Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

The EPA's Bold New Idea Has Massive Implications For Public Health (motherjones.com) 173

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic chemicals has been based on the cautious scientific reasoning that considers even slight exposure to toxins potentially risky to public health. From that premise, the EPA has assessed a wide range of pollution, including lung-clogging particulate matter, Superfund cleanup, water treatment, radiation exposure, and risk assessments for carcinogens like benzene.

That time-honored approach may be changing because of easy-to-overlook phrasing within a paragraph buried in the proposed "Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science Rule," a regulation that will bar the EPA from considering a wide range of scientific studies in its rule-making. With a few sentences buried in the seven-page Federal Register text, the EPA is opening the door to a new scientific approach that -- in a worst-case scenario -- could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

Some scientists have considered the implications of this paragraph and described a whole array of potential problems to Mother Jones. Because the paragraph is written in incredibly vague language, most scientists were unable to explain which pollutants or regulations were the prime targets.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The EPA's Bold New Idea Has Massive Implications For Public Health More

The EPA's Bold New Idea Has Massive Implications For Public Health

Comments Filter:

  • Hormesis (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No idea about the full implications, but hormesis is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

  • Nothing matters any more. There is no truth or facts and science is all just made up liberal lies. All that matters is the will of Trump and the Corporate Lobbyists -- you know, THE PEOPLE. Working Class Tax Payers aren't people and don't get a say
    • Did you forget the </sarcasm> tag at the end of your comment? If you're not being sarcastic, then be glad you're on the internet and not in front of me, because I'd punch you square the mouth as hard as I possibly could for saying shit like that.
      • Dude, head down to your local MJ Dispensary, get a nice big spliff and chill the fuck out

      • Did you forget the </sarcasm> tag at the end of your comment? If you're not being sarcastic, then be glad you're on the internet and not in front of me, because I'd punch you square the mouth as hard as I possibly could for saying shit like that.

        Did you forget yours?

      • Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @08:38PM (#57428182) Homepage

        Well technically, the comment is delivered in sarcastic terms but is entirely factual and accurate in content. They are applying any corrupt rule they can, with the reasoning that it will increase profits whilst the rule is in place and as long as they can corruptly keep it in place and fuck everyone and everything. They know it will eventually be struck down because it is entirely deceitful in intent and is meant to obfuscate the legal process making any civil suit for polluting and killing other people extremely difficult to pursue. Americans, you have the government you deserve and you will end up paying an enormous price for it, it's called karma. Your lack of interest in political activism, has led to this and it will get worse, so whilst you indifference caused the rest of the world to suffer, as empire comes to an end, it is you who will suffer the most and for far longer, at the hands of your own corrupt government and corporations, good luck, you will need it.

  • assume - ass u me (Score:3, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:13PM (#57426954)

    EPA ... the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

    Can't wait for the FDA to make that assumption about cancer ...

    • EPA ... the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

      Can't wait for the FDA to make that assumption about cancer ...

      They already do. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are bad for you. They are better than cancer though.

      Radiotherapy too for that matter.

      • EPA ... the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

        Can't wait for the FDA to make that assumption about cancer ...

        They already do. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are bad for you. They are better than cancer though.

        Radiotherapy too for that matter.

        Ya, I know all about Chemo/Radiotherapy ... Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]

        [ But, my joke and your commentary aren't really about the same things. ]

  • Today's corperate Republican government.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Is like the church was back in the day when Galileo was around. We're all going to suffer for it.

  • We... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    have always been at war with Eastasia.

  • could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial

    Where exactly is this "assumption" made?

    And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      It is good to experiment to find out how much of something is harmful. Until you do those experiments though I think it is prudent to assume "that even one bazillionth has to be harmful".

      • Until you do those experiments though I think it is prudent to assume "that even one bazillionth has to be harmful".

        Maybe. There's prudent and there's paranoid. If you're too prudent, everything gets gummed down in safety studies and it's impossible to release new products.

        Here's a story. My daughter got a job at an oil company. She's going to be working on improving the efficiency of diesel and jet fuels. Yay for her! If you improve the efficiency of diesel, you may save the planet to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But maybe you'll introduce some new combustion products. Do you really want to do a large scale study

    • could further relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial

      Where exactly is this "assumption" made?

      And parenthetically, you do know that small percentages of something might be beneficial, right? The way to find out would be to study it, not just assume that even one bazillionth has to be harmful because reasons.

      Well, historically, oxygen was a serious pollutant...and still is, really. The fact that we do happen to need it to live is actually one of the adaptations to the fact that plants just were not going to stop releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.

      Mother Jones tends to not go with the Bright Greens, and its science reporting when I've bothered checking has been...questionable. I'm not precisely surprised that it's keeping up the chemophobia. Anybody want to break it to them that all matter in the universe i

  • Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmdr_klarg ( 629569 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:19PM (#57427004)

    Public health, schmublic health. There's MONEY to be made!

    Who the fuck cares if we make the planet unable to support human life! I'll be dead, having made MORE MONEY!

    • Lots of money creates a reality distortion field. Thus most supporters aren't necessarily advocating harm to people they don't care about, instead they honestly believe that there is no harm.

  • You know that goofy high pitched in and out 70's stuff that would start to play every time shit was about to go down? Yeah, I'm hearing it over and over in my head right now.

    From Ironside apparently:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.

    • To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.

      I agree, but we will be greeted with the clown car from the election circus getting cranked up a ta a precinct near you.... The accusations of "You want dirty air, dirty water and dead starving kids!" simply have to be heard..

      It's an election cycle thing..

      • Corporate America (hell, Corporate world, it's everywhere) has spent metric assloads of money indoctrinating the average citizens of the world that they should trust them to never do anything harmful to them, just drink/eat/breathe all you want, it's fine, why would we lie to you? Their 'risk assessment' from their legal departments assure them that the 'risk is acceptable' and it's cheaper to settle out of court with people than it is to actually make things safe and clean. After all, it's just people, pro

        • The fly in your partisan soup here is that BOTH sides accept money from the corporate world. And just to make the bowl murky enough so you cannot see the bottom, Trump, being a filthy rich SOB, really doesn't need, nor did he take, all that much money from corporate America. Politics is awash with corporate money from the left to the right and as far as the eye can see. Trump is wading in the pool of course, but most politicians from both sides are ankle deep (head first) trying to tread water.

          In short,

    • To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.

      At some point this becomes prohibitively expensive. Perhaps fidget spinners cause carpal tunnel syndrome. Should we not release them until we've definitively proven they don't? And should we ban them not because they're annoying but because 1% of users might get painful wrists?

      Practically speaking, if the inventor of fidget spinners had to prove beyond some level of doubt that fidget spinners couldn't possibly harm anyone, they'd just close up shop and never release them. Of course, I picked fidget spinners

      • Reading the actual document, it sounds like the proposal is to make all the evidence public so the public can review what data was used

        Bingo. This is the SAME proposal as before, which received a lot of paranoid response in /., and the time before that... The previous discussions have been over the awful Republican legislation that would tell the EPA to do this, now the EPA is proposing the actual rule.

        Yes, this is a rule that says that the EPA cannot use secret scientific data to make rules. Period. If your scientific study that shows that fidgit spinners cause cancer cannot be released to the public, then it cannot be used in making EPA

  • Is this the paragraph? (Score:4, Informative)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:33PM (#57427104)
    " The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. "

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science

    If so, what's the problem?

    • Re:Is this the paragraph? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:52PM (#57427226)

      Not that Mother Jones went out of their way to make clear exactly what they were talking about, but I think it's this one:

      In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.

      To the extent the EPA really was taking studies measuring harm at at exposure level X and assuming 50% of the harm at exposure level X/2, I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the above. (For all we know, more robust studies might find a greater level of harm at smaller exposures than a linear interpolation would assume.)

      • On earth, background radiation varies widely. Cancer rates do not follow. This is old repeatedly validated data.

    • sevb

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mbkennel ( 97636 )

      It's because the "publicly available" includes personalized health care information, and so it is meant to exclude most of the very class of studies that directly looks at human health.

      In addition it is meant to dissuade people from enrolling in those studies knowing that industry lobbyists, and potentially their employers who are causing the problems, would see their medical records.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        You should be able to anonymize the data so that the relevant data is available to be examined by anyone and peer reviewed by anyone. Otherwise you can't trust it. Otherwise you will end up with studies where all of the meaningful information has been completely obscured by "statistics".

        If I can't play with the data myself, the study is crap. It's untrustworthy. It's not science.

        I say that as someone much more likely to benefit from this sort of thing than you.

    • Yes, it is. This is old news (and fakenews). We've discussed it on Slashdot before and we tore it a new asshole on Slashdot before.

      The proposal is merely demanding that regulations be based on science that is verifiable or repeatable.

      The crybabies protest that much of the data CAN'T be made available to people wanting to verify / replicate studies due to HIPAA. They are WRONG. Such data just has to be sufficiently anonymized OR only reviewed/accessed by other HIPAA-compliant organizations (with the key r

  • a 120mm round from a tank fired to your head is bad,
    but a .22cal would be okay?
    I mean, they're both lead right? /h (yes, I know modern tank shells aren't made of lead, no need to get pedantic on me)

  • It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:46PM (#57427180)

    from the ./ summary:

    "For years, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic chemicals has been based on the cautious scientific reasoning that considers even slight exposure to toxins potentially risky to public health."

    That is the fundamental error underlying all environmental regulatory policy in the U.S. Every nutrient essential for human life has some dose at which it becomes toxic. Water and table salt are two common examples. Whether a substance is harmful or beneficial to life depends on both the substance and the quantity. If the EPA were serious about that policy, then it would demand that the oceans be ejected into space to clean up the environment of deadly salt and water toxins.

    It says "cautious scientific reasoning." There are two problems with that description. First, it is value judgment which violates presumed editorial neutrality of straight news. Second, it is the wrong value judgment. "idiotic non-scientific assumptions" would be an accurate description.

    The consequence of a completely unworkable policy is regulatory confusion and rule by bureaucratic fiat.

       

  • Now we can see a return to the good old days when people used to paint their homes with lead paint. Yes! You too will soon be able to paint lead on your walls for all the family to enjoy. The EPA says it was mistaken and it's perfectly safe now. Paint your walls with lead paint soon! :))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Oh, and in Flint Michigan and many other parts of the USA, neighbourhoods can start drinking the tap water again because lead is safe!

  • I was just explaining this to an outraged liberal. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:51PM (#57427212) Homepage Journal

    Hormesis -- a positive health impact from low exposures to an environmental stressor like radiation or pollution -- is a real thing. You can demonstrate that in lab animals.

    The thing is, humans aren't lab animals. You can't control their total exposure to the stressor. Scientific support for radiation hormesis in humans is (for obvious reasons) anecdotal, and by definition isn't controlled. The same exposure that had a small beneficial effect in one population might not have happened had that population been living on a radon spur.

    Where there is a possibility of a hormetic effect at low levels of exposure and a certainty of a negative effect at high levels of exposure, you have to limit human exposure from any single source. That doesn't take a genius to understand, but that level of reasoning appears to be light years beyond the current political discussion, in which radiation is either good or evil and must be treated accordingly.

    • Your point would have been better if you didn't make it a partisan thing.

      Good quote from a guy whose stuff I like: "In our online interactions, we have a choice of being a smartass and showing people how dumb they are, OR maybe convincing skeptical new people to consider our opinions. Unfortunately for fellow smartasses, we only get to choose one :-)"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        It's not a partisan think. I'm a liberal myself. It's that people across the political spectrum make ridiculous arguments.

    • The current state of political debate doesn't distinguish between types of radiation, much less the exposure levels.

      How many reporters don't understand the difference between a microwave's radiation and inhaling cesium dust or radon exposure? I'd say most. I commonly see warnings about cell phone radiation exposure like it's the same as fallout from a nuclear blast.

  • Attack on Science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:52PM (#57427222)

    Here's an explanation of what's going on... same method used by tobacco industry.
    https://thinkprogress.org/sena... [thinkprogress.org]

  • "a little pollution is actually beneficial"? (Score:5, Informative)

    by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @05:03PM (#57427282)

    I know it's Mother Jones, but how in the world do you twist the actual text [federalregister.gov] into that kind of soundbite?

    In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.

    No wonder they didn't quote the actual language in the article.

  • Could be a good thing... (Score:3)

    by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @05:32PM (#57427466)

    I am generally deeply skeptical of what Trump is doing to the EPA, but I don't actually see a problem with the text - it's a good thing to investigate response models to various toxins, radiation, etc. and use the most appropriate one for determining policy. A linear model is almost certainly incorrect for most cases, and could just as easily underestimate the harm as overestimate it.

    The problem comes in if this is used to implement unjustified deregulation, which is certainly a concern with this administration. It's hard to say if that's the case without more context though.

  • Never Forget (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @05:40PM (#57427516) Journal

    Just a reminder to you younger Slashdotters, that there was a time, before there was an EPA, where several of the Great Lakes had all their fish dying, there were rivers in Ohio that would burst into flames and several American cities where the smog was so bad that the air was a yellowish-green even on a cloudless day. And not just cities like LA and Cleveland, Pittsburgh, but also Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas and many others.

    A Republican president created the EPA in 1970, and within a decade and a half, you could find Lake Trout and Salmon in the Great Lakes again, there are even fish in the Cuyahoga, and people could actually breathe in cities without coughing up brown phlegm again. Corporations adjusted to the new regulations and the '80s and '90s saw a booming US economy with widespread improvement across all economic strata.

    We are being ratfucked by our own government. If your big issue is "feminists are taking my jobs!" and supporting this administration in order to "own the libs and SJWs", you are what is known as a useful idiot, and you are hurting yourself.

  • Just like LNT (Score:3)

    by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Thursday October 04, 2018 @05:54PM (#57427586)

    The faster we get rid of various versions of LNT, and actually get reasonable scientific definitions, the better. Our bodies are designed to easily handle certain amount of toxins, carcinogens, radiation, etc. It's a part of normal metabolic process.

    The problem is when we receive more of a dose of aforementioned things than our natural metabolic, immune etc processes can handle. When that happens we get sick, poisoned, killed or suffer long term cell damage that leads to cancer. The worst offender by far in this category is the radiation LNT model. It's been long debunked (yes, you get a significant radiation dose by flying, no, it's not a carcinogenic factor to fly to your yearly holiday because the additional dose is much lower than surplus of your natural cell repair mechanisms held in reserve).

    Same applies to toxins, poisons, carcinogens and so on. What we need to know is not just that "this material/process can be toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic" but "how much of an exposure to this needs to occur for the toxic/poisonous/carcinogenic effect to actually occur in human body".

  • Hmmm. Given the types of people that the current administration have put in charge of the EPA, I'm wondering myself what this could possibly be aimed at...

    Could it be coal?

    Nah. That's just my liberal-leaning reaction. Trump has obviously looked at the current standards for chemical exposure, consulted the experts, and identified areas where chemical regulations could be loosened in a way that still reasonably protects the health of American citizens.Why look at all the public health issues and envi

  • ...relax regulations because of the assumption that a little pollution is actually beneficial.

    Thank God humans evolved, thus ending the 4.5 billion year dearth of pollutants that was holding back all the species on the planet. Since the mid 19th century we've been making things so much better!

  • Obviously the EPA is crippled by current right wing politics. The right wing loonies should be forced to drink only water from Flint !

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close