Latest EPA science transparency proposal leaked to NYTimes; Key air quality junk science to be banned unless data is made public — JunkScience.com

Here it is. Please review and send me your thoughts. Supposedly this is what will be sent to the White House for review and approval. This is my favorite part so far: If true, this would mean the the Harvard Six City and Pope ACS studies are history and won’t be used by EPA again.…

via Latest EPA science transparency proposal leaked to NYTimes; Key air quality junk science to be banned unless data is made public — JunkScience.com

EPA is cleaning up its act with new, science-based, transparent data that can be verified and replicated by independent researchers. No one should object to better data methods unless they want to block advances in science or support embedded myths of environmentalism. The Harvard Six City study was begun in 1974 and followed participants for 15 years. It used questionnaire type surveys of participants and followed up with spirometry testing and death dates/causes.  Death rate only varied by 2 years for most and least polluted cities, which could be a statistical fluke.  It has been 40 years since the study was ended, so confidentiality should not be a problem, except to redact names.

This new proposed ruling by the EPA, along with ending the Linear No Threshhold method of risk determination should be celebrated in the scientific and medical communities. It means more research, not less, and more accurate data overall.

New Calabrese: A comprehensive assessment of the LNT’s historical and scientific foundations — JunkScience.com

If you’ve missed Calabrese’s work so far… catch up on the LNT controversy with his latest paper: “The LNT single-hit dose-response model for cancer risk assessment was conceived, formulated, and applied in a manner which is now known to have been scientifically invalid.”

via New Calabrese: A comprehensive assessment of the LNT’s historical and scientific foundations — JunkScience.com