"When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.
"What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.
"That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.
"The mercury issue has long been the focus of heated argument between utilities and environmental advocates. Health advocates say mercury is so harmful to fetuses and pregnant women that steps are needed to sharply control emissions; industry groups and the Bush administration have warned that overly aggressive measures would impose heavy costs."
This is where I would ordinarily express my outrage, and possibly a call to respond to this sort of political pandering. I might even bring up the oft-quoted, ever-growing list of other scientific shortcuts and heavily pressured "findings" that have been produced in the last five years.
But you know what? I'm tired. After a while, outrage is too difficult to sustain without overheating or burning out. Which might be the goal here, I dunno.
I'll just assume for the duration of this administration that any government-sponsored scientific study will miraculously benefit big business in every particular, even though nitpicky environmentalists and "scientists" keep trying to muddy the waters with "facts." It'll save time.
For anyone who posts on this thread: yes, I assume other adminstrations have done this as well. I didn't like it then, either, and complained about it when it happened. But the real difference? This administration is much, much better at it, and I've got no reason to believe they won't be in power for a long, long time.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
On a more serious note, this is really not good. And the point shouldn't be which administration does it. The politicians are the heads of a massive bunch of bureaucracy and a large group of rich people who aren't elected. If a government is doing it, it's doing it large.
A problem with having a government that is unpopular for one or two major issues is that if opposing groups point out other problems that are unrelated, they are not really taken all that seriously, or worse, are accused of fabrication. This is especially true when some of the opposition are fabricating issues.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
