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?
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
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 A. Rakas, Ph.D.
Lab Safety & Compliance Director
Clark Science Center
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post