It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA Scientists' Work May Face Review By Trump Team to be released to the public

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MGVSB

Nevertheless.
"And yet, it moves."




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Phony science is the next big exposure.

Many will fall.

one example:
EPA Finally Admits What Has Been Killing Bees For Decades




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MGVSB

Nevertheless.
"And yet, it moves."



But not in a real rhythm, it's just crawling.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Phony science is the next big exposure.

So, it's phony science that says an insecticide can kill insects?
edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Phony science is the next big exposure.

Many will fall.

one example:
EPA Finally Admits What Has Been Killing Bees For Decades





Subverting science
In reviewing the health and environmental impacts of pesticide products, EPA relies almost entirely on industry-funded studies.

Chemical companies commonly sit on panels and committees that "advise" regulators as well. A representative from Dow Chemical, for instance, served on the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee for EPA. And, much too often, there is a “revolving door” of former agrichemical industry executives, lawyers and scientists serving in government agencies tasked with industry oversight.

Even though corporate studies — and corporate representatives — are often driving regulatory decisions, this research is rarely available for public or peer review. Instead, it is kept out of sight under the auspices of “Confidential Business Information” or patent protection.

When scientists do unearth harmful impacts of pesticide products, the Big 6 will go to great lengths to suppress their findings. Just ask Dr. Tyrone Hayes of UC Berkeley, for instance. When his research on atrazine highlighted the endocrine-disrupting properties of Syngenta’s flagship herbicide, the corporation launched a campaign to discredit him, including commissioning a psychological report, planting company reps at speaking engagements, and even targeting his wife for investigation.

Lobby pressure
Not surprisingly, the agricultural industry maintains an army of lobbyists in D.C., state capitals and countries worldwide to protect their interests.

As a special interest lobbying bloc, agribusiness spends over $90 million a year lobbying Congress. They wield influence in an array of areas, from anti-trust, patent and tort law to labeling, food safety, insurance and financial services regulation.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington, D.C., claims to be the "voice of farmers." In fact, they lobby for corporate agribusiness and speak on behalf of a membership base comprised not of farmers, but of insurance industry affiliates.

In 2014, the agricultural input industry alone spent $30 million on lobbying. Monsanto and Biotechnology Industry Organization spent over $12 million combined.


Source



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

The President is on solid ground. Case rested...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Swish.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen


one example:

So, it's fake science that says an insecticide can kill insects?



Science could do more than that, if it were not limited to what should be exposed and what should be kept, remember that the pillars of this civilization are "hired" to remain in misery.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Phage

Swish.

As usual, a pertinent response from someone who does not read the actual source. From someone who prefers someone else to digest the hard parts for them.


edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I can only guess what xuenchen is thinking at this exact moment. (censored).
edit on 12-3-2017 by Neith because: xtentuion



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
in anycase those points really dont pertain to whats in the article. u have to remember the context of the time. the EPA had just been told they had to get permission to tweet policy changes. this caused an uproar which is the impetus for this article. all the administration is trying to do, like every new administration before it, is to get all the various agencies on the same page so they are all working towards whatever vision is intended by the administration and u dont have dissenters within the ranks putting up roadblocks every chance they get. this again is nothing new and is done by every new admin when it gets into office. only thing i really see is people making the assumption that this is a negative thing when we really just dont know. it could be good or bad, only time will tell.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

If Trump was a facist, he would look like Obama, act like Bush, and smell like Clinton.

You're so wrong.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Except of course, for the history (and belief system) of its new head.
No cause for concern there, right?

edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
One of the lamentable errors of science is satisfaction in the place of devotion, it is only with a high index of devotion to what is true that, one can get somewhere and, to, the believe that science has a "material" proof, that Is not exposed

If of is science it is indifferent, it is below what is [space-mind-time]



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

Except of course, for the history (and belief system) of its new head.
No cause for concern there, right?


well ill put it this way, i can completely understand why someone wouldnt have wanted to vote for Trump, but i cant wrap my head around anyone wanting to vote for Hillary.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MGVSB

Yoda?
Is that you?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

Except of course, for the history (and belief system) of its new head.
No cause for concern there, right?


well ill put it this way, i can completely understand why someone wouldnt have wanted to vote for Trump, but i cant wrap my head around anyone wanting to vote for Hillary.

I'll put it this way; what does that have to do with the topic?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

Except of course, for the history (and belief system) of its new head.
No cause for concern there, right?


well ill put it this way, i can completely understand why someone wouldnt have wanted to vote for Trump, but i cant wrap my head around anyone wanting to vote for Hillary.

I'll put it this way; what does that have to do with the topic?


what did your opinion on trump have to do with the topic when u asked the question?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Where did I express an opinion on Trump (in this thread)?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MGVSB

Yoda?
Is that you?



Of course this extravagant humor is intelligible, but try to understand that there are many intentional machinations, and the obscene profits of the war leave little money for research, you can not go against it!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join