Michael,

I agree with you - 100%.

We may also want to take a closer look at the climate change issue - using the scientific method.

I am always suspicious of so called "settled science". Galileo was told the concept of the earth as the center of the universe was the "settled science of the day.

Just as so called "settled science" was often determined based on religion rather than real science in the time of Galileo the religion of environmentalism is often the determining factor today, and make no mistake about it - for many, environmentalism is today's religion.

Need I remind all of us that not long ago it was "settled science" that the pH in the duodenum was too low for bacteria to survive hence countless needless surgeries were performed worldwide for decades. Finally, a lone doctor in Australia experimented on himself and discovered that the settled science was indeed false and the rest is history. There is now almost no surgery performed for Duodenal Ulcers instead antibiotics are the typical treatment - saving thousands of lives.

A reexamination of the DDT bans for vector control of insects is also a good idea, especially in view of the fact that the driving force behind the ban was the result of a popular book (Silent Spring by Rachel Carson) of dubious scientific study that was never peer reviewed. Since the DDT bans went into effect in the 1960's millions of people in third world countries have perished from diseases that were previously controlled with DDT. May I add the these are largely people of color and are the poorest most powerless among us. Let's revisit DDT bans using peer review and genuine scientific methods.

Much of what passes for science today is really junk science popularized by a hasty and ignorant media and perpetuated by a population that has little or no math skills. Recent surveys reveal that only 1 out 14 Americans can even conceptualize very large and small quantities mush less handle the math necessary to recognize junk science when they see it.

We in the scientific community owe it to the rest of society to speak up whenever we suspect junk science. Remember the Mitzvah "Silence is agreement".

I am neither for or against environmentalism and animal protectionism. However, I am unequivocally for science and the real scientific method.

Respectfully yours,

Jim Keating

Member DCHAS

Margaret,

 

May I present a counterpoint presentation that may be more relevant? 

 

Rather than focusing on the political and social-economic policies during ANY administration, focus upon the fundamental scientific disciplines and science that have driven those decisions with resulting actions.

I was taught early in my career to focus on the fundamentals of science, objectively looking at the evidence, while disregarding obviously skewed or un-fundamental science. 

One of the better examples I used was arguing hundreds of scientifically sound, peer reviewed science journal articles against an article in "Mother Earth News" that was 180 degrees opposed to those articles. 

In my opinion, sound science should drive the proposed laws with good peer review and critical oversight. 

I read of a current example, which I think acknowledges this point. 

Why did a U.S. Judge rely upon "a potential to cause cancer" determination from the E.U., while completely disregarding the hundreds of U.S. based peer-reviewed articles showing no such distinction in the case of Round-Up. 

While the U.S. EPA reviewed all of those peer reviewed articles and determined that Round-Up did not cause cancer - but this determination was deemed not even admissible to the jurors who decided against the manufacturers of Round-Up.

I'm perplexed.  Is this science being influenced by politics?  Is this science being influenced by poor public education with a high level of ignorance (lack of knowledge - thanks to our public education system) among the jury pool? 

As the Father of 2/2 P.h.D.s, I would rather have our children taught how to critically evaluate and interpret the information being presented - regardless of source, then come to a decision based upon justifiably sound science. 

But this is my opinion only.  I'm not interested in denying or justifying political and socio-economic policies regarding occupational or environmental exposures. 

 

What I am interested in, is having our population know or being able to at least a reasonable question, if not even recognize a possible situation similar to that which occurred to those citizens of Flint Michigan. 

 

But that hope can only be addressed if the citizenry is properly educated in how to comprehend, digest, evaluate and argue for the safe application of scientific principles.  But that is only my hope, I fear it is not the current reality.

 

What a shame.  Why?

 

BruceV

 

P.S.  My opinion only.

 

 

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Margaret Rakas
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 5:39 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Evolution of chemical law and toxicology...

 

I have a colleague putting together a training presentation who is interested in "..the political and socio-economic policies that directly affect how companies release material information to consumers, how chemicals are regulated, and how workers are affected-- during such and such administration, this chemical was designated safe where in previous years it wasn't...a timeline of where chemical law has been and where it has led us to now"

 

I am looking for a helpful website (or several) that gives an overview...as we know, you can spend months going through the history of modern chemical regulation (and push-back from interest groups..)...I am looking for something more condensed and abbreviated.  The EPA history page is a deep-dive into many topics; the OSHA history page stops in 2010 (yes, it's true it's supposed to be a 40-year history but the page linking to the timeline writes as if it's current, and besides, there's a lot of non-chemical safety highlights...)...

 

Many thanks for any suggestions you can make-

Margaret

 

--

Margaret A. Rakas, Ph.D.
Lab Safety & Compliance Director
Clark Science Center
413-585-3877 (p)

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas