What is the Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project?

What is the Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project?

What is the purpose of Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project?

The Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project goal is “This project supports reduction or phase-out of the use of coal tar-based sealcoats for asphalt pavement surfaces”(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2013a).  One must note that a different project goal is listed on a non-MPCA website which states “…promote phase-out of coal tar-based pavement sealcoat (CTS) in order to reduce environmental loading of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)”(Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project, n.d.).  Note that the consistent phase between the two definitions is “phase out”.  Product phase-outs (bans) are accomplished by the use of product demarketing and deselection.  Kotler and Levy (1971) define the concept of demarketing as “that aspect of marketing that deals with discouraging  customers in general or a certain class of customer in particular on either a temporary or permanent basis” (p. 75).  Product deselection is a campaign of misinformation and junk science for the sole purpose of discouraging product demand (Hall, 2011).  Product demarketing and deselection are tied to the notions of pollution prevention, the substitution principle and the precautionary principle.  These two advocate tools will be explored in a future posting.  Common ideas among these three concepts are vagueness of definition, non-science based and are prone to abuse by advocates and politicians.

Who are members of this group and what is their role?

This project group is made up of several organizational groups including:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

MPCA act as administrator for the Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project.  On September 12, 2013 MPCA is awarded a grant from EPA Region 5 Great Lakes National Program (Great Lake Restoration Initiative) in the amount of $207,000 for the project title: “Reduction of PAH releases from CTS” (Grant #00E00814-3)(U.S. EPA-Greal Lakes Retoration Initative 2012).  It should be noted that various environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO) was also involved by way of grants provided by MPCA. Project activity includes:

●Approach manufacturers, suppliers and retailers (Al Innes, 2013a);

●Track phase-outs(Al Innes, 2013a);

●“Experts” support preservation role and performance of alternative (Al Innes, 2013a);

●Outreach to property owners and managers (Al Innes, 2013a) and;

●Applicator/supplier no-CTS pledge(Al Innes, 2013a).

            The MPCA also engages in product demarketing and deselection.  Referring to the MPCA web page titled “moving to safer alternatives to coal tar sealcoats”, this page nothing but product demarketing and deselection campaign (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2013b).  In addition, MPCA uses selective information in this campaign in that MPCA only used information that help support their claims.  One assumes that since MPCA touts itself as a science-based organization and that evidence-based investigates hold the key to the true.  The person using that assumption is wrong and MPCA utilizes selective and citation bias to help support their argument. 

 

            US EPA (US EPA)

Supplied grants to MPCA and University of Wisconsin Extension Cooperative under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Program(U.S. EPA-Greal Lakes Retoration Initative 2012; U.S. EPA-Pollution Prevention, 2013).  According to grant documentation, these grants we issued by EPA knowing they were for the purpose of product demarketing and deselection.  Other than providing funding to MPCA and UW SHWEC with grants, it is unclear what EPA’s role is within the Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project.

            University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center (UW SHWEC)

            On April 22, 2013 The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point was awarded a grant from EPA Region 5 Great Lakes National program (EPA Great Lake Restoration Initiative) in the amount of $101,156 for the program titled “Pollution prevention grant program” which will help businesses go green by reduce the use of CTS and more green sealants (Grant #00E01053-1)(U.S. EPA-Pollution Prevention, 2013).

            There are many examples of demarketing coal tar based pavement sealer by UW SHWEC.  What make this demarketing even more severe (considering this is an academic institution) is that SHWEC was selectively utilizing the studies that gave the largest negative impact.  Since these were produced in an academic setting, this would be an example of citation and selection biases (Liebl, 2012; University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension-Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c).  In no way was SHWEC utilizing the body of literature that shows that disproves theories advanced by USGS, MPCA and others.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ)-Pollution Prevention Program

MI DEQ’s role within the group is unknown at this point.  MI DEQ does have a pollution protection program. 

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable (GLRPPR)

  This organization is an environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO) that “is dedicated to promote information exchange and networking to pollution prevention (P2) professionals in the Great Lakes Region of the United States and Canada” (Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, n.d.-a).  The organization states that “GLRPPR is your link to quality pollution prevention information, research, and expertise. GLRPPR has assisted thousands of industries, organizations, small businesses, and citizens within the Great Lakes Region to locate quality information and resources about compliance and pollution prevention. GLRPPR and its members are working together to make a cleaner tomorrow for the Great Lakes Region”(Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, n.d.-a).  Member organizations include MPCA, University of Wisconsin SHWEC, U.S. EPA and MI DEQ(Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, n.d.-b).  Specific members shown are Al Innes from MPCA and Dave Liebl from University of Wisconsin SHWEC(Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, n.d.-b).

            The sole purpose of Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project is to engage in product demarketing and deselection which will damage the market of coal tar based pavement sealer.  We have observed that there are many examples of these two activities occurring.  Al Innes from MPCA even stated these actions are to “phase-out” (ban) this product(Al Innes, 2013b; Al  Innes, 2013).  It ironic when a NGO or government entity states that they wish to help business.  Why then, are their action the opposite of what they stated? 

 

References

Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project. (n.d.). PAH Reduction through Phase-Out of Coal Tar-Based Pavement Sealcoats. from https://sites.google.com/site/greatlakespahreduction/home

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable. (n.d.-a). About GLRPPR. from http://glrppr.org/aboutus/glrppr_brochure.pdf

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable. (n.d.-b). GLRPPR members. from http://glrppr.org/memberlist/

Hall, B. (2011). Defending against product de-selection attacks-Where do we stand? Paper presented at the SPI’s Flexibile Vinyl Products 22nd Annual Conference, Bulington, VT. http://spi.files.cms-plus.com/about/VPD/Tuesday%207.%20Bill%20Hall-%20Venable%20%3D%20Defending%20Against%20Unwarranted%20Product%20De-Selection%20Attacks.pdf

Innes, A. (2013a, October 29, ). Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project Webinar 1:  Overview of Issues. from https://sites.google.com/site/greatlakespahreduction/home/fall-2013-webinar-materials

Innes, A. (2013b, November 20,). Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project Webinar 2:  State/Provincial Programs. from https://sites.google.com/site/greatlakespahreduction/home/fall-2013-webinar-materials

Innes, A. (2013). Webinar 1:  Overview of Issues. Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project. from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxncmVhdGxha2VzcGFocmVkdWN0aW9ufGd4OjEwZWQzNmU5OGU5Y2Y1YzI

Kotler, P., & Levy, S. (1971). Demarketing, Yes, Demarketing. Harvard Business Review, 49(6), 74-80.

Liebl, D. (2012). Toxic Driveway Sealants=Public Health Hazard. from http://fyi.uwex.edu/shwec/2012/07/09/toxic-driveway-sealants-public-health-hazard/

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2013a). Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project. from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-management/great-lakes-coal-tar-sealcoat-pah-reduction-project/index.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2013b). Moving to safer alternatives to coal tar sealcoats. from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-management/moving-to-safer-alternatives-to-coal-tar-sealcoats.html

U.S. EPA-Greal Lakes Retoration Initative (2012). 2011 grants. from http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/2011grants.html

U.S. EPA-Pollution Prevention. (2013). Fiscal year 2012 pollution prevention grant summaries. from http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/p2sum2012.html

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension-Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center. (2012a). Beware of toxic driveway sealants. from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxncmVhdGxha2VzcGFocmVkdWN0aW9ufGd4OjVhZWMyNjIzMDdmMzNjYTg

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension-Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center. (2012b). Coal Tar-Based Asphalt Sealcoats-A Health and Environmental Hazard. from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxncmVhdGxha2VzcGFocmVkdWN0aW9ufGd4Ojc1MzEwNDE5ZjRmMDRkY2U

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension-Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center. (2012c). Identifying Coal Tar Based Asphalt Sealcoats-A Guide for Applicators. from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxncmVhdGxha2VzcGFocmVkdWN0aW9ufGd4OjFjMmJlMWJkZDk5MTlhNGY

What is Pollution Prevention?

What is Pollution Prevention?

 

Pollution Prevention (P2) is just one of many elements of sustainable development.  The Brundtland Commission, formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined sustainability as “humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”(World Commission On Environment and Development, 1987, p. 8).  Figure 1 shows this concept in a graphical form.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/cms/files/sustainability_spheres.png

Figure 1-The Three Spheres of Sustainability

(UV, 2014)

 

In this discussion, we will be examining the environmental sphere and how it affects the environmental sphere.

Defining source reduction and pollution prevention

The notion of Pollution Prevention in the United States was created by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (Habicht, 1992). On the surface, the concept is simple enough, prevent pollution from entering into the environment.  First glances could be deceiving, especially considering how this concept is defined. 

In order to define pollution prevention, one must understand how source reduction is defined.  Habicht (1992) states the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 defines pollution prevention as source reduction which is defined by the act as follows:

●”increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by conservation” (p. 3);

●”reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contamination entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment or disposal” (p. 3);

●”reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants” (p. 3).

As one can plainly see, the concepts of source reduction and pollution prevention can be defined within sustainability.

US EPA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states the following goals for pollution prevention:

●pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible (Habicht, 1992);

●pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible (Habicht, 1992);

●pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible (Habicht, 1992); and

●disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner (Habicht, 1992).

 

Polluntion Prevention Hierarchy

Figure 2-Pollution Prevention Hierarchy (US Army IMCOM Installation Management Command-European Region:  Directorate of Public Works, n.d.)

 

 

Problems associated with pollution prevention

Who defines what is a pollutant or contaminant?

Simple questions require a simple answer.  US EPA and other federal level agencies, state-level environmental agencies, county and local level governments, and environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO).  Using the example of coal tar based pavement sealer (CTS), advocate scientists performed a risk assessment that this product increased the risk of cancer, especially to children (Williams, Mahler, & Van Metre, 2012). Industry’s response was that the USGS risk assessment was grossly overstated especially considering that coal tar topical solutions have been cleared by USFDA as safe and that the author’s claims were based upon assumptions that were statistically insignificant (Magee & Keating-Connolly, 2013).  The question must be asked why USGS was performing risk assessments, which they are not chartered to perform.  Another question is why two USGS hydrologist were involved with a risk assessment, neither scientists is remotely qualified to perform.

Pollution Prevention is vaguely defined

Another major issue associated with Pollution Prevention is that it is vaguely defined. The theoretical framework and definitions are all loosely defined.  There are several reasons why this is done.  First, any activity that is vaguely defined eludes oversight. It is much like telling a business person to “make money” but not giving them direction if they mean make a profit or make a sale.  Another reason for vague definitions is that it allows agencies using P2 programs a wide path for decision-making in terms of products to demarket and deselect from the market place.  These decisions are made under the guise of being environmentally unsustainable.  This is eluded to by Habicht (1992) acknowledges this fact when he wrote “While the concept of pollution prevention is broadly applicable–a tool to accomplish many environmental tasks…”.  Another example is given with Browner (1993) when she states “At the same time, we must acknowledge that the fundamental nature of our base programs must evolve to create a more hospitable environment for the transition from “end of pipe” treatment to pollution prevention”.

 Pollution Prevention is not based on objective science

Another problem with this concept is that it is value-based, meaning that decision-making utilizing science will be bias toward public policy preferences.  This can be illustrated in Browner (1993) where pollution prevention is referred to as “the new environmental ethic” (p. 1).   Another example is shown in Habicht (1992) states that “EPA is seeking to integrate pollution prevention as an ethic throughout its activities…:”  Finally, pollution prevention requires a “culture change”(Habicht, 1992).  In the case of coal tar based pavement sealer, this is illustrated in several ways.  First, the scientific stance that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is that the “science is settled” and not open to discussion.  This stance is telling since there is a body of work that refutes the advocate’s claims and Minnesota passed it ban based on the precautionary principle (as per email amongst MPCA personnel).  Another example of this value-based decision-making is that MPCA actively solicits schools and school districts (targeting children) about their findings about the dangers of coal tar based sealer. This is an illustration of the demarketing and deselection process in order to ban this product. 

Economic benefits?  Really?

EPA has made various claims regarding to benefits derived from pollution prevention by “regulation is less than effective as reducing pollution, pollution may shift from one source to another, economic benefits such as reduction or elimination (or minimization) of waste management or cleanup costs, more efficient manufacturing, strengthening economic competitiveness and sustainability of raw material use” (Browner, 1993).  These claims would be really nice if they were true.  The literature show that there are many factors that dictates if cost are reduced, wastes reduced or strengthens economic competitiveness.  In addition, prior studies show that there is no consensus with regard to these savings or benefits associated with pollution control activities (Ambec, Cohen, Elgie, & Lanoie, 2013; Lanoie, Laurent-Lucchetti, Johnstone, & Ambec, 2011).

EPA grants in exchange for favorable state legislation?

In the case of Minnesota and their ban of coal tar based pavement sealer, Minnesota started their product ban program by providing grants to cities that ban the product(Legislature of the State of Minnesota, 2009).  This is truly an example of a product with a price on its head.  Browner (1993) states that P2 programs “will require flexibility in grants to states, and improved working relationships with other federal agencies that have a profound influence on the environment through their own behavior or policies”.  MPCA provides an example of this relationship by its choosing to “phase-out” or ban the product via demarket and deselect processes, paid for by EPA grants (U.S. EPA-Greal Lakes Retoration Initative 2012; U.S. EPA-Pollution Prevention, 2013).

References

Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 2-22. doi: 10.1093/reep/res016

Browner, C. M. (1993). Pollution Prevention Policy Statement:  New directions for environmental protection. from http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/34/33485.pdf

Habicht, F. H. (1992). EPA Definition of Pollution Prevention. from http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/docs/pollprev.pdf

Lanoie, P., Laurent-Lucchetti, J., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(3), 803-842. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2011.00301.x

Legislature of the State of Minnesota. (2009). Chapter 172-HF 1231 Article 2 Clean Water Fund.

Magee, B., & Keating-Connolly, J. (2013). Comment on “Cancer Risk from Incidental Ingestion Exposures to PAHs Associated with Coal-Tar-Sealed Pavement”. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(1), 868-869. doi: 10.1021/es404184q

U.S. EPA-Greal Lakes Retoration Initative (2012). 2011 grants. from http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/2011grants.html

U.S. EPA-Pollution Prevention. (2013). Fiscal year 2012 pollution prevention grant summaries. from http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/p2sum2012.html

US Army IMCOM Installation Management Command-European Region:  Directorate of Public Works. (n.d.). Pollution Prevention-Legal Requirements. from http://www.grafenwoehr.army.mil/usag_dpw/environmental/p2/env_p2_legal.asp

UV, V. U. S. (2014). The Three Spheres of Sustainability. from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/cms/files/sustainability_spheres.png

Williams, E. S., Mahler, B. J., & Van Metre, P. C. (2012). Cancer Risk from Incidental Ingestion Exposures to PAHs Associated with Coal-Tar-Sealed Pavement. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(2), 1101-1109. doi: 10.1021/es303371t

Project Funded by Tax Dollars Uses Flawed Science and Pressure to Pursue Stated Goal of Phasing-out Certain Sealcoat Products Industry Challenges Use of Questionable Research

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 22, 2014 –EPA awarded a grant which established the Great Lakes Coal Tar Sealcoat PAH Reduction Project (“Project”).  The stated goal of the Project was for the grantees to step in and convince the marketplace that refined tar-based pavement sealcoat (RTS) should be “voluntarily” phased-out and replaced with other products. There was no hearing, no solicitation of comments from industry, and no draft proposal. With the usual avenues for comment and interaction with government agencies thus closed, PavementCouncil.org submitted unsolicited comments to EPA Region 5, collaborating agencies and the public at large as part of an ongoing effort to provide a more balanced, accurate and scientifically supportable approach to the issues at hand. The letter was submitted on January 21, 2014.

 

Currently, the Project is led by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in collaboration with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the University of Wisconsin-Extension Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center, the Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable (which is affiliated with the University of Illinois), and the U.S. EPA Great Lakes Program Office. Over the past year, the Project has used a multimedia program to accomplish its goal of eliminating the use of RTS throughout the Midwest.  In addition to the creation of a website which provides numerous links to articles and publications that support the phase-out of RTS, the Project has also engaged the marketplace with widespread email, direct mail and telephone campaigns to “educate” consumers, municipalities, contractors and other states about the alleged environmental, ecological and human hazards of RTS, and of the alleged need to transition to asphalt sealants. These efforts have culminated with Project participants, many of whom are cloaked with the appearance of governmental authority, pressuring contractors and consumers to sign statements in which they agree not to use RTS in the future. The results of these efforts are then posted on the Project website.

 

The campaign described above has been carried out without any reference to or citation of peer reviewed research that has called into question the very foundation of the conclusions offered by the Project.  Thus, while using the language of “educating consumers and the public about RTS,” the Project actually is an example of unwarranted product deselection and advocacy conducted at taxpayer expense. The Project primarily relies upon chemical fingerprint modeling conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) – modeling that has been shown to be flawed in identifying RTS as an important source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the environment. PavementCouncil.org has challenged the USGS’ findings by laying out the facts in Data Quality Act (DQA) filings, available via this link; by funding research published in peer-reviewed science journals, available via this link; and by directly informing government agencies and the public of the facts via presentations and comment letters such as that just provided to the Project, available here.

 

Based on the current state-of-the-science, PavementCouncil.org recommends that the Project be shut down or, at the least, suspended. If organizations participating in the Project are unable or not permitted to discontinue the Project, the Project must provide accurate and balanced information rather than incomplete and flawed science.

 

NCSU professor becomes convinced that colleagues built big research project on false foundation

Evaluation of the California Safer Consumer Products Regulation and the impact on consumers and product manufacturers

Evaluation of the California Safer Consumer Products Regulation and the impact on consumers and product manufacturers

Chemistry enables more than 95% of products in the marketplace. Over the past 20 years, various entities began to generate inventories of chemicals (“chemical watch lists”) potentially associated with human or environmental health risks. Some lists included thousands of chemicals, while others listed only a few chemistries with limited properties or toxicological endpoints (e.g., neurotoxicants). Enacted on October 1, 2013, the California Safer Consumer Products Regulation (SCP) utilized data from chemical inventory lists to create one master list. This paper aims to discuss the background and requirements of this regulation. Additionally, we wanted to understand the universe of Candidate Chemicals identified by the Regulation. Data from all 23 chemical lists identified in the SCP Regulation were entered into a database. The most prevalent chemicals among the ∼2900 chemicals are identified, including the most prevalent chemical, lead, appearing on 65% of lists, followed by DEHP (52%), perchloroethylene (48%), and benzene (48%). Our results indicated that the most prevalent Candidate Chemicals were either persistent, bioaccumulative, carcinogenic, or reprotoxic. This regulation will have wide-ranging impact in California and throughout the global supply chain, which is highlighted through selected examples and case studies.

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state’s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions’ prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists’ productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Inappropriate Fiddling with Statistical Analyses to Obtain a Desirable P-value: Tests to Detect its Presence in Published Literature

Inappropriate Fiddling with Statistical Analyses to Obtain a Desirable P-value: Tests to Detect its Presence in Published Literature

Much has been written regarding p-values below certain thresholds (most notably 0.05) denoting statistical significance and the tendency of such p-values to be more readily publishable in peer-reviewed journals. Intuition suggests that there may be a tendency to manipulate statistical analyses to push a “near significant p-value” to a level that is considered significant. This article presents a method for detecting the presence of such manipulation (herein called “fiddling”) in a distribution of p-values from independent studies. Simulations are used to illustrate the properties of the method. The results suggest that the method has low type I error and that power approaches acceptable levels as the number of p-values being studied approaches 1000.

The Anti-Science Behavior of GMO Proponents

The Anti-Science Behavior of GMO Proponents

Mind you from the Huffington Post.  This article ends in “I think we should apply the precautionary principle to everything that could potentially harm us or the environment, and that includes GMOs”.

So proponent are anti-science but lets use an anti-science public policy to “protect” ourselves.  This gave me a good chuckle.