Read on Twitter
Ok fine. I'll take the bait.
Allow me to translate. (1/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508279409684480
Allow me to translate. (1/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508279409684480
By this, @EPAAWheeler means the rule forces EPA to give "less consideration" to studies using any dose-response data that isn't public. This could include studies relying on personally identifiable health data, older studies, and other key studies. (2/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508280433160193
The rule, indeed, doesn't force release of these data. (It legally couldn't anyway). But it does mandate that these studies be arbitrarily downweighted for being nonpublic, a factor that has nothing to do with scientific quality or EPA relevance (3/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508281552973827
He has repeated this often, as if it makes the rule benign. It does not.
Every day the EPA is assessing new science to decide how best to protect people from environmental threats. This will affect everything the EPA does starting now. (4/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508282798682112
Every day the EPA is assessing new science to decide how best to protect people from environmental threats. This will affect everything the EPA does starting now. (4/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508282798682112
This is true on paper. In effect, this rule will mean that some of the most important new studies on the levels of pollution that harm human health will be downplayed at best, ignored completely at worst. In the end the public will be less protected. (5/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508283859918848
This--and I cannot stress this enough--will happen AFTER PEER-REVIEW. The rule recommends that EPA waste time and resources for people to redo published studies that have already been refereed in the scientific literature. This serves no purpose. (6/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508284812021766
This already happens. If you have ever read EPA rules or attended an EPA advisory committee meeting, you know that there is an exhausting level of scientific discussion. This rule does not solve a problem, it creates barriers to science-based policy. (7/7) https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1346508286204518402
