Junk Science ???
Definitions: ... "junk science" is the
term that corporate defenders apply
to any research, no matter how rigourous,
that justifies regulations to protect
the environment and public health.
The opposing term, "sound science,"
is used in reference to any research,
no matter how flawed, that can be
used to challenge, defeat, or reverse
environmental and public health
protection. ( Trust Us, We're Experts,
ISBN 1-58542-139-1, p. 222-223). Click here
for another review of the book.
The "Sound Science" mantra is alive and well in the Saginaw Valley. Anyone
with an interest in the local Dow dioxin contamination needs to take a few moments to
reflect upon the history of the phrase and those who use it. As predicted, the words of "sound
science" are being uttered by the usual suspects: Dow Chemical and it's
supporters. So how does one identify possible deceptive information when they
hear it? Simply listen for the red flag phrases of "sound science" ,
"good science", "junk science", or "poor science". Be
especially leery if spoken by Dow representatives, local public health officials,
conservative legislators (and their political supporters). Use of these
phrases by the average citizen may be benign as most have no knowledge of the corporate
sponsored misinformation campaign behind it.
What do the promoters of "sound science" hope to gain? There is no
simple answer, you will have to read all the information below to form an opinion of your
own. The short answer is paralysis by analysis, i.e. the ability to
talk and do nothing at the public's expense. In TRW's opinion, the solution is THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, click here for details
Below are links to extensive research pertaining to the shadowy world of "sound
science" proponents:
 | 6/4/06 Dow's Paustenbach "scientist for hire" a fraud, T.River studies
compromised "In a real-life epilogue to "Erin Brockovich," a peer-reviewed
medical journal will retract a fraudulent article written and placed by a
science-for-hire consulting firm whose CEO sits on a key federal toxics panel.
The retraction follows a six- month internal review by the journal, prompted by
an Environmental Working Group (EWG) investigation" ... "It is abundantly clear
that CDC's contractor, ChemRisk, does not have the necessary scientific or
ethical integrity to engender public trust," EWG's Wiles wrote to CDC Director
Julie Gerberding in March. "It is also clear that ChemRisk founder and president
Dennis Paustenbach has been directly involved in the firm's unethical behavior."
Click here to view entire
article, source: www.ascribe.org.
Why should we be concerned? Dow's "Sound Science" has Paustenbach
fingerprints all over them
Paustenbach is involved with a number of firms contracted by Dow for their
manipulated studies. "There is a whole industry that
exists to convince regulators that exposures aren't dangerous in order to get
companies off the hook and Paustenbach and (his former firm) Exponent are
in the
middle of that industry." ," says David Michaels, an environmental research
professor at George Washington University who served as assistant secretary for
Environment, Safety and Health at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1998
through January 2001. Incidentally, when a Newark Star-Ledger's
investigator asked a former Clinton Administration environmental official about
Paustenbach, he replied: "Ah, Dr. Evil."
 | Dennis Paustenbach for hire, current and former affiliated companies
(that we know of):
 | ChemRisk, Dennis Paustenbach
CEO and founder
| Dow Chemical is a client |
| ChemRisk was once a division of McLaren/Hart |
|
| Exponent, Inc., Paustenbach,
former Corporate Vice President
| Dow Chemical is a client |
|
| McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation (defunct?)
| Pausenbach not mentioned, but
this is the type of company that hired him:
The Board of Ethics (the “Board”) pursuant to the authority
contained in LSA-R.S. 42:1141, conducted a private investigation
concerning information that William Kucharski, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, may have violated
Section 1111C(2)(d) of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics (LSA-R.S.
42:1101 et seq.) (the “Code”) by sharing in income received by his
wife, Lynn Kucharski, as salary for services performed for McLaren/Hart
Environmental Engineering Corporation (“McLaren/Hart”), at a time
when that corporation had substantial economic interests which Mr.
Kucharski could affect by the performance of his official
responsibilities. |
|
| Stauffer Chemical |
| Syntex Pharmaceuticals |
|
| Dow's 2002 bioavailability study for
Mid-Michigan designed by Paustenbach would have raised the allowable level
of dioxins to 831 ppt (from the current 90 ppt RDCC). The proposal was
part of Dow's failed 2002 attempt to manipulate the
former corrupt Michigan DEQ
administration to ram through an
ILLEGAL
Corrective Action Consent Order (CACO).
|
| The on-going, Dow funded
"Oral
Bioavailability of Dioxins/Furans in Midland and Tittabawassee River Flood
Plain Soils" study is being prepared by Exponent. |
| Originally proposed in the 2002 CACO,
Paustenbachs proposed "Probabilistic Risk Assessment" methods resurfaces in
Dow's 2005
RIA Scope
of Work for the Tittabawassee River floodplain. The EPA stated
such methods are not allowed in it's 2006 letter of "Critical
Deficiency comments". |
| Paustenbach is a member of the EPA's Science
Advisory Board and participates in the EPA's
Dioxin Reassessment Review. Much to the Chemical industries
delight, his "contributions" have assisted in delaying the agencies final
report by almost 15 years.
|
| Interesting: Dr. David Garabrant, the U of
M professor heading the Dow funded Human Dioxin
Exposure Pathway study shares a seat with Paustenbach on the
Mickey
Leland National Urban Air Toxic Research Center Scientific Advisory
Panel. Any chance Paustenbach is influencing Garabrant? |
The Environmental Working Group
put together an excellent expose on the matter, below are the tactics used by
Paustenbach to fraudulently submit "sound science" papers to unsuspecting
Medical journals.
| Failure to disclose who wrote the manuscript.
|
| Failure to disclose that the study was funded by PG&E.
|
| Falsely stating in the published paper that stomach
cancer rates weren't available for the province. |
| Basing analysis on the level of contamination detected in
the wells in 1965, knowing that by the end of that year the picture of
contamination in the wells had dramatically changed. |
| Ignoring useful data that were readily available.
|
| Misrepresenting the study design in several ways to make
it seem stronger. |
| Failing to disclose key facts about the data presented.
|
| Simultaneous submission to two journals. |
The bottom line: The next time you hear Dow supporter utter "Sound
Science", think of Dr. Evil
|
| 01/29/06
WHO bars Dow from participating in setting global protection standards According to a recent API
story, The International Life Sciences Institute
, funded by hundreds of corporations including Dow Chemical, was barred by the
World Health Organization (WHO) from helping
set global standards for protecting food and water supplies because of its
funding sources.
| "The WHO and other public health agencies risk their
scientific credibility and may be compromising public health by
partnering with ILSI," |
| "the institute 'has a demonstrated history of putting
the interests of its exclusively corporate membership ahead of science
and health concerns, and that ILSI's special status with the WHO provides a
back door to influence WHO activities.' |
|
|
06/14/06
Canadians contesting the false principle of "Sound Science", what about US?
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act
calls on the government to use
'precaution'
in its risk management of toxins, but the principle has not been used.
"As the federal government comes under
criticism for failing to properly regulate toxins and carcinogens in
consumer products and the environment, the Standing Committee on
Environment heard last week that government departments have relied on a
faulty approach of using "sound
science" to determine the risks associated with toxins." ... "Sound
science, if you read any of the literature on it, was a term created
by industry, deliberately, to interject uncertainty, to interject doubt
into decision-making. So the fact that we have sound science in our
federal documentation suggests that we're really lining ourselves up
with the kind of language the industry uses, deliberately, to undermine
action." ...
Click here to view the
entire article |
| Sound Science ?
| The Fraud of "Sound
Science" (links to www.gadflyer.com)
| "Much of the modern conservative agenda on science is embodied in the
enigmatic phrase "sound science," a term used with increasing frequency these
days despite its apparent lack of a clear, agreed-upon definition. In one sense,
"sound science" simply means "good science." Indeed, when unwitting
liberals and journalists have been caught using the phrase - which happens quite
frequently - it appears to have been with this meaning in mind. ... Conservatives, too,
want people to hear "good science" when they say "sound
science." But there are reasons for thinking they actually mean something more by the
term. ... In this sense, "sound science" seems to mean requiring a high
burden of proof before taking government action to protect public health and the
environment (not really a scientific position at all). ... U.S. House of
Representatives, chaired by Utah Republican Chris Cannon, notes that "environmental
laws should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific
certainty" - once again, a policy statement rather than one having to do strictly
with science. " Chris Mooney, www.gadflyer.com
|
|
| Behind Closed Doors
| Chemical Industry Initiatives to Discredit and Stall the Release of the EPA’s
Dioxin Reassessment |
| Conflict of Interest: How the Chemical
Industry Stacks Scientific Peer Review Panels |
| Public Participation: The Chemical
Industry’s Attempt to Ram Through a Policy that Would Squash Freedom of Speech |
| Bait and Switch: Science Advisory Board
Report on November Meeting |
| Lawsuits: A Way to Conceal Information
from the Public |
| Stall
Tactics: Delay is the Name of the Game |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Junkscience.com - Backers and funding - the Truth
| Steven Milloy & junkscience.com links
to industry
| "Junkman" Steven Milloy has made a career of lobbying for
polluting industries, heading corporate front groups to deny environmental concerns, and
ridiculing individual environmentalists on behalf of corporate interests. In the world
according to Milloy, any scientific study that does not support the world view where all
chemicals are safe is "junk science", all environmentalists are alarmist, and
pollution and second hand smoke are harmless. The labels fly fast and furious, regardless
of where the scientific mainstream falls on an issue and regardless of what point we are
at in the scientific discovery process." |
|
| Perspectives on right-wing
and libertarian think-tanks,
| "[Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Web site, August 16, 1998] [T]his
"sound science" coalition is supported by hundreds of corporations, including
3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Occidental Petroleum, Philip
Morris, Proctor & Gamble and W.R. Grace. Its objective is to act as a speakers bureau
to deliver the corporate message that environmental public policy is not currently based
on "sound science," and to counter excessive regulations that are based on what
it considers "junk" science. O’Dywer’s PR Services reports that TASSC
is "leading the charge against what it views as the unholy alliance between
environmentalists and the media" (Feb. 1996). " |
|
|
| Media susceptible to Sound Science spin
|
12/13/05
Fair and balanced reporting? Other than for the headline,
today's local news coverage of Granholms possible veto of HB4617, the story
is entirely one sided with no input from the homeowners and the rest of the
state that want the bill vetoed. Recently (12/8, see
story below), the local newspaper published an article about toxins in
the Great Lakes and edited out a key paragraph about the human health effects of
dioxin and other compounds. This pattern was repeated on a local radio
station which aired two interviews this morning. The first segment was
with an individual from Midland representing those few which favor Dow Chemical,
the second was with Lone Tree Councils Terry Miller, representing the rest of
us. The radio host was all warm and gushy with the Dow guy and
virtually attacked Terry. Click on the links below to listen to the Lone
Tree radio broadcasts:
|
|
12/8/05 Report:
Don't kid yourself - toxins persist in the Great Lakes.
| All but one paragraph of this report was printed on front page (not
on-line) by the local newspaper. |
| Below is the section the left out:
| "(The board cites) compelling
evidence that contaminants we've known about for decades -- PCBs,
dioxin and mercury -- are causing increased disease, reduced IQs and
other serious health problems in humans," said Mike Magner, a
researcher with the center. "On top of that, they warn that a host
of other chemicals -- flame retardants, plastics additives and even
cosmetics and health-care products -- may be compounding those
problems" |
|
| Click here
for the complete article
|
|
| NPR bias |
| Legislators jump in on dioxin issue |
| Residents pack MCFTA to hear dioxin
answers |
| Example of "Sound Science" jargon
slipping into local media reports |
| Example of "Sound Science" jargon
slipping into local media reports |
|
| Fraudulent and/or suspicious Health studies basis for Dioxin Sound Science?
| Dioxin Health Study Fraud
| "Monsanto has in fact submitted false information to EPA which
directly resulted in weakened regulations under RCRA and FIFRA since these
regulations do not take into account tetrachlorinated dioxin contamination in trig, tetra,
and pentachlorophenols, as well as 2,4-dichlorophenol and its phenoxy acetate (2,3-D, a
currently used herbicide). In addition, Monsanto's failure to report dioxin contamination
of the disinfectant in Lysol has prevented any ban or other alleviation of human exposures
to dioxins in this product. " |
| "The Monsanto human health studies have been submitted to EPA by
Monsanto as part of public comments on proposed dioxin rules and Agency-wide dioxin health
studies are continually relied upon by all offices of EPA to conclude that dioxins have
not caused cancer or other health effects (other than chloracne) in humans. Thus,
dioxin has been given a lesser carcinogenic potential ranking, which continues to be the
basis of less stringent regulations and lesser degrees of environmental controls. The
Monsanto studies in question also have been a key basis for denying compensation to
Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange and their children suffering birth defects from
such parental exposures." |
|
| Industry's "True Lies" - The
politics behind the scientific debate on dioxin |
| Dow Chemical Midland Area Mortality
studies (as posted on www.dioxinspin.com) |
| MDEQ / ATSDR
comments on Dow funded U of M "Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study 3/12/04
|
|
| Governmental leaders behind Sound Science?
|
| Attacks on whistle blowers by Sound Science promoters
|
| University Research by Sound Science promoters
|
Powered by
|
Tittabawassee
River Watch www.trwnews.net
