A blog about News.
|
Statement by CARB board member Lies and cover ups tarnish California Air Resources Board Strange encounter ends in arrest PG&E smartmeters WILL be tested Suspcious guy at my door last night Adoption day "magical" Closing courts wrong approach Wars never end for veterans Pet adoption day in Tehachapi Nov. 21 Indian casino OK with me August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
CARB can't ignore credibilty problems
Credibility is power. When you have it, it’s like a rock in your fist. But despite its power, it can be as fragile as an eggshell — handle it with care or it’ll shatter into a gooey mess. That’s what I believe the California Air Resources Board members have on their hands as they bull forward with the diesel emissions rules they passed last December based on a health report written by CARB researcher Hien Tran. Tran lied about having a Ph.D in statistics from Davis. He was outted to both CARB staffers and at least one board member prior to the Dec. 12, 2008 vote on the diesel rules. But the board went ahead with the draconian rules requiring all trucks and heavy equipment to retrofit their engines to reduce emissions containing particulate matter as small as 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The idea is to protect people from the effects of PM2.5, which is blamed by some researchers for killing off hundreds of Californians a year. At least that’s one side. Other studies have found little to no effect on mortality from PM2.5. Tran discounted those opposition studies. And the researchers whose studies he used have never opened their data sets to independent scientists to see if their results could be replicated, so I think it’s still highly questionable whether PM2.5 is as deadly as it’s been made out to be. But that’s a different story. Back to Tran, how his lie was handled and the gooey mess it’s left. Turns out, not everyone who should have been told was informed about the Ph.D. The board, for instance, was never notified. Though one CARB spokesperson initially told me board members were told briefed in closed session, another told me the materials were “made available to those who asked.” At the board’s meeting last month, member John Telles was clearly shocked when a group of public speakers brought it up. “This is the first time I’ve actually been apprised that there was fraud in the organization here,” he said. “In my world, if an article was published by somebody who didn’t have a Ph.D. and said he had a Ph.D., the whole thing would be nixed...I just find it incredible.” I spoke with Telles later and he was equally frustrated that CARB staffers said during the meeting not to worry because they had shopped the report around again for more peer review to make sure it was kosher. “The board should have been made aware that they were seeking outside sources for a second review to see if there was a problem,” Telles said. He considered the whole affair a blow to the board’s credibility, especially among businesses that come directly under the new regulations, which will cost owners tens of thousands of dollars per truck. No kidding. Fellow board member, John Balmes, who was apparently the only board member who knew about the allegations prior to the Dec. 12 CARB meeting, felt it could have been handled better, but he stood by the report and the regulations. He didn’t bring it to his fellow board members’ attention, he said, because he had notified CARB’s executive director James Goldstene. Regardless of Tran’s transgressions, Balmes said the extensive peer review of the report was good enough for him. Not for me, but I’ll get back to that in a minute. Further, Balmes said even if the report were taken out of the equation CARB could justify the truck rule it passed last December. “It (Tran’s report) is a risk assessment tool that’s been applied to support the on-road truck rule, but it’s not the reason for the rule.” I disagree that Tran’s report wasn’t pivotal and I think Balmes himself makes my point. “The main purpose of the report was to provide a tool for the ARB to use in determining how much in terms of health benefits the regulation would provide.” Exactly. And that’s what Tran’s report did. He took a number of studies showing PM2.5 as deadly dangerous (carefully excluding those that showed no increased mortality due to PM2.5), he averaged death rates from different studies and then created a methodology for figuring out how many lives would be saved by taking a certain amount of PM2.5 out of the atmosphere annually. Of course, Balmes and CARB staffers have a ready answer to that in the much-touted peer review, which they say upholds the report by Tran (who they now refer to as “a person who managed some aspects” of the report rather than the lead author, by the way). Here’s the thing, though, only the draft report was given to six of the reviewers. It’s unclear if they ever read the final report, or the 150 pages of public comments, much of which came from scientists who disputed its findings. As a side note, Balmes told me he also never read the final version with the public comments. Huh? First, am I the only sucker who did? Second, how do you vote on regulations based on a report when you only read the draft? Also in the peer review process, nearly half of 12 scientists who weighted the studies used by Tran were authors or co-authors of those very studies. Not exactly an unbiased group. I asked CARB for a list of names of reviewers who were contacted after they discovered the Tran deception. There were 10. Again, four of those had studies used in the report. Even as Balmes characterized the Tran issue as a “tactic” being used by people who don’t like the new rules he understood that if it wasn’t handled properly “it would come back to bite the ARB.” No, it wasn’t handled properly and, yeah, it’s taken a big ol’ chunk out of CARB’s credibility. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com 16 comments from 10 users
1
posted by
airqualityguy
on Oct 20, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Using personal opinion about a credibility gap at CARB to imply the harmlessness of pm 2.5 from diesel exhaust is sick. posted by
kalalp
on Oct 20, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Imagine a study like this done for a drug approval with the FDA. The company that produced such a study with falsified documentation would be subject to severe penalties, including criminal charges. When its done for CARB its just an innocent oversight. Just a few hundreds of millions out of the economy in order to meet the preordained agenda. CARB lost all sense of balance years ago. Unelected zeolets pursuing their dream at the expense of the public. No accountability to anyone. I recently received a notice of public hearing that the ARB is going to require catalytic converters and particulate filters on kitchen hoods. These people need to be reigned in. posted by
learnem
on Oct 21, 2009 at 07:33 AM
according to CARB..., the scientists on their scientific review panel are to only serve a 3 year term.....straight from CARB....here is a list of the scientists that are currently on their review panel, and when they were appointed www.killcarb.org/PLF-CARCSRPLawsuitPetition.pdf Dr. Gary D. Friedman, January 17,1991 it seems that CARB is out of compliance of their own governing laws with 5 out of their 8 current scientists who sit on their scientific review panel. NOT an opinion AQG...FACT HERE IS THE OPINION SECTION seems that CARB cannot find any more scientists that are willing to continually lie to the CA public to further their anti business, rhetoric filled agenda
posted by
Jeff0002
on Oct 21, 2009 at 09:23 AM
In my opinion, this issue and many issues like this are so common today in science reviewed government agencies as in most cases, there is an agenda. In my own fight with this agency since 2006 over the formaldehyde in composite panels which is of equal or even greater concern to the health of the economy in California (composite panels are mdf, particle board and hardwood plywood used in a multitude of products in many industries). ARB in their wisdom picked and chooses scientific studies that met their criteria of what their thesis wanted to say and discounted new studies in opposition of their observations. In fact they used an outdated 1983 study on rats/mice populations that do not predict the carcinogenic effects long term to the human population over new studies that showed little evidence of cause and effect of formaldehyde on the human species. I can only say that it appears that four of the members of this scientific group, Froines, Friedman, Hammond and Glantz have shown intensive radical agendas in the past on such issues as second hand smoke and other issues where they have circumvented much of the scientific method in favor of their cause. This is not what I remembered the scientific method to be, one that includes the observation of phenomenon, report these facts and drawing an hypothesis used by other peer review scientists to duplicate the results of the study (in brief). ARB and its scientific panel seem to draw first a thesis then begins the process of locating studies that agree with what they want to hear. This is completely the reverse of the scientific process as I learned it many years ago. Hien T. Tran is an interesting issue because he is still there and not immediately fired. One has to ask if ARB knew about this deception prior to his employment and if so a conspiracy exists on this issue. Per legal opinion, any citizen hurt by these regulations can, after a complaint with the California Attorney General, file a lawsuit against Tran for the wages earned while obtaining employment illegally. Success in this lawsuit should be high as the facts are already in and appears Tran admitted to his "mistake". If a talented lawyer, upon getting Tran on the witness stand, can ascertain who else knew about his fraud at the ARB, a pattern of corruption can be sustained as to the legality of the diesel rules altogether. I would like to point out now that as a part of this suit, it could call for an injunction of the rules until the issue is resolved with Tran as his study was an integral part of the total regulation. Balmes is correct, ARB has a huge credibility problem and since many Californians will lose their jobs, careers, homes, etc. over the diesel rules and the formaldehyde rules it is imperative that the governor steps in here and puts a stop to this nonsense now. Concerning the formaldehyde issue affecting the forest products, furniture, building, and mobile home/recreational vehicle industries, it is known that the World Health Organization, the federal EPA and the Canadian Health Organization stated by a report put out by Dr. Murray of Stamford that California over exaggerated the issue by up to 36,000 times and the fact that just two weeks ago in New Orleans, the first FEMA trailer jury trial ended up with a victory for the defendents (the manufacturers of the trailers) which the jury concluded that there was no evidence that these businesses were at fault in the manufacture of these trailers used for the victims of the hurricane Katrina. Millions of these trailers were in use already without complaint and all of a sudden, there were all these complaints coming out of New Orleans after the hurricane. CARB pounced on these allegations and now we have regulations that most certainly will put many out of jobs and businesses will fail. Yes ARB does have credibility issues and as they say, the bucks stops at the top, the Governor of the State of California. He is the CEO of the executive branch and has power over his agencies.
posted by
DogGone
on Oct 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM
How in the world can a group of unelected, appointed folks (CARB) make laws? posted by
DogGone
on Oct 21, 2009 at 01:09 PM
So...airqualityguy can post his personal opinion, but somebody who looks into the corrupt CARB can't? Someone other than Lois is sick. Keep up the good work Lois. posted by
noholdsbarred
on Oct 21, 2009 at 02:05 PM
AQG: I have facts and opinion in this article. I'll sort them out for you. Tran lied. That's one fact. My opinion is that's not good. Tran used only certain studies to support the idea of PM2.5 killing people. Fact. I read those studies and saw that the link between PM2.5 and premature deat was not very strong. I'd say that's my opinion of the facts, so it's a mix. The data sets for those studies haven't been opened to independent testing to see if results can be replicated. That's a fact. In my opinion, without replication, the studies can't be counted on as anything more than conjecture. Studies showing NO link were excluded by Tran. Another fact. My opinion is that's a problem. CARB board members weren't told about Tran's "indiscretion." Fact. I find that disturbing. Opinion. See how this works? posted by
goldilox
on Oct 21, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Lois ~ he's just concerned that when carb comes crumbling down like a stale cookie, his job will be going bye-bye. posted by
airqualityguy
on Oct 21, 2009 at 05:30 PM
I am also a big critic of CARB and certainly not an employee. I have signed my name to lawsuits against CARB more times than I can count the past ten years because they basically have not enforced or properly followed the Clean Air Act. Critics of CARB, like Lois, should be glad the board there is appointed and very political in their conservative policies. If it was only CARB staff in charge, the rules they made would likely be far more draconian and our air would be a lot cleaner. I am a concerned citizen, recently retired from teaching high school math, beginning in 1972, and a small farmer (less than 100 acres) who has called Kern County home for more than 60 years. If you want to get involved, go to Sacramento often, as I do, and speak out at the hearings and workshops. Here is news of one more recent study linking particulates to serious health effects, this time of an unusual character. Anyone, like Lois, downplaying the fact that the great majority of these studies clearly link bad air and poor health has a hidden agenda in my opinion. www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6386775/Air -pollution-linked-to-early-form-of-dementia.html
excerpt: "A study carried out in Germany on women who had lived at the same address for at least 20 years found those near busy roads were more likely to show signs of mild cognitive impairment, early memory problems that may lead to dementia. …It is thought the fine particles in air pollution can pass through the lungs and lodge in the brain where they cause inflammation which is associated with dementia."
posted by
DeBaets
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:12 PM
One fact that is often not mentioned in the retrofitting of off highway diesel engines is the cost to the operator. I'm talking about refrigeration units on trucks & trailers that deliver fresh & frozen foods. The operators purchased the equipment with a current EPA certification which meet that years standards. Now CARB is saying that isn't good enough. The cost to retrofit a refrigeration unit to CARB standards is between $5000.00 & $8500.00 per unit. I don't think the operators are going to absorb that cost. It will be passed on to the consumer. It would be the same as CARB coming to the average driver and saying you have to meet 2010 EPA standards on your car. CARB has way too much power.
posted by
learnem
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:14 PM
one thing is for sure...transportation is going to be very expensive in the future posted by
jfrancais
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:18 PM
One thing is for sure is that transportation is more expensive in CA than any other state in the continental US. How is gas so expensive in Bakersfield and they drill for it right off 7th Standard? You gotta love globalism. posted by
learnem
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:30 PM
thats not globalism jfran...its the gasoline tax that our state govt rakes in, higher than any nation, with the highest number of cars per person in the union, and we still cant pay our bills
ill call it richard cranium posted by
jfrancais
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:32 PM
Drill baby drill? Drill your way out of being broke. posted by
learnem
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:36 PM
the oil companies are patiently waiting until they can get top dollar for their oil. they wont drill until oil prices are well over 100 dollars posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 2, 2009 at 02:39 PM
How is gas so expensive in Bakersfield and they drill for it right off 7th Standard? If you mean gasoline, the only way to drill for it is to aim for a pipeline. . its the gasoline tax that our state govt rakes in, higher than any nation, And of course most European nations have higher gas taxes than California does. Great Britain, for example, charges about $3.50 per gallon in *TAXES*.
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |