WASHINGTON, May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
again is using "secret science" to push for more regulation, says Steven
Milloy, publisher of the Junk Science Home Page. On May 1, the EPA proposed
that sports utility vehicles (SUVs) meet more stringent tailpipe emissions
standards and gasoline contain less sulfur.
"No one can verify the statistical analysis underlying the EPA's wild
assertion the rules would save 2,400 lives per year," said Milloy. "Without
examining the data, we don't know the rules will save any lives whatsoever.
Without the claimed benefits, there is little basis for regulation."
The EPA claims the rules would produce between $200 million and $16
billion in net annual benefits. But up to $14.3 billion of these benefits are
based on the EPA's unverified assertion.
"This estimate of lives saved is based on a single, controversial
statistical analysis," said Milloy. "Many suspect the analysis (known as the
'Pope study') is 'junk science.' The data may be of such poor quality that
the statistical analysis is akin to 'garbage in-garbage out.' But the EPA has
so far blocked all attempts -- even by Congress -- to have the study
independently examined."
The House Commerce Committee asked EPA administrator Carol Browner to "use
all means available" to obtain the Pope study's data during a 1997 rulemaking
for air quality standards. Though the EPA paid for the study, the researchers
refused, and the agency refused to compel the researchers to make the data
available to the public for independent confirmation.
"Withholding scientific data paid for by taxpayers -- especially in the
context of public policy -- is outrageous," said Michael Gough, a former
government scientist. "The scientific method requires data be available for
review to see if the conclusions are valid. Without validation, the results
cannot be considered scientific."
A federal law signed by President Clinton in 1998 requires federally
funded data used to support federal policy be available to the public through
the Freedom of Information Act. "This looks to be a good test case for the
new data access law," said Milloy.
For more information, visit the http://www.junkscience.com.
SOURCE Junk Science Home Page
 back to top
Related links:
http://www.junkscience.com
CONTACT:
Steven Milloy, publisher of the Junk Science
Home Page, 202-467-8586 or milloy@cais.com
|
