Senate Report finds ALA involved in criminal conspiracy with EPA to push thru predatory air quality regs

[DrMA]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=b90f742e-b797-4a82-a0a3-e6848467832a

Why is this relevant to vaping? Well, remember all the FUD peddled by ANTZ about ultra-fine particles and the alleged danger they pose. That was transparent gilded turd to begin with (liquid vs solid and all). Now it turns out there is no evidence that ultra-fine particles of any kind are dangerous to health other than the evidence manufactured by ALA and their corrupt conspirators within EPA.

In addition, much of the anti-smoking legislation is also based on the EPA PM2.5 standards invented by this criminal conspiracy. We already have ample evidence that second hand smoke has no discernible health effects, and this Senate Report provides the explanation for these findings: the entire thing was concocted by ALA.

This article explains some of the details:
EPA Under Fire for Concealing Controversial Scientific Data, Silencing Skeptics

 

[Rickajho]

Hmmm...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=b90f742e-b797-4a82-a0a3-e6848467832a click!

My lord - I'm only on page seven and have to put it down for the night. When do the bawdy ladies and drug cartels show up in this novella?

Is this all really... real?

 

[philoshop]

Thanks for posting this DrMa. I've been following the EPA's proposed restrictions regarding wood-burning heating appliances for the past couple of years, and this will be good fodder for the discussions.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I don't see any criminal conspiracy (as stated in DrMA's headline) in that Minority Senate Cmte report. Rather, the report properly challenges some EPA claims about the health risks of different levels of PM 2.5, and tries to scapegoat one person (who scammed some money from the federal government) as the culprit.

Besides, the report was written by staff of Jim Inhofe (a very partisan Senator who has his own scientific credibility conflicts).

That's called business as usual in DC.

 

[DrMA]

I don't see any criminal conspiracy (as stated in DrMA's headline), just more misrepresentations of scientific evidence to confuse, scare and lobby for more unwarranted federal regulations.

That's called business as usual in DC.

Besides, the report was issued by Sen. James Inhofe, who also has some scientific credibility issues.

So an industry lobby group makes a shady backroom deal with govt officials to sue the govt in order to push unwarranted federal regs based on lies & junk studies while the corrupt govt employees obstruct the evaluation of the evidence. If this isn't criminal conspiracy, I don't know what is.

 

[Bill Godshall]

DrMA wrote:

In addition, much of the anti-smoking legislation is also based on the EPA PM2.5 standards invented by this criminal conspiracy. We already have ample evidence that second hand smoke has no discernible health effects, and this Senate Report provides the explanation for these findings: the entire thing was concocted by ALA.

Nothing like misrepresenting (er denying the existance of) several hundred studies (that have found secondhand smoke is associated with many different health problems) by citing one study that didn't find a link between lung cancer and 2nd hand smoke exposure.

That's like saying there's no evidence gunshots can kill a person by citing several shooting victims who didn't die.

 

[Uma]

Thanks for posting this DrMa. I've been following the EPA's proposed restrictions regarding wood-burning heating appliances for the past couple of years, and this will be good fodder for the discussions.

Ditto. Plus the truckers carb fight, which as we know, is based on junk science, and crony loans, iseemingly nstigated for putting more mom & pops out of business.
Good find Dr. Ma!

 

[Uma]

Funny isn't it, how we citizens fought and corrected plumes of pollution throughout the century. Now the EPA comes along and fear mongers over "particles", fines people up the ying yang, and drives everyone out of business. Sinister.

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

spare the air days...no wood burning, dont warm yourselves like humans have been doing for thousands of years use our electricity and gas.

 

[AndriaD]

spare the air days...no wood burning, dont warm yourselves like humans have been doing for thousands of years use our electricity and gas.

I know, right? Instead of burning trees, which grow and grow again, let's burn some dead dinosaurs, and when all the dead dinosaurs are gone... then what? Don't burn organic stuff, burn this poisonous stuff instead!

I recently read that Utah is considering implementing a wood-fire ban. What total idiots.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

DrMA wrote:



Nothing like misrepresenting (er denying the existance of) several hundred studies (that have found secondhand smoke is associated with many different health problems) by citing one study that didn't find a link between lung cancer and 2nd hand smoke exposure.

That's like saying there's no evidence gunshots can kill a person by citing several shooting victims who didn't die.

If second-hand tobacco smoke was as dangerous as the smoke nazis would have us believe, the human race would have ceased to exist about 200-300 yrs ago. Well, we didn't.

I do believe that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous to SOME people -- but not everyone, not by a very long shot -- the human race did not go extinct when tobacco smoking really caught on and nearly everyone was doing it.

Sulfites are dangerous to SOME people -- they can cause anything from fullblown asthma attack to complete pulmonary collapse in asthmatics, which nowadays means about 25% of the population. But sulfites are still perfectly legal, still found in a great many foods -- and the FDA leaves it up to the asthmatics themselves to figure out which foods those are, and avoid them, rather than doing their mandated job and banning them. And this is for a product that does absolutely NOTHING but preserve color -- which sulfur dioxide can do just as well, and does NOT cause asthmatics any problems.

Andria

 

[DrMA]

DrMA wrote:



Nothing like misrepresenting (er denying the existance of) several hundred studies (that have found secondhand smoke is associated with many different health problems) by citing one study that didn't find a link between lung cancer and 2nd hand smoke exposure.

That's like saying there's no evidence gunshots can kill a person by citing several shooting victims who didn't die.

See? that's the problem Bill. TC lying about vaping has opened my eyes and called into question everything they've ever said. I've noticed EVERYTHING they say about vaping is exactly opposite of reality. Therefore, the only reasonable, evidence-based conclusion is everything they said about smoking is also exactly opposite of reality.

Going forward, as the TC lies and propaganda against vaping and smoking grow increasingly shrill, it's common sense to unreservedly assume that every claim they put forward makes its exact negation more likely to be true.

 

[LeftofCenter]

Thanks for posting this DrMa. I've been following the EPA's proposed restrictions regarding wood-burning heating appliances for the past couple of years, and this will be good fodder for the discussions.

philoshop, I am ashamed to admit I must have my head under a rock because I was unaware of this issue. While I do not have television, I do read news online, but this has escaped me. I will now be looking into the matter. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it is a matter that is important to me.

 

[CarolT]

There's a whole lot more to this story. Note that Beale was a senior leader in the Office of Air and Radiation since the late 1980s, when that office was responsible for the EPA's report on secondhand smoke! This report was released in the final days of the GHW Bush administration - which the Republicans don't wish to mention, not just for obvious partisan reasons, but because then-President Bush is directly implicated in the creation and release of that corrupt report! His campaign manager was a director of the crooked EPA contractor that handled the illegal pass-through contracts to known militant anti-smokers. The lite version of this tale is here.

Even their criticism of the EPA's science is just quibbling. That Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society data was re-analyzed by Tony Cox et al. (whose work is not cited here), who found that "Temperature, Not Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), is Causally Associated with Short-Term Acute Daily Mortality Rates" in those cities.

But the true causal factor that the PM2.5 demagogues are ignoring is the influenza virus: "...the cause of the winter increase in US mortality is singular and probably influenza. Weather and other factors may determine the timing and modulate the magnitude of the winter-season increase in mortality, but the primary determinant appears to be the influenza virus." So ultimately it's that same old fraud of ignoring the role of infection.

Influenza Causes Deaths From Heart and Respiratory Disease

And I think Beale lied about being a CIA agent to protect the identity of his real handlers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who are so obviously intent on pushing all these regulations.

 

[AndriaD]

So, does anyone know which prison is hosting Prisoner Beale?

Andria

 

[EBates]

The really sad part of the EPA scandal is I'm Not Surprised At All. The only amazing part to me is that so few of these 'scandals' get the light shined on them.
Government For The Money and By The Money

 

[Jman8]

Nothing like misrepresenting (er denying the existance of) several hundred studies (that have found secondhand smoke is associated with many different health problems) by citing one study that didn't find a link between lung cancer and 2nd hand smoke exposure.

Nothing like supporting the ANTZ (studies) when it comes to smoking but then completely denying the science when it comes to vaping studies.

I bet for every smoking study you link to (which you never seem to do), the same source (funding organization) will have a study on vaping, showing how incredibly dangerous vaping is to both users and bystanders. What does the CDC, AHA, ALA, ACS and the like have to say on smoking? Then same question but replace smoking with vaping? Are they absolutely right about smoking and absolutely wrong about vaping? How do you reconcile such nonsense?

 

[CarolT]

Also, Beale's wife, Nancy Kete, was a senior analyst in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation in 1989. She was in the newspapers about the costs of acid rain legislation.

As for the American Lung Association lawsuit that supposedly forced the compressed timeline on them, probably our old arch-enemy Jonathan Samet had a role in instigating this. He's been deeply involved in all the Surgeon General reports relating to smoking, as well as the IARC and also the ASHRAE reports, and he's now the head of the scientific advisory committee of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He is also an author of the 2004 NMMAPS 95-city ozone study.
Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000

 

[Uma]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=b90f742e-b797-4a82-a0a3-e6848467832a

Why is this relevant to vaping? Well, remember all the FUD peddled by ANTZ about ultra-fine particles and the alleged danger they pose. That was transparent gilded turd to begin with (liquid vs solid and all). Now it turns out there is no evidence that ultra-fine particles of any kind are dangerous to health other than the evidence manufactured by ALA and their corrupt conspirators within EPA.

In addition, much of the anti-smoking legislation is also based on the EPA PM2.5 standards invented by this criminal conspiracy. We already have ample evidence that second hand smoke has no discernible health effects, and this Senate Report provides the explanation for these findings: the entire thing was concocted by ALA.

This article explains some of the details:
EPA Under Fire for Concealing Controversial Scientific Data, Silencing Skeptics

The CARB disclosures just keep coming in. Dr. Enstrom presented a slide show at the CARB hearing. Interesting stuff about the EPA, UCLA, UCSF, .. the usual suspects. Dr. Enstrom is the dr whom they ignored and even dismissed, when he and other drs proved the SHS carb scare was nothing but phoney baloney. Anyway, our favorite evil person whom we can't say his name out loud, is mentioned a few times, at 11 and 21 marks I think it was. Not very nice person at all. Nope. Not at all. http://youtu.be/Tb1UDEzEBBY

 

[Kent C]

I'd point out that part and parcel of the attempts to push through the junk science is the attack on anyone who doesn't buy into the hoax and Jim Inhofe is that person, since he now chairs that committee and was the ranking member (minority, before election), so he will be attacked. If Bill has any real evidence of Inhofe's scientific 'conflicts' other than the attacks from econazis, then he should post it.

And in the original EPA meta study, there was only 2 studies out of 13 that showed any link to cancer and secondhand smoke, (and then only just passed the 1.0 mark needed to so state it), and the EPA had to fudge normal statistical constants in order to get their desired (and pre-conceived) non-scientific results. A judge pointed out the cherry picking and the blatant misuse of statistical constants in the suit that followed where the EPA lost. One study showed an inoculative effect where non-smoking spouses of smokers had less incidence of respiratory illness than the control group. That study was thrown out of the pick for the meta study by Carol Browner and her gang.