Published earlier today on my environmental blog, Chemisty for a sustainable world.
The EPA should be contributing to public health, sustainability, education on complex environmental concerns, and related issues. I know that its members work hard to do so, but they are often thwarted by management. Bob Grant of The Scientist.com wrote about criticism from Congress over the EPA shutting down or limiting access to important libraries (note, free registration may be necessary to view this and other articles linked to below below that are found on The Scientist.com) .
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) closure of several of its research libraries is flawed, unjustified and is depriving academics, government employees, and the public of crucial environmental data, according to a Congressional report released yesterday (Mar. 13).
Of the EPA's 26 libraries, six libraries have changed their hours of operation, and four others have been shut since 2006. These include its Office of Environmental Information headquarters library and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Chemical library, both in Washington, DC.
The report, issued by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO),…
Since I know EPA staff and scientists who are dedicated to making information available to researchers, State and Local governments, and the public, I can only speculate that these unfortunate plans must come from a combination of EPA's politically-appointed "leadership" and budget cuts imposed by the will of the Bush White House.
In what may be a closely related story, Christopher Lee of the Washington Post reported that:
Unions at the Environmental Protection Agency have pulled out of a long-standing partnership with management, saying Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has failed to deal in good faith on issues such as scientific integrity and job evaluations.
In a Feb. 29 letter to Johnson, 19 union leaders, who represent 10,000 EPA employees, complained that he and other top managers have ignored the advice of unionized workers and the agency's own principles of scientific integrity. They cited issues that include fluoride drinking-water standards, a California bid to limit greenhouse gases, and mercury emissions from power plants.
It is important to note what Mr. Lee reports about the scientific integrity agreements between EPA management and employees:
The agency's scientific-integrity principles, jointly developed by unions and managers during the Clinton administration, call for employees to ensure that their scientific work is of the highest integrity, and to represent it fairly, acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others and avoid financial conflicts.
We see yet more examples of how the Bush White House has weakened the EPA in times of great environmental turmoil, when data and public understanding of data are critically important. At a time when the US needs public trust in the EPA, the actions of political appointees involved with environmental decision-making continue to erode that trust. Specific examples include denial of the requested changes to California automotive CO2 emissions standards, registration of toxic and highly carcinogenic methyl iodide as a fumigant, refusal of the Federal government to obey court orders to uphold the Endangered Species Act and related denial of scientific data that was later overturned by the courts.
The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to set the air quality standards to protect public health and the environment. But the White House is now interfering with new efforts by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Ignoring scientists is nothing new for Bush, but in this case he also ignored the U.S. Supreme Court. The EPA wanted to include a tougher secondary standard during growing seasons, designed to protect forests, crops and other plants from ozone, which retards plant growth and depletes soil moisture. Alarmed at the costs this would exact on polluters, the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson saying the EPA couldn't impose such limits without considering their economic effect. This is flatly untrue; a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in 2001 held that the EPA did not have to consider the costs of its clean-air regulations, only their scientific basis. When the EPA still refused to back down, the White House sent a curt letter saying the agency had been overruled by the president: The secondary standard was out.
© James K. Bashkin, 2008
Technorati Tags:bush administration, carcinogenic chemical, co2 emissions, environmental conflict, endangered species act, environment, epa, epa management, epa unions, green, sustainability, methyl iodide registration, news, pollution, salmon endangered, toxic waste, washington post
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator


Comments: 12
Unfortunately, people cannot read my article. It was first flagged for "Profanity". As you may know, when an article gets flagged, it becomes unavailable for readers until reviewed by Gather Team. Gather Team recently must have lifted the ban, but now it's been flagged again, this time for "Crude or Indecent Language". I hesitate to say anything more, as this could lead to your article being flagged as well.
They and over 1600 other professionals and almost 11,000 individuals are callling on Congress to hold hearings so that federal officials are held accountable for failing to protect the public from fluoride.
Join them here
http://www.FluorideAction.Net/congress
Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Charles M.: what does this article have to do with global warming? Not much at all (about 5% of the article at most). So, if, for example, you could clarify what global warming has to do with killing salmon in the Pacific Northwest with banned pesticides that are still in use in a manner that in violates a Federal court order, I'd appreciate the clarification. The same goes for making EPA data unavailable: how is that relevant to anyone's views on global warming? These are issues of serious concern, no matter what one believes about global warming.
Nys. C.: I can't admit to having any special knowledge on fluoridation as of today, but I'll check out your links- thanks for those! However, I can relate an anecdote on the subject. In the very early 1960's, or perhaps 1959, Pasadena was considering the serious issue of fluoridation. There was a lot of rhetoric from all sides. My dad was visiting the physics department at Caltech. They did an experiment: they sent some tap water for chemical analysis. It turn out that the natural fluoride level was about 10-fold higher than what the city council proposed adding (and later did add, I believe).