodents that are genetically predisposed to growing tumors for testing and then exposing them massive doses of anything to make that determination isn’t the best science as required under the Information Quality Act.

In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) (As a point of disclosure: I am member of ASCH) petitioned the EPA to “Stop declaring chemicals carcinogens based on rodent tests alone”. ACSH noted that the law permits EPA “to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance's carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.”

The petition argues that EPA ”distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines' use of "default options," its purported right -- based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health -- to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans. Erring on the "safe side" in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law. “

Finally after months of delays the EPA formally responded saying “that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and is now. If EPA policies aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on?

In 1950 the legal limit for DDT was seven parts per million. Why? Because they couldn’t test below that; so anything below seven parts per million was zero. As the years went by we have learned how to detect substances at parts per billion, then parts per trillion, then parts per quadrillion and parts per…well…even higher numbers that I can’t recite. At some point we will be able to detect everything in anything. But should that matter? No! At some point the molecular load will be so small that cells will not respond to it. Under Delaney that wouldn’t matter. It was later discovered, mostly through the efforts of Dr. Bruce Ames, that the number of naturally occurring carcinogens was shockingly high. Take for an example the traditional Thanksgiving dinner menu which is filled with carcinogens.

So the goal to fix Delaney was a worthy one, but devastating as it was replaced by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in August of 1996 by Congress and the Clinton EPA under Carol Browner. This amended FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and rodenticide Act which the structural pest control industry also falls under. This ended up being one of the most significant environmental and public health bills passed since the Nixon administration, and most of the Congress didn’t really understand what this was going to mean.

As a result of FQPA we lost (in the U.S.) whole categories of pesticides that had been used for years safely and effectively here and around the world.

Along with all else, the EPA requires pesticides to be re-registered after fifteen years. That means more unnecessary and expensive testing. It costs around $300,000,000 to bring a new pesticide to market. Manufacturers want to make sure that re-registration is worth it to them before they spend millions of dollars more on re-testing. Further testing for what you might ask? Who knows, because after a product has been on the open market for fifteen years you absolutely know what, if any, hazards it represents to humanity or to nature. Most importantly after fifteen years these products have probably gone out of patent. That means there is less value to the primary registrant, and if that is the case, there was no value incentive for the manufacturer to spend millions of dollars more to retest. They then simply pull their registration “voluntarily”.

This is just another way the EPA has found to eliminate pesticides without banning them, which can be a messy process; a process in which they would probably lose. When you ban something you have to show reasons for the ban. You have to have facts, figures and….most importantly….real science. If there is none the product stays. They have avoided all of that through their system of rules which can make it a de facto ban without any messy legal stuff.

Organophosphates, such as Dursban absolutely kill bed bugs; on contact and as well as a residual. But in 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed and that changed all the rules. This national policy under the EPA to create uniform regulations with the stated goal to reduce the use of pesticides based on assumed risks cannot occur without compromising the health of the nation. This national bed bug plague is one of those issues, and the tip of the iceberg. Make no mistake about this; if bed bugs were transmitters of disease such as malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis or West Nile virus we wouldn’t be having this national conversation.

I did have a thought that crossed my mind. I wonder if the decline in bed bugs and the decline in leprosy in western countries ran concurrently. Perhaps that could be an interesting area of study.