The War on Science Waged by the Republican Party and Especially by the George Bush AdministrationEssay Preview: The War on Science Waged by the Republican Party and Especially by the George Bush AdministrationReport this essayThe War on Science Waged by the Republican PartyAnd Especially by the George Bush AdministrationI was taught that science is for the quest of truth, or The Truth. As humans new quest has evolved to the industry (at least what media dictates it to be), many people make it their mission to adjust others to this quest, ironically; its the people who would profit if the worlds state of mind would change to the industrial goal. These people who would profit from this are people in power, who have money, and obviously want to stay that way.
Science has cut the profit of companies who are involved in the use, application or consumption of unnatural substances or procedures. For already boomed companies such as car and gasoline companies, its almost upsetting to realize that if they were to shut down, how much money would be lost by the owners, manufacturers, economically, international trades, etc. (obviously way more complex) Then, when the subject of global warming is brought to a man such as Al Gore, a response like,” an inconvenient truth” is almost understanding but too upsetting. It reminds me of a financial phrase used for business decisions, “A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.” When the todays dollar came from the detriment of the earths atmosphere, I would naively think and hope that something would be done, especially by the government, by embracing the helpful knowledge that science provides to ensure that there could continue to have more dollars tomorrow. As it seems, republican parties such as the Bush Administration has taken the ignorant, easy way out.
As Chris Mooneys War on Science explains, every time a scientific study emerges that industry doesnt like, for example, the effects of secondhand smoke, the link between atrazine and frog deaths, the near extinction of an endangered fish in a dammed river, lawyers and lobbyists can now tie the science in knots for years to come, requesting reviews and re-reviews and even challenging the findings in court. This paralysis of analysis just also creates confusion of the subject to the public and will eventually fail to believe the scientific evidence of harm. Beyond that, the administration has tried to mislead the public about the nature of its decisions, pretending to embrace science while adopting extreme antiscientific positions. George W. Bushs August 2001 announcement
The EPA
According to a September 19, 2010 summary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published in Science by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “the use of chemicals such as the benzene benzene, naphthalene, and a number of pesticides (as well as the pesticides used to kill insects) on the market was the primary cause of more than 20 deaths worldwide from exposure to these products in 2006.” “What has taken the public so long is a pervasive refusal to acknowledge the causes of these chemicals,” the EPA concluded. “More and more, these chemicals continue to be used to kill human beings because their uses are too harmful to humans and because of the increased risks and risks of poisoning.”
“Since the 1990s, the global community has been largely silent regarding the chemicals used to kill people and, by extension, animals (or other sentient creatures). While the U.N. International Agency for Research on the Pollutants and Respiratory Diseases, at the time of release, listed chemical use as a major driver of increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, no formal scientific study has shown that using atrazine can cause the same level of cancer as using chlorethylene chloride. In fact, epidemiological studies have demonstrated that there are no epidemiologic risks of poisoning from exposure to or exposure to these pesticides.
As for the use of pesticides, much of the information on this Web site comes directly from a document authored by Professor John A. Williams of the University of Mississippi School of Natural Resources, the lead author of a 1999 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Environmental Policy Act Enforcement Report for 1991 which notes:
We do not know when chemicals used in the commercial chemical industry were first disclosed to the public and by whose public input the data was collected. Nor do we know how many chemical agents and pesticides were used in that manner and in the years that preceded them.
As in 2008, that document is not, as an independent observer can testify, a reliable source of data. In addition, even though the EPA began documenting chemical use through surveys of its public health community (which is not a large body of scientific data) in 1991, with a lack of the scientific data in place, it never even reported the chemical use or identified the chemicals used in it.
Environmentalists
Some researchers have already written articles about the potential health risks of atrazine from its use in a variety of ways, including in an 2010 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, titled “Toxic Algae: The Dirty, Horrible, Deadly, Hazardous, All-Cause Problem.” The report claims that pesticides have been released into the environment that contribute to their toxicity, and that pesticides are “allergic to toxicity” causing increased levels of carcinogens. (The report is no longer available, but the EPA posted it on its website.) In an Internet article entitled “Toxic Algae: The Dirty, Horrible, Deadly, Hazardous, All-Cause Problem,” the group of scientists states that “no