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.
Just in: the National Academy of Sciences’ (attempted secret) whitewash of EPA’s illegal human experiments.
We seem to have an admission that the “fix is in” concerning EPA’s secret effort to have the National Academy of Sciences whitewash the agency’s illegal human experiments.
This is the ultimate fact sheet for debunking what has become the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most potent regulatory weapon — the claim that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called PM2.5) in outdoor air kills people. This sheet will be updated regularly as needed. This will be Version 1 (September 22, 2016). Please let … Continue reading FACT SHEET: Particulate Matter in Indoor/Outdoor Air Does NOT Cause Death
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences is reviewing what I have described as the EPA’s unethical, if not illegal program of human experiments involving air pollutants. But is “the fix” in favor of the EPA built-in to the process?
***IMPORTANT: If you want to listen to this meeting, you must contact the NAS as described below and download the necessary WebEx software.*** Steve Milloy, Dr. John Dunn & and Dr. Stan Young versus EPA before the National Academy of Sciences over EPA’s illegal human experiments. August 24 at 1pm ET via webinar. You can … Continue reading Upcoming: Showdown at the National Academy of Sciences Corral
President Obama used Malia’s “asthma” to justify his global warming rules.
The agency enlists an elite group of scientists to rubber stamp illegal experiments.
JunkScience.com readers will recall the spark that started the EPA human experiments controversy was a September 2011 study published by EPA researchers.
EPA science lying and regulatory abuse is worse than VW emissions cheating.
Another ridiculous “study.”
The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis for its new rules to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry overstate (if not fabricate) the benefits. EPA has overstated or invented these benefits in order to cover-up the huge costs associated with the rule.