The National Academy of Sciences was hired by the EPA to whitewash the agency’s program of illegal human experiments. And it did. But in doing so it vindicated the basic point about EPA — the agency lied to the public about the alleged dangers of PM2.5. Here is my detailed takedown of the infamy.
For an introduction to the NAS whitewash of EPA’s criminality, read: “The EPA’s Secret Whitewash.”
For my slideshow testimony to the NAS about EPA’s criminality, see: “‘No Safe Level of Exposure’: EPA’s Human Experiments With Particulate Matter.”
Some thoughts on the report:
1. At least the NAS issued a press release (below) for its whitewash.
There was no similar media release announcing the review when it began.
How secret was the whitewash? The first meeting of the NAS committee was on June 1, 2015. As you can see, the meeting was not even placed on the NAS calendar.
Below is the agenda for that June 1, 2015 meeting. As you can see, only EPA and the NAS committee met — yet it is billed as an “open” (to the public) meeting.
Committee meetings 2-5, 7 were also secret, but at least they are marked as “closed” sessions — not falsely marked as “open.”
When I complained to the NAS staff about this, they sent me a link to a May 2015 announcements page which contained the following:
Even if you were no quickly glance through the announcement, though, note that the term “EPA” is nowhere to be found. Also, although there was much media coverage of the events leading up to the formation of the NAS committee, there was no media coverage of its actual formation or meetings.
Despite being the instigator and chief complainant of the EPA illegality, I only learned of the process after it had been essentially completed in June 2016. My source had accidentally run across the NAS page and called me about it.
This was a secret process until I and, then, others intervened.
2. The EPA paid for the review.
As the saying goes, “You pays your money and you takes your chances.”
In this case, though, while EPA paid (taxpayer) money to the NAS to conduct the review of its illegal experiments, it knew it was taking no chances.
The National Academy of Sciences and its dirty operating arm known as the National Research Council receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually from federal agencies to produce the reports requested (read “ordered up”) by the agencies.
How much did whitewash cost? What were the actual arrangements? I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in June 2016 for documents relating to the whitewash (below). As of the April 2017, I am still waiting for fulfillment.
3. The NAS committee members was hopelessly conflicted.
Here the oversight committee for the committee that actually did the review:
Of particular note is Syracuse University scoundrel Charles Driscoll, who I featured in the article below.
4. The NAS committee dodged the central issue — to whom was EPA lying, the study subjects or the public about the dangers of PM2.5.
As I presented to the NAS committee at the August 24, 2016 public meeting, this was the central issue that launched the EPA human experiments controversy (and the committee’s own existence).
But this issue is not addressed directly in the committee’s report. The reason for the omission requires no explanation.
5. By greenlighting the EPA experiments, the NAS committee validated by implication the point that PM2.5 presents no risk of death.
Despite all the illegality and rules violations committed by EPA and its “researchers,” it’s easy to lose sight of the main point of the controversy — which was not the fact of human testing, but whether PM2.5 killed, particularly the way EPA claimed it did (i.e., any exposure in as little as hours).
So if EPA can continue to do these experiments, then it must NOT be true that any exposure to PM2.5 can kill within hours.
Point made. Case closed.
6. The National Academy of Sciences is a corrupt institution and a shame to science.
In addition to all the points made above, it should be noted that although we (John Dunn, Stan Young, Jim Enstrom and myself) were able to intervene to force an extra public meeting and delay publication of the report beyond its December 2016 target date, the NAS committee exhibited no actual interest in what we had to say. Our comments are not mentioned or referenced in the report. We were not asked questions by committee members (save one) at the August 24 public meeting. There were no follow up questions to any of us despite documented evidence of EPA’s wrongdoing. The agenda mentioning our testimony at the August 24 meeting is included in the report — but that is the only acknowledgement of our existence. Our documented and incriminating evidence are no where to be found — not mentioned, much less disputed.
8. The NAS report is self-destructive gobbledy-gook.
The NAS report is so filled with errors, omissions, misstatements, misdirection and general dishonesty that it would take days if not weeks to fully critique. My head hurts just reading it. The purpose of the report was to obfuscate and justify. So, mission accomplished for the EPA-bought NAS.
The irony is that although the report greenlights the EPA human experiments, the Trump budget for EPA targets them for elimination. We’ll have to wait an see if that happens, but if it does, the NAS will have compromised its integrity for nothing but the money.
“We will only hear what we wanna hear!”
isn’t this the same NAS that totally validated AGW when there was scant proof of any kind, just computer models?
I remember being challenged by any number of warming trolls challenging my contention that the IPCC, NAS, Hadley-CRU, the Royal Academy of Science, etc., are corrupt organizations more interested in rent seeking that truth.
I would add one thing to the discussion–the civil tort is still present–because even if they lied to the congress, they lied in a way that will create the mental distress in any subject that they were exposed to a toxic, lethal and carcinogenic substance at levels much higher than the EPA declared safe.
Also to consider is criminal prosecutions on two lanes, one for lying to the congress and the public about small particle toxicity, lethality and carcinogenicity, a civil and criminal violation that comes under the false claims act (Lincoln Law, also known as the Qui Tam law) and violations of medical licensure acts and state laws by those who engaged in unethical and illegal human exposures to a substance claimed to be toxic, lethal and carcinogenic. The violations meet the requirements for elements of civil tort and criminal acts–all that is necessary is to find the criminal code provisions on battery.
I need to put one last thing to bed–the ethical codes and laws on human experiments prohibit the exposure–there is no way that a consent nullifies the effect of the laws. One cannot coerce or deceive or intimidate or trick someone into an exposure that might be harmful under any circumstances, an individual cannot consent to a harmful exposure.
The pertinent codes allow for harm risk to be taken by the researchers themselves if they choose, under extenuating circumstances to accept the risk for themselves because of the importance of the research.
The air pollution human exposure research is not so important that it reaches the threshold for any exceptions. the EPA already had its science, even if it was junk, to justify its regs.
Thank you for all your efforts and for this incredibly detailed report on EPA fraud.
If the President didn’t have so much illegality and corruption to clean up, something like this should make the top of his list. Hopefully, more will be done than only defunding the experiments.
The new head of the EPA would do well to (1) immediately get these documents released (2) terminate all the top people involved and (3) send this to the new justice department for prosecution. (and indict members of the NAS as accessories-after-the fact.)
If the tests were OK because PM2.5 is harmless and they have been lying, then they are also guilty of knowingly expending all that money for the tests without cause. So they lied to congress for the purpose of getting more funds to distribute to their cronies. What other reason would they have to lie? I would think lying to congress to “extort” funds from the taxpayers should be a chargeable offense.
In case you hadn’t seen this yet, NYU Law Professor Mary Holland addressed the UN regarding civil rights and government vaccine policies at the 25th International Health and Environment Conference. She specifically pointed to the Nuremberg code with respect to true, informed consent prior to vaccinations.
While I won’t get into the debate around vaccines, my point is that perhaps rather than confront via NAS and the Federal Government, perhaps a good forum for your simple 2 option discussion (either it’s an acute toxin or the EPA is lying) is the UN using the same position you took this time around. The US Government says that PM2.5 is an acute toxin yet routinely funds research which exposes individuals to this toxin.
I’m a fan of your simple argument without the fluff. It’s a toxin, so they’re violating the Nuremberg code, or it isn’t a toxin (which can be extended to the logical conclusion by Congress, i’m sure Dowdy would understand).