Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#21

Post by drallison »

I find it curious that the moderators grayed out the references provided in comments by "randomgthoughts". I would be curious to know the rationale. It seems to me that citations into the literature are a plus and not a minus.

The elided references are:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-....

"D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, December 29, 2014, D424485; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Literature Review on Neurodevelopment Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides, September 15, 2015, D331251; 

R. Bohaty and J. Hetrick. Chlorpyrifos Registration Review Drinking Water Assessment, April 14, 2016, D432921 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chlorpyrifos Issue Paper: Evaluation of Biomonitoring Data from Epidemiology Studies, March 11, 2016 and supporting analyses presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel’s (SAP) meeting on April 1921, 2016, (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0062). "

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#22

Post by tptacek »

drallison wrote: post #21

I find it curious that the moderators grayed out the references provided in comments by "randomgthoughts". I would be curious to know the rationale. It seems to me that citations into the literature are a plus and not a minus. The elided references are: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-... . "D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, Decembe…

The moderators almost certainly didn't do anything. If you have a question about something that happened with moderation, mail it to hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#23

Post by coldcode »

anubisresources wrote: post #7
coldcode wrote: post #2

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

The science is actually quite good, the campaign by DOW is also quite good which apparently counts for more. Given the EPA head has no interest or knowledge of science but a long history of attacking his agency for everything it ever stood for, this is not surprising to me at all.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#24

Post by adamsea »

regeland wrote: post #5

It'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…

Let's be clear that the elephant in the room is that the current head of the EPA denies that the global warming we are seeing is caused by people and, potentially, a threat to our own existence, and will definitely cause lots of suffering and death and ecosystem collapse/damage. And that the current President of the United States also denies these things.

I think it's disingenuous to discuss the EPA's decision without acknowledging this context.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#25

Post by randomthoughtss »

drallison wrote: post #21

I find it curious that the moderators grayed out the references provided in comments by "randomgthoughts". I would be curious to know the rationale. It seems to me that citations into the literature are a plus and not a minus. The elided references are: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-... . "D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, Decembe…

I deleted them from one of my replies and moved them to a different reply.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#26

Post by aisofteng »

adamsea wrote: post #24
regeland wrote: post #5

It'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…

Let's be clear that the elephant in the room is that the current head of the EPA denies that the global warming we are seeing is caused by people and, potentially, a threat to our own existence, and will definitely cause lots of suffering and death and ecosystem collapse/damage. And that the current President of the United States also denies these things. I think it's disingenuous to discuss the EPA's decision withou…

That context is irrelevant to the points raised in the comment you responded to.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#27

Post by kbenson »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #14
kbenson wrote: post #3

> 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.

Whether it's true or not, it is inappropriate to put it in the title like that when the article does not.

A comment here pointing out the link with a reference is the appropriate place for that.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#28

Post by pvnick »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #19
regeland wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bar to ban things has dropped so low because of that handwavey line of reasoning, despite real economic effects to people whose livelihoods are at stake (i.e. farmers).

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#29

Post by stouset »

unethical_ban wrote: post #17
regeland wrote: post #5

It'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.

Apologies. I misread your comment thinking you were threatening the other user and downvoted you.

Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

#30

Post by dmoy »

stouset wrote: post #29
unethical_ban wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

randomthoughtss, you are dead.

Apologies. I misread your comment thinking you were threatening the other user and downvoted you.

I think you can invite now. I can't remember how.
Post reply on HN