Politics is killing you

The federal government is taking a new tack on scientific evidence, and the tack could be killing you.

Before, it was raising doubt about a "scientific consensus" on issues, as described in "The Republican War on Science." It's not a bad book, even coming from that brother-in-law last Christmas.

More recently, it was industry creating fake "grassroots groups" to spread lies, in efforts to hold off regulation on little things, like things that can kill you.

Today, the Associated Press reports, the federal government may have bowed to political pressure by deferring more stringent health protections, despite the weight of evidence and a near-unanimous recommendation:

Specialists advising the agency had said the science supports tougher standards than the EPA chose. Other air pollution specialists and advocates alleged political tinkering. New England air quality officials said the new rules do not protect public health.

... ``Wherever the science gave us a clear picture, we took clear action," [EPA administrator Stephen Johnson] said. ``There was not complete agreement" by the scientific advisory panel.

But 20 of 22 panel members said the EPA should set tougher standards .

Note carefully, here. 20 of 22 isn't good enough. Apparently, it has to be a large, unanimous panel for the science to be considered firm enough.

Yeah. Or it can let politics creep into picture. You know, politics. Where politicians almost never win more than two-thirds of the vote, or, say, 14 of 22.

What's at stake here? Let's turn back to the AP:

The health-based limits on soot are considered an important part of the Clean Air Act, helping save 15,000 people a year from premature deaths due to heart and lung diseases.

What's a few thousand lives between friends?