[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 'Sound Science'? Bush closer than big government promoters.
Look at the data, its sources, then judge for yourself, John.
www.oism.org/DDP
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; "know_nukes"
<know_nukes@yahoogroups.com>; "radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: 'Sound Science'? Bush closer than big government promoters.
> 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/