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

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

I have, and am still not impressed.  Sorry.



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

> 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

> 

=== 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/