Frank, a good review of the field was done by Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology "Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A." - an analysis of more than 5000 safety-related studies that have been published on bisphenol A (BPA) & the conclusion that BPA is of no risk to health at the TDI recommended (Tolerable Daily Intake) - worth reading!
I already gave a link to it Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human h... [Crit Rev Toxicol. 2011] - PubMed result
Stuart, all I noticed, once I read the paper and started started Googling around, is that the area seemed awfully interesting in various ways.
I started looking where I did because that's what i could remember reading about.
I'm not sure that looking for a really interesting area of work is that mundane an idea. You could have stayed where you were and got the big bucks.
You're onto something, like I said.
The EPA ignores jobs in its rush to regulate
How important are jobs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Not very, according to recent testimony from EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. After Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., asked whether an EPA economic analysis of new coal ash regulations took into account potential job losses, Stanislaus replied: "Not directly, no." Gardner then followed up: "Is it standard procedure for an economic analysis to ignore the impact on jobs?" Stanislaus could only manage the following in return: "Well I can get back to you on the specific details of how we do economic analysis." It has been over three weeks since that exchange, yet Stanislaus has yet to answer Gardner's question satisfactorily.
The EPA should have been ready for this line of questioning. On Jan. 18, Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which directed the regulatory agencies to "protect pubic health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Is the EPA ignoring EO 13563?
Gardner is continuing to seek answers. Last week, he sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for details on how the EPA analyzes the effects of new regulations on job creation. Gardner is also asking for a list of all past regulations that were put into effect without any economic analysis of their impact on job creation. Finally, Gardner questions whether the EPA is purposefully ignoring Executive Order 13563 by failing to conduct periodic reviews of existing regulations with an eye toward job creation.
Last Friday, the Department of Labor released the April Employment Summary showing the nation's unemployment rate had risen to 9 percent. Despite White House promises that, if enacted, the Obama $825 billion economic stimulus program would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent, April marked the 27th straight month that unemployment was above that mark.
At a time of economic stringency, Obama would be doing everything in his power to allow the private sector to create jobs. He says he is. In his weekly radio address last Saturday, he told Americans: "Not a day that goes by that I'm not focused on your jobs, your hopes and your dreams." But you can't focus on what you don't measure. How can the Obama administration claim to be promoting job creation when the EPA isn't even analyzing what effect its regulations will have on jobs?
Despite strong public and congressional opposition, Obama's EPA is moving forward with its plan to vastly and unilaterally expand its regulatory reach, using the pretense of fighting global warming. The regulations will touch every aspect of the U.S. economy. The EPA needs to answer Gardner's letter in full, and it needs to do so before the agency does any more damage to the economy.
The EPA ignores jobs in its rush to regulate | Examiner Editorial | Opinion | Washington Examiner
Global Warming Hysteria
Climate Depot
How important are jobs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Not very, according to recent testimony from EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. After Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., asked whether an EPA economic analysis of new coal ash regulations took into account potential job losses, Stanislaus replied: "Not directly, no." Gardner then followed up: "Is it standard procedure for an economic analysis to ignore the impact on jobs?" Stanislaus could only manage the following in return: "Well I can get back to you on the specific details of how we do economic analysis." It has been over three weeks since that exchange, yet Stanislaus has yet to answer Gardner's question satisfactorily.
The EPA should have been ready for this line of questioning. On Jan. 18, Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which directed the regulatory agencies to "protect pubic health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Is the EPA ignoring EO 13563?
Gardner is continuing to seek answers. Last week, he sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for details on how the EPA analyzes the effects of new regulations on job creation. Gardner is also asking for a list of all past regulations that were put into effect without any economic analysis of their impact on job creation. Finally, Gardner questions whether the EPA is purposefully ignoring Executive Order 13563 by failing to conduct periodic reviews of existing regulations with an eye toward job creation.
Last Friday, the Department of Labor released the April Employment Summary showing the nation's unemployment rate had risen to 9 percent. Despite White House promises that, if enacted, the Obama $825 billion economic stimulus program would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent, April marked the 27th straight month that unemployment was above that mark.
At a time of economic stringency, Obama would be doing everything in his power to allow the private sector to create jobs. He says he is. In his weekly radio address last Saturday, he told Americans: "Not a day that goes by that I'm not focused on your jobs, your hopes and your dreams." But you can't focus on what you don't measure. How can the Obama administration claim to be promoting job creation when the EPA isn't even analyzing what effect its regulations will have on jobs?
Despite strong public and congressional opposition, Obama's EPA is moving forward with its plan to vastly and unilaterally expand its regulatory reach, using the pretense of fighting global warming. The regulations will touch every aspect of the U.S. economy. The EPA needs to answer Gardner's letter in full, and it needs to do so before the agency does any more damage to the economy.
The EPA ignores jobs in its rush to regulate | Examiner Editorial | Opinion | Washington Examiner
Global Warming Hysteria
Climate Depot
Where did I talk about "proof"?
Emotions seize us and drive us. That's more or less what the word means. The eighteenth century word for them was 'passions'.
A person can be driven by curiosity. But there's no guarantee that has the kind of logical components we require of reason.
What reason and emotion have in common is that they're "about" something.
It is, extremely. We're sitting at the intersection of toxicology, cell biology, biochemistry, and polymer science. That sort of cross-discipline work has always fascinated me. It's difficult stuff, lots to learn before one can understand the literature and put it all in perspective, which makes it extra fun.
Ah the perfect example of emotion over logic!
So you didn't read or won't read a scientific paper that did an analysis of the area that you are googling? Why? Afraid of what you might read? A line in the film "A few good men" springs to mind "You can't handle the truth!" If you choose not to look at all the sides of the debate then you are patently biased!
Either the science of SY's paper holds up to scrutiny or it doesn't - nothing to do with me or you or my pursuit of SY.
Last edited:
Let's test this hypothesis with regard to something you said earlier FrankWW :
The filter I devised was simple. I would only look at work done by folk who had serious degrees and track records in hard science like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geophysics, geology, advanced statistics, meteorology, and also work done by reputable historians and paleontologists.
It begins to look like you prefer to 'handle the truth' by proxy - letting the priesthood deal with it. Am I getting warm by any chance?
Do you disagree with their conclusions
I would have thought that you had done some research analysis before embarking on this study & publishing your paper?
If you do disagree, outline your logic & tell us why you can subtitle your paper
If you don't disagree why are you doing this research?
I would have thought that you had done some research analysis before embarking on this study & publishing your paper?
Last edited:
Let's test this hypothesis with regard to something you said earlier FrankWW :
The filter I devised was simple. I would only look at work done by folk who had serious degrees and track records in hard science like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geophysics, geology, advanced statistics, meteorology, and also work done by reputable historians and paleontologists.
It begins to look like you prefer to 'handle the truth' by proxy - letting the priesthood deal with it. Am I getting warm by any chance?
No. You're growing icicles. The problem of climate change (which is real) is not something competently dealt with by politicians, oceanographers, newspaper columnists, microbiologists, economists, journalists, luddites, and other popularizers and careerists.
Why should I read them when I can read the actual people doing real science?
Climate change is a hard-science problem requiring competence first in physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, statistics and secondarily in fields like geology, paleontology, and history.
This is why: Climate change has to do with energy budgets on a global scale, indeed, on an astronomical scale. That's hard science.
Like it or lump it - that's how it is.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.