It's one thing to make a policy decision, it's another to claim it's based on science when the science says no.
The science behind a ban wasn't all that great. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13996137
[deleted]
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#12Rejected a policy recommendation . A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Exactly. You mean NYT has a headline that is not fact checked? :-)
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#13Rejected a policy recommendation . A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Really? A conclusion based on science can be dismissed? It isn't just some opinion that you can disagree with like that, right? Its a fair cop - the action was ignorant and anti-science.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#14> EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide Despite Autism Risk That is not the title of the article, and the article itself makes no mention of Autism. Please do not editorialize in the submissions, especially about flamebait topics like Autism and Trump's new EPA head. It's like this was specifically crafted to mess with people.
There is an autism link here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-highe...
Just because the article doesn't mention it, doesn't mean its not true.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#15Rejected a policy recommendation . A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Really? A conclusion based on science can be dismissed? It isn't just some opinion that you can disagree with like that, right? Its a fair cop - the action was ignorant and anti-science.
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain, and suffering.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#16It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study. The quoted study design has well understood flaws f…
The rational move would be to err on the side of caution instead of potentially creating another asbestos, DDT, or thalidomide risk here. The EPA's previous decision was a 100% rational public policy decision based on solid science, regardless of how partisans try to spin it.
>a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans
Well, that's certainly a lot more evidence than most Trump 'scientific' policies like climate change being a "Chinese hoax." Funny how Trump supporters ignore how terrible he is on science yet somehow find nitpicking justifiable on legitimate studies to defend his odious views.
Also its a lie to say there's only one study on chlorpyrifos's effect on humans and the environment. Heck the article even states based 'partly' on the study you are criticizing. Did you actually bother reading it or are you just copy and pasting some talking points? Because I'm seeing almost the exact same questionable points on other sites.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+human&btnG...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+harmful&bt...
>has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty
The DDT or asbestos or lead ban wasn't good for some parts of society either, yet it was the greater good that mattered. There are other pesticides and the targeted economic sectors can handle changes from regulations by migrating to different chemicals and processes. The oil and automotive industries didn't collapse when we told them to stop putting lead in gas, for example.
Lastly, Dow has been running a disinformation campaign on this product for their own financial self-interest. Beware the astroturfing and political corruption at work here.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/highly-hazardous-...
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#17It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study. The quoted study design has well understood flaws f…
randomthoughtss, you are dead.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#18It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study. The quoted study design has well understood flaws f…
I'm confused, this pesticide has been around since 1965. There has been a lot more research on it than just a single study with 20 patients. The key phrase is "based in part"
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? A conclusion based on science can be dismissed? It isn't just some opinion that you can disagree with like that, right? Its a fair cop - the action was ignorant and anti-science.
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain, and suffering.
There are other pesticides.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#20It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study. The quoted study design has well understood flaws f…
I'm confused, this pesticide has been around since 1965. There has been a lot more research on it than just a single study with 20 patients. The key phrase is "based in part" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chlorpyrifos
Oh, and "replicated"? It can't be in the US because household use has been banned since 2000. Are you suggesting that we must intentionally expose pregnant women?