ACI versus EPA: What happens when you put non-scientists in charge of science issues

Hang on a sec, here.

quote:

---

No, I don't approve of the sticker, because it singles out a specific set of scientific findings as requiring a caution label urging critical regard because of the sticker proponents' ideological interests.

---

So... are you against people taking a critical view of evolutionary theory? I'm not getting this. You admit that the label is accurate. But then you're against it because... it encourages school kids to take a critical approach to learning it?

quote:

---

The truthful labeling of fly ash, on the other hand, does not represent an inversion of the normal and accurate labeling of other hazardous waste.

---

Cement also can cause a series of illnesses. So does every admixture out there. In fact, just about everything in-mass can cause serious health risks to the populous.The fact of the matter remains. We've been disposing very large quantity of fly ash through locking them up in concrete since the 20s. As far as I know, how industries have been handling the disposal of fly ash has been fine so far. If anything, we need to use more fly ash in concrete mixes.If you truly support the truth no matter what, you wouldn't have any problem with the disclaimer label for evolution. After all, it's completely true.Admit it, you don't care about this issue because it's not anywhere near home. It's my job, yes. But it's also the fact that I'm an environmentalist.Just wait and see people's knee jerk reaction to being 2 feet away from "hazardous toxic waste".

Note that after insisting that I answer your question first, you failed to answer mine.I thought my objection was clear.Let's suppose that the congregation of the local Baptist church doesn't like Bob for some reason--maybe he's the village atheist. In this village, folks have updated the ancient practice of branding dangerous miscreants, using name tags instead.So the Baptists want Bob to wear a name tag that says, "Caution! My name is Bob. I'm a human being, and human beings commit rape and pillage."All that is true. But the law requires no other human being in the village to wear that tag. Long-time villagers know that the Baptists have an ax to grind, but visitors and new residents would think they need to watch Bob closely because he is prone to rape and pillage.Bill, on the other hand, is a dangerous person, known to poison his neighbors. But, oddly enough, he's good with herbs and potions, and the village apothecaries like to employ him.Most of the village wants him to wear the caution tag, but the apothecary folks oppose it, because they think customers might be frightened away by the tag. Other folks who have been poisoned by Bill say, well, that's a shame--but the bastard poisons people, and he has to wear the tag.The Baptists want to tag one human being with a caution that applies to all human beings because they don't like him, knowing that tag will cause others to question his trustworthiness unjustly. They want to use a selective citation of a general truth to create a false impression. Since Bob is, in fact. no more likely to rape and pillage than any other villager, I think they are wrong.The apothecaries want to exempt a poisoner from wearing a caution tag because he is useful to both them and the broader community, knowing that tag will cause others to question his trustworthiness and make it harder to employ him. Since Bill presents a danger to others, and by village law other dangerous people are tagged, I think they are wrong.Both the Baptists and the apothecaries want to abuse the truth for their own ends--the former with selective speech, the latter with selective silence. Both camps think they have good reasons. Both camps are wrong. Supporting truth is a simple stand, not a simple-minded one.As I pointed out before, you are trying to use the same tactic as the creationists who wrote the evolution disclaimer. If the disclaimer were "completely true," it would appear at the front of every textbook.But you knew that. You're trying to make the matter ambiguous as a rhetorical tactic--accusing me of hypocrisy in my high regard for the truth in order to undermine my argument in support of the EPA. You're abusing the truth to defend abusing the truth.

Here's something else that is absolutely true that you could teach schoolchildren."All black men carry genetic markers associated with violence. Studies have shown that someone with these genes is ten times more likely to commit a violent crime than those without them."If you think about why this is true, you will see why it shouldn't be taught.I am having some difficulty seeing where the fly-ash fits into this.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But fly ash in concrete is not now, nor has ever been, classified as "hazardous waste."

Holy macaroni, that's a really good explanation. I wish I had come up with that. I'm convinced.

Is it worth pointing out that this is an issue about which scientists do not have any particular expertise? The two goals are clear enough -- treat hazardous waste with care, and dispose of fly ash safely -- and there seems to be no scientific dispute about them. How to weigh the two goals, and how best to achieve them, are not questions that science can answer (at least in the absence of a good deal of social science research). They are instead policy issues that have to be addressed by political processes.

Well, the fear among ACI members and concrete engineers like myself is people having a knee jerk reaction because of the labeling.For instance, we know how gullible people are. Remember the dihydrogen monoxide gimmick and all those environmentalist dumbasses reaction to it?I recently modified the interior of my car to add in some electronics and cameras much like the inside of a squad car. I used to be a cop, so I knew how useful the setup would be for myself. I made sure to be thorough on where I put the bolts and that nothing would interfere with the airbags. Everything is very secure in there. And yet, people's reactions are always "OMFG, YOU DRILLED HOLES IN YOUR CAR!"While I now agree with the majority opinion here that the labeling is truthful and accurate, I am still against the EPA's decision. Fly ash is a very useful additive to concrete mixing. And mixing fly ash into concrete is also the best possible way to dispose of this toxic substance. Considering the fact that millions and millions of tons are produced, would you rather locking it up in concrete or let it seep into the water table?Again, people are dumbasses. We've established this fact a long time ago. This is why concrete engineers have been quietly using fly ash since the 20s.Just wait and see knee jerk reactions of societal dumbasses. The scary thing is these mindless dumb fucks also vote.

Good.Now answer the question.

I don't know if it's an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of science. I do think it's ill-informed.

What decision are you against?I looked at the link in your OP:

quote:

---

The first option is drawn from enforcement powers available under Subtitle C of the RCRA, and creates a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for management and disposal of Special wastes.

---

quote:

---

The other option includes remedies under Subtitle D of the RCRA, which gives the EPA the authority to set performance standards for waste management facilities and would be enforced primarily through citizen suits.

---

As for your gripe:

quote:

---

Under both approaches proposed by the EPA, the agency would leave in place the Bevill exemption for beneficial uses of CCRs, in which CCRs are recycled as components of products (including concrete) instead of placed in impoundments or landfills.

---

So what's the problem!?As far as putting non-scientists in charge:

quote:

---

EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based on the best available data and is taken with the fullest possible extent of public input.

---

quote:

---

The EPA proposal calls for public comment on the two options being considered.

---

It looks like you didn't get anything right

Having read the various comments on this thread, I do wonder whether maybe you're making a big fuss about nothing. I mean, what is actually going to happen? People can still make concrete using fly ash, yes? And no-one's going to have to label that concrete as "toxic waste", yes? And anyone who is simultaneously smart enough to find out that concrete includes fly ash and dumb enough not to understand why this is a good idea is not going to be buying concrete in bulk anyway.And fly ash is in fact toxic waste.Have I missed something?Short version: show me the customer you will lose as a result of this decision.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Um... I hope you realize this is even worse than what I said.

I can't, because the decision is still fresh and new. The gripe is a concern shared by engineers in the field that once the label is more well known it will cause a knee jerk reaction from the public. And nobody wants to be on the receiving end of public outrage. I'm not the only one making a fuss about this. Practically all engineers and scientists in the field I've talked to are against this. Are you playing dumb? The issue isn't about the EPA banning fly ash. But they might as well have because of the label. As I have explained many times now, average joe schmoes like to feel smart by using sound bites to sound like they know what's going on. We've seen quite a bit of this with our resident creationists. The fear is that most people don't know the benefits of fly ash and public opinion will eventually turn against locking fly ash up in concrete simply because of the label.Look at this very thread. Some of our most learned people here don't even know the most basic properties of fly ash when mixed in with concrete. There's been a few who shared their concern that fly ash will somehow escape from the concrete and contaminate our environment. Some said concrete is permeable and water passing through will wash the fly ash right into the ground. And these are evc members. What do you think the public (aka the unwashed masses) will think once some soccer mom decided to make it her mission to keep fly ash from her children? It's actually not as bad as it sounds. First of all, anything can turn into "toxic waste" if you have it in significant volume. Unfortunately, most of our energy still comes from burning coal, which is why we have a shitload of fly ash.This is another instance where the name, while accurate, paints a false picture. Eating a hand full of fly ash will not kill you. I wouldn't recommend it, though. It's only a health concern when you have a lot of it in one area and long term exposure.If you have, say, a shit load of shit, I'm sure long term exposure to such high volume will be bad for your health as well.That's where the inaccuracy comes from. No one is trying to argue with you that the label "toxic waste" is technically inaccurate. But it is as accurate as the label "Humans rape and torture, and Dr A is a human".

I still don't see what scientists have to do with this. Yes, people are often dumbasses (people even including scientists, sometimes), but they're dumbasses about all kinds of things, some of them vastly more important than exactly how fly ash is labeled. Should we preempt people's dumbassery by having scientists make every important decision?

What do you mean? Do you realize that its a quote from your own source?But I'm pretty sure you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I don't think this reclassification is going to have the impact that you're proposing, and I'm not even sure you understand just what the reclassification is.The EPA had made a decision to call fly ash non-haz. Then a bunch of fly ash leaked and fucked a bunch of shit up. Now there going: "maybe we should consider this hazardous"And your response is to cry that you're gonna lose business!? Well fuck you guys. If its hazardous then its hazardous and if its waste then its waste... hazardous waste. And no, not "everything" can be hazardous waste in sufficient quantities.But, if you look at their actual proposal, the second one is to leave it classified as non-haz! So instead of bitching to us, why don't you go tell them that they should use the second one?The first proposal does reclassify it as haz, but it leaves an exemption for using in concrete. So you not going to have a problem either way.This whole "people are so stupid" argument, "its gonna hurt our business", is not convincing at all. Especially not convincing that hazardous waste shouldn't be called as such because some concrete knuckleheads think its going to hurt their business ABE: And your solution is to say "Humans do not rape and torture" so that Dr A doesn't get his feelings hurt. Gimme a break!Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling