E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
mobile.nytimes.com
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#2It's one thing to make a policy decision, it's another to claim it's based on science when the science says no.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#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.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#4> 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.
Thanks, we've reverted the title from the submitted “EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide Despite Autism Risk”.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#5It'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 from selection, observation, and publication biases. And until the findings are independently replicated, this can't really be called "science" but rather a "single scientific publication" http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract.
The economic effects of banning organophosphates based on a single observational study would be undoubtedly horrendous to the third world. The NYT article adds little careful review and seems to simply draw on the "chemicals are ruining the earth" narrative. Taken to its logical conclusion, although popular and on its surface appealing, basing policy simply on a "fear of chemicals" has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#6Thank you "Environmental Protection Agency" for erring on the side of moneyed interests instead of public health.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#7It'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
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#8It'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…
This is about chlorpyrifos, not all pesticides or organophosphates. I don't see any generalization in the article.
And that's not the only study they referenced:
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). "
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#9Rejected a policy recommendation. A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Re: E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
#10Rejected a policy recommendation . A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Rejected a policy recommendation that cited a lot of published research.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos