Hours before the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019 (HR 1603), the New York Times reported that EPA ignored its scientists’ advice in proposing a new asbestos rule.
Of the more than 300,000 public comments submitted to EPA regarding a proposed undermining of air pollution rules, several criticized the agency for something that’s become a disturbing trend under the Trump administration: Ignoring evidence that demonstrates a need for regulation.
What connects the opioid crisis, football players’ concussion risks, and climate change? A playbook created by the tobacco industry that relies on denying evidence of harms to public health.
The nationwide financial squeeze on federal employees, contractors, and the businesses that depend on them may be the most visible harm from the ongoing partial government shutdown, but we should also be aware of damage to science. The shutdown has furloughed federal scientists, stalled data collection, weakened scientific meetings, left current and potential collaborators hanging, […]
The day after Thanksgiving, the White House made public the Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Congress has mandated that these reports be released every four years, and the Trump administration seemingly figured that doing so on the day after Thanksgiving would limit public attention.
If all countries met World Health Organization standards for fine particulate air pollution, life expectancy gains could be similar in scale to eradicating breast and lung cancer.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals orders EPA to ban the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos because the evidence shows that it’s harmful.
Helping journalists, staffers stealthily collected dust samples from a busy hallway in an urban elementary school in Philadelphia. When sky-high asbestos results came back from the lab, the journalists, both Pulitzer Prize winners, faced an ethical and moral dilemma unlike any other they had encountered in their long careers.