"EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data."
4/11/2014, "EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules," CNS News, Barbara Hollingsworth
"Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her
agency does not have - and cannot produce - all of the scientific data
used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.
In a March 7th letter to House Science, Space and Technology
Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), McCarthy admitted that EPA
cannot produce all of the original data from the 1993 Harvard Six Cities
Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer
Prevention Study II, which is currently housed at New York University.
Both studies concluded that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5
micrograms or less (PM2.5) – 1/30th the diameter of a human hair – are
killing thousands of Americans every year.
These epidemiological studies are cited by EPA as the scientific
foundation for clean air regulations that restrict particulate emissions
from vehicles, power plants and factories.
The agency has recently come under fire for exposing volunteers to
concentrated levels of particulate matter without informing them of the
risks, a practice Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Science
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, called “despicable.”
The full committee, which issued its first subpoena in 21 years last
August after being stonewalled by the EPA for two years, wanted the raw
data from the studies so that their results could be replicated by
independent researchers. (See EPA subpoena.pdf)
However, despite “multiple interactions with the third party owners
of the research data in an effort to obtain that data,” McCathy wrote,
some of the data subpoenaed by the committee “are not (and were not) in
the possession, custody or control of the EPA, nor are they within the
authority to obtain data that the agency identified.”
“EPA has not withheld any data in our possession that is responsive
to the subpoena,” McCarthy stated. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that
the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the
analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the
one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each
subject.” (See EPA letter to Smith March 7 2014 (1).pdf)
CNSNews.com asked EPA whether the agency had turned over any data
from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies in
response to the subpoena.
“EPA provided to the Committee all the data that was in the
possession of the agency or within the agency's authority to obtain
under the Shelby Amendment,” which requires that results of
federally-funded studies be made available to the public, an agency
spokeswoman responded. “As such, the agency has now in good faith
obtained and provided to the Committee all the requested research data
subject to the Shelby Amendment and covered by the subpoena.”
A committee staff member confirmed to CNSNews.com that “EPA gave us
what they have of both studies, which is a significant amount of data,
but not sufficient" to allow independent reproduction or verification of
"We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in
their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases,
never did possess the data,” he added.
The subpoena was issued as the EPA moves to finalize strict new regulations that could place 90 percent of the U.S. population in non-attainment areas and impose an additional $90 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy.
However, two newer studies cast doubts on the original research.
Stanley Young and Jessie Xia of the National Institute of Statistical
Sciences published a paper last year (2013) questioning the EPA’s reliance on
the Harvard and Cancer Society studies, both of which found that
breathing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulted in increased
“There is no significant association of PM2.5 with longevity in the west of the United States,” Young and Xia noted, adding that “our findings call into question the claim made by the original researchers.” (See young080113.pdf)
Another recent study
by Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy that attempted to
duplicate EPA’s findings also found “no correlation between changes in
ambient PM2.5 mortality” and any cause of death in California between
2007 and 2010.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has
been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,”
committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February (2014), denouncing
what he called EPA’s “secret science.”
“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and
they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental
regulations should be based on publicly available data so that
independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Smith and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) have introduced the Secret
Science Reform Act of 2014, which would prohibit EPA from “proposing,
finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific
information that is not publicly available in a manner sufficient for
independent scientific analysis.”
which would amend the Environmental Research, Development and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, states that “the Administrator
shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all
scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered
action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a
manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.”
At a February 11th hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment,
Raymond Keating, chief economist at the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, testified in favor of the bill. (HHRG-113-SY18-WState-RKeating-20140211.pdf)
“The U.S. has made enormous progress in cleaning the air over the
last 40 years, so much so that we now are talking about reducing very
small increments of pollution. Achieving those tiny reductions will no
doubt be very costly—as EPA itself admitted when it released its cost
analysis for ozone in 2010. The question is: will they be worth it?"
“We won’t know that unless we have the scientific data in front of
us, unless scientists from all over the country can attempt to replicate
it and determine its validity. Without that, EPA is hiding the ball,
and imposing costs without truly knowing what the benefits are.”
Congress is expected to consider the bill sometime this summer."
News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Seven months after being subpoenaed, EPA admits it can't produce scientific data justifying significant 2014 additions to Clean Air Act regulations. Since the science isn't available, no one can replicate EPA's claims. EPA says in some cases it never possessed the data-4/11/2014
- ► 2017 (596)
- ► 2016 (1320)
- ► 2015 (661)
- Rainout in Cincinnati v Cubs, lack of drought coul...
- Rainout for Detroit Tigers at Minnesota Twins, rai...
- Desperately seeking some global warming in Minneso...
- Irreconcilable conflicts of interest in 2014 UN IP...
- No other conclusion can be drawn but the Bush fami...
- Still no drought in Boston requiring evil American...
- Map of US showing percent of each state that belon...
- Still waiting on a drought in Chicago, rain delay ...
- Loving and courageous organized crime and drug car...
- Political and military elites across Africa collud...
- 'Patriotism today does require the courage to stan...
- Many California ObamaCare customers can't find doc...
- 3 decades of Mitch McConnell and Thad Cochran's be...
- Yankee grounds crew uses blowers to remove ice fro...
- Minnesota Twins 4/17/14 game time 31 degrees in Mi...
- China gov. admits state secret that one fifth of c...
- Four jailed in China for asking officials to revea...
- One New Yorker may have prevented bloodshed at Bun...
- Gearing up for global warming Earth Day celebratio...
- EU to blacklist killer shrimp and other species pr...
- Still no drought in Philly, game v Braves postpone...
- Mark Steyn v Hockey Stick on hold because Mann, fo...
- No debate, China 'historical emissions' expected t...
- Seven months after being subpoenaed, EPA admits it...
- Scientists warned US against planting so much corn...
- The progressive agenda rests on the notion that or...
- Supplies of US crude oil 1955-2010, and natural ga...
- Another rupture of an oil pipeline maintained by t...
- The Legacy of Obama's Illegal Alien Aunt is bi-par...
- Deceased L'Wren Scott's 200 11th Ave. apartment in...
- UN IPCC admits major error, CO2 emissions from car...
- Wolves return to Czech Republic after absence of a...
- 'Claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hu...
- Great Lakes icebreakers may be on duty as late as ...
- California Central Valley water shortage is caused...
- No matter what temperatures are in the US, global ...
- Fossil fuel billionaire backed Bill McKibben embar...
- Distinct increase in multi-year Arctic Ice per NSI...
- Climate science not at all settled. New peer revie...
- California State Senator Leland Yee likely escaped...
- M6.5 solar flare erupted from the sun on April 2, ...
- China's Poisonous Waterways, hundreds of 'cancer v...
- Still no drought in Oakland, California. Mariners-...
- The radical left began as peace and flowers:..."If...
- "Leaders" in supposedly "Republican controlled" No...
- No drought in Cincinnati, rain delay Cardinals vs ...
- "No nation should use energy to stymie a people's ...
- No drought in Oakland, Calif. Oakland A's rainout ...
- World Bank fast tracks 40 new coal mines in Indone...
- CO2 lags temperature by 5 months, Nature study 199...
- Confounding Republican 'leadership' and its latest...
- ▼ April (51)
- ► 2013 (550)
- ► 2012 (611)
- ► 2011 (487)
- ► 2010 (337)
- ► 2009 (33)