Re: 'Sound Science'? Bush closer than big government promoters.

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

So, how are spokesmen for Doctors for Disaster

Preparedness different from those of the Bush

administrtation?  Are their views representative of a

conscense of experts in their respective fields.  Or

are they a loose confederation of individuals making,

or parroting, viewpoints that they are not

knowledgeable about, but would like to see.  Do they 

say there is no global warming because we do not THINK

it is so?  



Are the Noble prize winners that oppose the Bush

administrative science programs less bias than those

of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness? 



--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Doctors for Disaster Preparedness presentations,

> 18/year since '93, by many

> Nobelists, + Teller, Pollycove, Muckerheide, Singer,

>  Robinson (to name a

> few) have given critical science basis supporting

> most Bush actions on

> missle defense, "The Myth of Global Warming",

> anthrax and nerve poison and

> nuclear bomb program preemption, nuclear waste

> disposal, etc.

> 

> To confirm most easily, go to www.oism.org/DDP .

> Then compare the Bush

> position with that of perpetual employment for

> regulators (promoted below).

> Which is closer to "Sound Science"?

> 

> Howard Long

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

> To: "know_nukes" <know_nukes@yahoogroups.com>;

> "radsafe"

> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 4:03 PM

> Subject: Article: Beware 'Sound Science.' It's

> Doublespeak for Trouble

> 

> 

> The following appeared in the opinion section of

> today's Washington Post.  While it may not directly

> relate to discussions about radiation safety and

> policy, I thought would be of interest.  It goes to

> the question of how fair government policies are

> developed.  To me, it again shows that policies,

> whether they be on climate control, nuclear waste,

> etc., are not formulated without political input.

> 

> The original appeared at

>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13994-2004Feb27.html

> 

> ---------------------------

> Beware 'Sound Science.' It's Doublespeak for Trouble

> 

> By Chris Mooney

> 

> Sunday, February 29, 2004; Page B02

> 

> When George W. Bush and members of his

> administration

> talk about environmental policy, the phrase "sound

> science" rarely goes unuttered. On issues ranging

> from

> climate change to the storage of nuclear waste in

> Nevada's Yucca Mountain, our president has assured

> us

> that he's backing up his decisions with careful

> attention to the best available research.

> 

> It's not just Bush: Republican lawmakers in the

> House

> of Representatives, led by Reps. Chris Cannon of

> Utah

> and Jim Gibbons of Nevada, have announced the

> formation of a "Sound Science Caucus" to ramp up the

> role of "empirical" and "peer reviewed" data in laws

> such as the Endangered Species Act. And last August

> the Office of Management and Budget unveiled a

> proposal to amplify the role of "peer review" in the

> evaluation of scientific research conducted by

> federal

> agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency

> (EPA).

> 

> It all sounds noble enough, but the phrases "sound

> science" and "peer review" don't necessarily mean

> what

> you might think. Instead, they're part of a lexicon

> used to put a pro-science veneer on policies that

> most

> of the scientific community itself tends to be up in

> arms about. In this Orwellian vocabulary, "peer

> review" isn't simply an evaluation by learned

> colleagues. Instead, it appears to mean an

> industry-friendly plan to require such exhaustive

> analysis that federal agencies could have a hard

> time

> taking prompt action to protect public health and

> the

> environment. And "sound science" can mean, well,

> not-so-sound science.

> 

> Dig into the origins of the phrase "sound science"

> as

> a slogan in policy disputes, and its double meaning

> becomes clearer. That use of the term goes back to a

> campaign waged by the tobacco industry to undermine

> the indisputable connection between smoking and

> disease. Industry documents released as a result of

> tobacco litigation show that in 1993 Philip Morris

> and

> its public relations firm, APCO Associates, created

> a

> nonprofit front group called The Advancement of

> Sound

> Science Coalition (TASSC) to fight against the

> regulation of cigarettes. To mask its true purpose,

> TASSC assembled a range of anti-regulatory interests

> under one umbrella. The group also challenged the

> now

> widely accepted notion that secondhand smoke poses

> health risks.

> 

> Since then, other industry groups have invoked

> "sound

> science" to ease government restrictions. In 1996,

> Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National

> Association of Manufacturers, said GOP presidential

> candidate Bob Dole's "emphasis on sound science, the

> need to apply cost-benefit analyses and finding some

> way to enforce common sense in the regulatory

> process

> are most important to the business community." In

> April 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task

> force

> urged the Interior Department to open up more of

> Alaska for oil and gas drilling based on "sound

> science and the best available technology." Last

> October, Allen James, president of Responsible

> Industry for a Sound Environment, a group of

> manufacturers and suppliers of pest management

> products, urged the use of pesticides to kill

> disease-carrying mosquitoes in a letter to the Post.

> "As a citizen, I expect my elected officials to

> consider sound science in making decisions that

> affect

> my health and the health of my neighbors. Sound

> science says pesticide sprays are safe and

> effective,"

> he wrote.

> 

> The phrase "sound science" has also become part of a

> political sales pitch. In 2002, Republican pollster

> and strategist Frank Luntz wrote in a memorandum for

> GOP congressional candidates that "The most

> important

> principle in any discussion of global warming is

> your

> commitment to sound science." The choice of words --

> as much as policy -- was the key to swaying public

> opinion, he suggested, providing a voter-friendly

> vocabulary list. On climate change, "The scientific

> debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed,"

> he

> added. "There is still a window of opportunity to

> challenge the science." In this instance, "sound

> science" seems to mean undermining the robust

> consensus that has developed in the scientific

> community on climate change -- precisely the

> opposite

> of what you'd expect.

> 

> The fact that Democrats such as former EPA

> administrator Carol Browner and Sen. John F. Kerry

> have used the phrase to defend their views only

> furthers Luntz's goal of blurring distinctions on

> these issues.

> 

> President Bush isn't claiming that cigarettes are

> safe. But if you switch from examining rhetoric to

> analyzing policy, it turns out that he's treating

> science in much the same way that tobacco companies

> did -- as a means of justifying predetermined

> political conclusions. In a statement this month by

> the Union of Concerned Scientists, more than 60

> scientific luminaries -- including leading

> policymakers from previous administrations and 20

> Nobel laureates -- charge that Bush has

> "systematically" undermined the role traditionally

> played by scientific information in presidential

> policymaking.

> 

> None of these scientists thinks Bush's science is

> actually sound -- and they ought to know. In fact,

> if

> you examine the administration's record, Bush's

> supposed commitment to science unravels in much the

> same way that the case for war against Iraq did.

> Instead, an alternative narrative emerges, in which

> many science policies have been corrupted by

> political

> considerations.

> 

> Start early in the administration, with the 2001

> release of the third assessment by the

> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

> Marshaling the work of thousands of scientists

> worldwide, the U.N. body found that climate change

> was

> indeed happening, thanks to our relentless pumping

> of

> 

=== message truncated ===





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"The care of human life and happiness . . . is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Thomas Jefferson



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.

http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/