Congress Writes EPA Director Wheeler About Chemical Risk Program

Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash

Chemical safety ranks among the highest priorities in the world.  Hazardous chemical spills receive the appropriate attention from the press and regulators, along with federal, state, and local officials.  The issues which remain mysterious are surrounding the chemicals which are intertwined in our everyday lives.  Consumer products and manufacturing processes which use chemicals which are destructive on the environment fall under the purview of the chemical regulators.



Federal, state, and local agencies have regulators who keep track of chemicals which are registered with the government.  Of course, the caveat is that a large number of chemicals which are used in industry are not registered for various reasons.  One of which is due to the backlog of chemicals which are entered on the Toxic Substance Control Act.  More on that later.



The take-home message is that the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for updating chemical inventories of all chemicals used in the United States. Chemicals which could present a hazard to human health or the environment.  The assessment tool which the Environment Protection Agency uses is called the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).  More information can be found here about IRIS.



Congress is in charge of oversight over the EPA to ensure that the organization is carrying out the duties discharged to the from our elected officials.  Every few months, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is called in front of Congress to testify about any potential issues, conflicts, or general questions which might arise out of everyday operation and oversight. Usually, such Congressional hearings are not problematic.  The hearings are a back and forth discussion/update to our elected officials.  Lately, with the Trump Administration, the hearings have been highly unusual.



EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler along with other EPA officials seem to believe that the EPA does not need to answer to Congress at all.  This has caused considerable concern in Congress.
A letter from Congresswoman Bernice Johnson states the problems at the EPA with Congress:

July 18, 2019
The Honorable Andrew Wheeler
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1301 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D.C., 20460

Dear Administrator Wheeler,

I write to follow up on the repeated requests the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ("the Committee") has issued to EPA regarding the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.  Over the past five months, EPA has stonewalled this Committee--preventing a coequal branch of government from conducting Constitutionally-mandated oversight.  I am deeply troubled by this lack of cooperation with our efforts to evaluate a program so vital to ensuring the health and safety of the American people, and this behavior fits into a disturbing pattern of obstruction and disrespect of Congressional authority. 

EPA's intransigence and continued disregard for Congressional oversight demands has made it clear that use of compulsory power by this Committee is in order. 

Background on Committee Inquiries 

EPA's IRIS program is responsible for characterizing the health hazards of chemicals, through hazard identification and dose-response assessments, which are particularly important for understanding how chemicals impact children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the immunocompromised.  IRIS last completed an assessment of formaldehyde in 1990, and since that time, significant new data has emerged.  In 2009 researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) all released study results linking formaldehyde to leukemia.  At that same time, IRIS had already initiated work on a draft for an updated health hazard assessment for formaldehyde.  The draft was released in June of 2010.  In January 2018, your predecessor, Administrator Scott Pruitt, confirmed to the Senate that the formaldehyde assessment had been finalized, concluding that formaldehyde causes leukemia, but that it was being held up (Ref. 1). 

However, on December 19, 2018, EPA quietly removed formaldehyde and nine other chemical assessments from its program outlook, effectively stopping all efforts to finalize the reviews already in progress (Ref. 2).  When pressed for an explanation by Members of Congress and the press, EPA defended its decision to reduce the IRIS workflow by nearly half by citing the need to conserve time and resources (Ref. 3) and pointed to a newly-instituted prioritization process involving a two-part survey of EPA program offices.  The Agency has rebuffed the Committee's attempts to understand the prioritization process and how the benefits of eliminating several late-stage chemical assessments, including formaldehyde, outweigh the harms to the public. 

Committee Requests for Information from EPA 

On February 5, 2019, Committee staff emailed EPA Congressional Affairs requesting a staff-level briefing on the IRIS program and its dropping on the formaldehyde review from its December 2018 program outlook.  After a back-and-forth regarding scheduling, EPA Congressional Affairs requested that "all congressional requests for briefings [be] sent via a formal letter from the member."(Ref. 4)  This is highly unusual and constitutes an artificial barrier to information to which Committee staff is entitled in order to perform their role. 

On March 4, 2019, I wrote with three of my colleagues in the Senate to EPA to request documents relating to EPA's elimination of the IRIS formaldehyde assessment (Ref. 5).  My Senate colleagues were informed by EPA Congressional Affairs that EPA intended to treat the request as a Senate Minority request rather than a House Majority request, as my signature was not listed first (Ref. 6).  We understand this as EPA's attempt to undermine the authority of a Chairwoman.  The deadline for materials requested was April 5, but we have yet to receive any responsive documents. 

On March 27, 2019, the Committee held a hearing entitled "EPA's IRIS Program: Reviewing its Progress and Roadblocks Ahead."  At this hearing, we reviewed the Government Accountability Office's March 4 report on IRIS, wherein GAO found that political appointees within EPA are hindering the program's productivity, communication, and transparency.  This included EPA's opaque process of selecting priority chemicals, its order that IRIS cease releasing documentation to the public, it's undermining of the chronically understaffed IRIS program through staff reassignments and the mysterious delay of the long-completed formaldehyde report.  The Committee requested testimony from Dr. Kristina Thayer, head of the IRIS program.  Instead, EPA sent Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta.  At the hearing, it became clear that Dr. Orme-Zavaleta was not involved in many of the decisions at the core of the Committee's investigation of the program, and she was not prepared by the Agency to answer basic questions about relevant events from the past year. 

At the hearing, Congressman Paul Tonko inquired about the Office of Children's Health Protection's (OCHP) response to the IRIS prioritization surveys.  Dr. Orme-Zavaleta affirmed that OCHP did respond to the second-round survey.  Congressman Tonko asked Dr. Orme-Zavaleta if formaldehyde was one of the priority chemicals listed and she responded: 

"I believe formaldehyde was one of the chemicals, but we can get back with you.  I don't recall the full list."(Ref. 7) 

EPA has failed to remit OCHP's survey response to the Committee despite repeated reminders. 

On April 3, the Committee sent a letter to you requesting a briefing on the announcement that EPA was officially discontinuing IRIS's work on formaldehyde (Ref. 8).  The letter outlined specific questions that were asked in the hearing that Dr. Orme-Zavaleta was unable to answer.  EPA has yet to offer a date for this briefing. 

On April 11, the Committee followed up on our March 27 hearing with formal questions for the record. To date -- four months after the hearing -- the Committee has not received any response.  This failure to respond to routine questions for the record is highly unusual. 

On April 24, an EPA Congressional Affairs staffer returned the Agency's edits to the Committee transcript, which are supposed to be clarifications to clerical errors in the stenographer's record.  But in that message the staffer suggested an edit to the transcript that would change the substance of Dr. Orme-Zavaleta's response to another question regarding OCHP.  The staffer asked the Committee to omit her assertion that OCHP's response came a day after the December IRIS memo was released (Ref. 9).  This is an outrageous attempt to change the record in order to circumvent Congressional oversight and improve public perceptions of EPA's actions. 

During a staff-level phone call on May 3, EPA Congressional Affairs attempted to change course altogether, claiming that Dr. Orme-Zavaleta never told the Committee that the Agency would follow up about OCHP's response to the second-round IRIS survey, despite the clear exchange documented in the hearing transcript.  In any event, the second-round IRIS survey is also part of the response we would expect to receive in response to our March 4 document request. 

During the May3 phone call, EPA Congressional Affairs also promised to deliver the following by May 10: responses to the March 4 bicameral letter, the OCHP second-round survey response, and responses to questions for the hearing record (Ref. 10).  The Committee has yet to receive any of these items. 

Your staff in Congressional Affairs has made every effort to obstruct the Committee's oversight, going so far as to attempt to change the substance of the record.  At this point, the Committee has exhausted all non-compulsory means of conducting oversight over EPA.  The Agency's obstruction of Congress is particularly disturbing considering the implications of the matter at hand for children's health. 

EPA must provide to the Committee the following responsive material by the accompanying deadlines: 

1) All documents responsive to the March 4, 2019 letter by August 1, 2019; 

2) The OCHP second-round IRIS survey response by the close of business on July 19, 2019; 

3) A date for the briefing requested in the April 3, 2019 letter must be agreed upon by July 22, 2019.  The briefing must occur before August 7, 2019.  David Dunlap, Kristina Thayer, and Tina Bahadori should be present and available for questions at the briefing; 

4) Answers to the questions for the record sent on April 11, 2019, by August 1, 2019.
Please respond in full by the provided deadlines or the Committee will be forced to use compulsory measures. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss compliance with requests made to date, please contact Ms. Janie Thompson by 202-225-6376 

Sincerely, 

Eddie Bernice Johnson
Chairwoman
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

CC: Ranking Member Frank Lucas, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

The blatant disrespect for Congressional oversight by the EPA officials under the Trump Administration is very concerning. Anyone who is made aware of the letter above should be outraged at the inability of Congress to exert more power over the federal agencies such as the EPA to protect the average American.   This protection should extend to the environment too.



Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in the government is a significant lack of regulation.  Part of the problem is that the many federal, state and local agencies are understaffed.  The Trump administration has advocated for a massive reduction in staff numbers at these agencies to save money.  Although the question arises from saving money by understaffing agencies: 



Who suffers from a lack of regulation?



The answer is the American taxpayer.  The American consumer.  The U.S. resident.



We pay for these agencies to enforce safety regulations to protect Americans from hazardous chemicals both to the environment and human health.  Why is that enforcement not happening?  The answer is in the letter above.  A lack of direction exists at the top of these organizations.  Which trickles down to the lower level staff not to carry out enforcement at the local level.  This is deeply concerning. 



Each of us should call our elected officials and demand greater oversight over federal agencies. The same agencies tasked with monitoring products which can negatively impact our health and the health of the environment. 



Take action today. 



We should demand nothing less.



Related Blog Posts:


FDA Stance On PFAS: Study Findings and Survey Results

More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Trump Administration Cuts Food Stamp Program For 3.1 Million People To Save $25 Billion Over 10 Years - Why?

Source: WRIC

For a self-proclaimed successful businessman, President Trump severely lacks an understanding of how to represent the entire U.S. population.  Why?  Because if President Trump really was representing all Americans, then depriving 3.1 million U.S. residents would not be pushed by the U.S.D.A.-- under his administration. Notably, while boosting the annual military budget an exorbitant amount while saving little by depriving 3.1 million U.S. residents of food stamps.



Reporting from 'Politico Agriculture' briefly shows the small savings for the Country while potentially starving 3.1 million people:

LATEST FOOD STAMP CRACKDOWN MAY WORSEN HUNGER: Perdue's newest plan to rein in who's eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program may "negatively impact food security" among low-income households, according to the department's own cost-benefit analysis posted Tuesday. USDA data shows that nearly 12 percent of American households are already food insecure, meaning they don't always have the resources to access enough food, reports Pro Ag's Helena Bottemiller Evich.

Perdue's proposal targets what's known as broad-based categorical eligibility, which allows households with assets or income above existing limits for SNAP to qualify for the program if they receive some kind of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families service. Perdue argued this option is being used by states "without restraint."

What are the income limits? The typical gross income limit for SNAP is 130 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $27,000 for a family of three. Through broad-based categorical eligibility, many states can offer assistance to households with gross income of up to 200 percent of the poverty level, or about $42,000 for a family of three. (For perspective, farmers earning up to $900,000 a year in adjusted gross income can qualify for direct subsidies.)

Overall, tightening the policy would cut 3.1 million people from the program, saving taxpayers about $1.9 billion a year, the department's analysis found. USDA officials told reporters on Monday that savings would total $2.5 billion a year. A department spokesperson clarified late Tuesday the higher estimate comes from the department's 10-year projections.

A hit to grocery stores: The plan would also mean grocery retailers would lose $3 billion annually in sales, according to USDA's analysis. That counters what Perdue told reporters on Tuesday. When asked whether he expected a drop in grocery store sales, Perdue said he didn't because the people who would lose SNAP benefits have other resources at their disposal. He referenced the so-called Minnesota Millionaire, Rob Undersander, who attended a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing last month.

Wow.



To put this into perspective, take the $2.5 billion saved annually for 10 years to total $25 billion in savings to deprive 3.1 million U.S. residents of food assistance.  When I read the news, the following question came to mind: How does $25 billion in savings over 10 years compare with a single year budget increase for military spending under the Trump administration?



According to the Wikipedia page for Military Budgets, last fiscal year's proposed increase of funding for the military was $54 billion.  OMG.



Yes, the total amount of proposed savings by cutting off 3.1 million U.S. residents from food stamps over 10 years equals just under a half of the proposed annual increase in defense spending for the fiscal year 2018.  Where are the priorities of this nation at the moment?  Why would we deprive 3.1 million U.S. residents of food stamps to save so little over 10 years?



These savings do not include the cost to grocery retailers -- which have been estimated to be around $3 billion in annual sales.  Who is supporting this giant cut?



These questions have yet to be answered.  The items can be added to other questions to which we deserve answers too.  This behavior is un-American.  Save money by depriving 3.1 million people of food assistance. Are you serious President Trump?  Each of us should be contacting our elected representatives in Congress and express our disinterest in supporting this matter.   We (as a nation) are better than this.



Related Blog Posts:


Does The Public Have The Right To Know Where SNAP Money Is Spent?

Remember Undergraduates Grades First then Research Experience

Photo by Matt Ragland on Unsplash

A trend has been developing of placing importance on research experience before grades during the undergraduate experience. Which is terrible for graduate school.


Students are under increasing pressure with changing times. Technology is quickly changing the educational landscape. With more classes (or instruction) available through MOOC's (Massive Open Online Courses), education is changing. With the growing number of online instruction options, parents are starting to question the need for a college degree. Further, the pressure on students on having a spotless record with extracurricular (volunteer-, research-, and work-experience )is gaining momentum. How does a student plan for graduate school with these mounting pressures upon them?

Education Is About Time Spent In Class

Why are students required to go to class? What does a lecture aim to achieve? The primary purpose of attending class is the certification process. Each university gives a degree which specifies that a student spent a given (specified) amount of time in a variety of courses which make up education.



Different universities have different requirements for a given degree. For example, at California State University at Northridge, each chemistry/biochemistry major is required to have a few credits (units) of research experience to complete a degree. That does not mean every student will do undergraduate research while attending the university. Many students will get exemptions or replacement units to fulfill a degree.



What about for those who would like to attend graduate school in chemistry/biochemistry? Research experience seems to be high on their list as an undergraduate. Each student with whom I have spoken to seems to believe that to get into graduate school, he/she must publish a scientific paper during their undergraduate education. Nothing could be further from the truth.



As I mentioned in the opening paragraph to this section, a college degree certifies that a student has completed the required amount of units (credits) for a degree in chemistry/biochemistry. The degree says nothing about their capabilities of becoming a scientist. Nor does the degree certify that each student is proficient in scientific research. Why? Again, that is not the purpose of getting a 'B.S.' or a 'B.A.' degree in chemistry/biochemistry.



Students should focus on what is essential for an undergraduate degree: completing courses! That is it.



The myth is that each student must publish is just a myth -- i.e., not true!

Graduate Committee Is Interested In Grades

I completed my undergraduate degree at the University of California at Riverside. During my undergraduate education, I was able to perform undergraduate research in a chemistry lab. Although my hands-on experience was not thorough or intense for that matter.
An example was the interaction I had during undergraduate research.


My advisor approached me with the following question: "Hey Mike, did you study for the Quantum Mechanics exam I am giving tomorrow?"



He was referring to a class I was taking at the time.



I responded, "I have studied a little. Although, I wanted to finish building this electrical circuit for an experiment."



He responded, "The graduate entrance committee is not interested in whether you did a great job in research. The committee is interested in your G.P.A. and how you performed in a given course."



He continued, "You could be a rockstar and publish a paper during your undergraduate degree. Still, grades matter more. Grades are your job at this level."



He was right.



Part of the problem is the undergraduate research advisors who push students on their research projects. Prioritizing research above classes by advisors at institutions such as CSUN can be dangerous.



Why?



60% of our students come from a family household with an annual income of less than $24,000. WOW. Yes, you read correctly. Which means that college is a considerable investment. The majority of our students are first-generation college students. Which have little experience in prioritizing their responsibilities during the acquisition of a college degree?



Why would a student question the advice of their research advisor?



Remember: Different universities have different requirements for an undergraduate education.

Focus on the task at hand

If you find yourself having a difficult time believing the advice of this blog post, stop, and think about the following fact. At larger institutions like UCLA or UCSD, the average undergraduate does not ever get a chance to perform undergraduate research. If that is the case, then how does that student get into the same graduate school as a student from CSUN who has research experience.
Graduate school is about teaching students how to do research. The amount of classes each student takes during a 5-year process is around six classes. What? Yes, you did read correctly. Only 6–8 courses at the most for a "Ph.D." degree.



What does a graduate student do for the remainder of the degree process?



A graduate student teaches laboratory for undergraduate chemistry laboratory class.



The graduate student focuses all of his/her time on RESEARCH.



The time to do research is in graduate school!!!



Undergraduate students should focus on their studies. Earn great grades. When the time comes to apply for graduate school, the application process will be less stressful. On the application, a section titled "personal statement" is reserved for you to distinguish yourself from other students who are interested in pursuing a graduate degree.




Related Blog Posts:


Why Are Scientists So Rigid?


How Do Scientists Think?

Former FDA Director Asked Congress For Clarity Regarding CBD in Food Products


Food is not addictive, but is filled with Addictive Drugs -- Engineered Chemicals to Elicit Addiction


"Just Make A Generic (Cheaper Version) Of The Drug"? Not So Easy...


Update: On FDA's Policy Agenda For Combatting Opioid Crisis


The future: Making Medicines in your kitchen?

How many Goodyear Blimps can be filled 1.85 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide?

Every discussion surrounding combatting climate change involves the inevitable inclusion of curbing emissions such as carbon dioxide.  If the U.S. does decide to curb or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions across the entire U.S., the total amount of the problem needs to be understood.  The magnitude of the total emissions by the U.S. on an annual basis.



According to an article on Bloomberg, the amount of Carbon Dioxide needed to be taken out of the atmosphere is quite enormous:

As much as 1.85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide would need to be removed from the air annually to help the U.S. zero out emissions by midcentury, according to a report earlier this month by the Rhodium Group, an economic policy research provider.

When I read the statistic of 1.85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, my head almost exploded.  Wow!  How many Goodyear blimps could be filled with 1.85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide? That question needs to be solved.  In the paragraphs below, I will walk the reader through the solution using dimensional analysis.

How Much Gas Per Goodyear Blimp?

If the number of Goodyear blimps is the metric for our analysis, then the volume per blimp must be determined.  In keeping with our methodology on this site, the pathway toward finding the volume occupied per blimp would be to ask Google:  How much volume is contained in a Goodyear blimp?  The answer is shown below:

If the first link is chosen which directs us to the Goodyear blimp site, a data table of specifications is located at the bottom.  The volume is listed as 297,527 cubic feet of gas per blimp.  A conversion factor is shown as follows for the calculation:

The amount of 297,527 cubic feet is shown above in scientific notation (science shorthand).

What is remaining to complete the analysis?

At this point, a unit check is needed to ensure that all values are expressed in the same units.  Otherwise, the calculation cannot be carried out by simple division.



The total volume of gas is expressed in units of 'tons,' whereas the amount of gas per blimp is expressed in units of 'cubic feet.'  Which means, either convert the volume of gas per blimp to units of 'tons' or convert the total amount of carbon dioxide (expressed in units of 'tons') to cubic feet.



But wait...One unit is a weight while the other is a volume?


How about converting the total volume of gas (carbon dioxide) from 'tons' to 'cubic feet'?  Ask Google the following question:  How much does a cubic foot of carbon dioxide weigh?

The answer above gives more information than just the weight of a cubic foot of carbon dioxide gas.  In fact, the weight of a ton of carbon dioxide gas is provided.  The conversion of units from ton to cubic feet is shown below:

The remaining step is to divide the total amount of gas by the amount of gas per blimp as shown in the next and final step:

Our analysis yields the answer for the initial question of how many Goodyear blimps would be filled with 1.85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.  The total annual output of the U.S. of carbon dioxide emissions.  To remove the total annual output, the equivalent of 109,000,000 Goodyear blimps would have to be filled.  That is an enormous amount of gas.  Although, carrying out analyses such as the one above gives us an idea of the magnitude of the problem. 



Now that you have been shown the methodology for solving the problem, you can determine the number of Mercedez Benz Superdome stadiums required to hold the equivalent amount of gas.  Leave the answer in the comment below.



Related Blog Posts:



How Many M&M Candy's Would Be Required To Form A Line Between Earth And The Moon?

Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


Parameters: How Much Water Is Required To Grow A Package Of Almonds?


How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?


How Many Women Are Needed To Form A Chain 400 miles Long?


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?


How many Soy Latte coffee drinks can be made with 135,000 tons of Soybeans?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


How many Olympic size swimming pools per day would be filled with 890,000 barrels of oil?


Reader Question: How far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end?

Thought: Sustainable Practices Should Not Be Competitive But Open Sourced For All

Photo by Pop & Zebra on Unsplash

Sustainability has become a popular term (descriptor) over the last few years.  Consumers are interested in purchasing products which are made by manufacturers who practice sustainable measures in their manufacturing supply chain.  The world is driven more and more by consumer demand in the age of social media.  Shaming on social media can change the sourcing/ingredients inside a given product which is sold on the U.S. market.



Corporations are under pressure to show changes which point toward practicing more significant sustainable measures in conducting business in the United States.  The meat manufacturing industry is promoting the sharing of sustainable practices instead of keeping secrets among competitors:

Chicago, IL, July 15, 2019 – The North American Meat Institute Executive Board of Directors unanimously agreed to make environmental impact a non-competitive issue, encouraging member companies to share sustainability best practices with each other and freeing their staffs to advise others in the industry seeking to improve their environmental impact for the good of the industry and the planet.

“Many meat and poultry companies have integrated sustainability into their businesses and have successfully shown they can lower their impact on air, land and water,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “Sharing these best practices across the industry is a win-win for members, consumers and the environment.”

The North American Meat Institute’s Environmental Committee has been working collaboratively for many years and the Meat Institute has an Environmental awards program that recognizes plants that have implemented strong environmental programs and are dedicated to continuous improvement. Formalizing this arrangement will enhance the flow of information and best practices exchange to a wider range of members.

The Meat Institute will also develop a list of advisors who are available to troubleshoot problems and help companies apply best practices.

Environmental impact is the fourth issue deemed non-competitive by Meat Institute members. NAMI took similar actions regarding worker safety in 1990, food safety in 2001 and animal welfare in 2002.

“Sharing best practices throughout our membership has been proven successful within the meat industry,” said Potts. “The industry has demonstrated substantial improvements in worker safety, food safety and animal welfare since they were made non-competitive.”

Successes include:

The development of voluntary ergonomic guidelines and more than 80 percent reduction in worker injuries and illnesses, regularly reaching all-time industry lows;

Drastic reductions in pathogenic bacteria on meat products including E.coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes contributing to 99.999 percent of meals with meat and poultry being enjoyed safely in the U.S. daily; and

More than 95 percent of the beef, pork and lamb produced in plants that voluntarily follow the guidelines and animal welfare audit program Dr. Temple Grandin authored.

Without mentioning the word 'sustainability,' large corporations need to start making changes to their supply chain which protect (worker safety) workers.  In a previous blog post, poultry manufacturers were trying to lobby Congress to allow faster processing speeds on the processing lines in factories.  Which is very dangerous for the safety of workers.



Now, consider inserting sustainable practices into the manufacturer/supply chain.  The corporate world would have to make changes to their current practices.  Sharing practices among industry partners or competitors are not very common. That is an old, outdated way of thinking and operating.



In today's technology (and social media) based economy, sharing best practices among industries is not only encouraged, but suggested by the consumer. If the North American Meat Institute can promote the sharing of 'best practices' regarding sustainability, real momentum could be made.  Which is exciting.



Looking toward the future of sustainable practices in the United States, corporations will feel increasing pressure over the next few years. With consumers taking control of the product supply chain in various corporations, change is inevitable.



Rather than sit back and wait to be part of the change, try to promote sustainable practices among businesses around you.



How to do this?



Start the dialogue with business owners. Ask what type of sustainable practices the business owner has considered or is currently considering transitioning toward. If the answer is a blank stare, then suggest that he/she starts seeking out changes to their products which promote more significant sustainable practices. Encouragement is a good starting point.



Related Blog Posts:


Business Leaders Are More Receptive To Climate Solutions!


Does Climate Change Really Impact National Security?

Mayor Garcetti Moves Los Angeles Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

A Mass Shooting Is Not The Same As A Scientific Discovery -- Applying The Same Metric For News Worthiness Is Useless

Photo by Thomas Charters on Unsplash

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a day conference which aimed at bringing together the science community with the news community.  Two communities which do not necessarily have a high degree of overlap.  Hence, the massive need for science journals.   If the news publicized scientific findings, then maybe the content viewers wanted would change over time.  That is my personal opinion as a scientist.



The day was very informative, to say the least.  Overall, the goal was to teach scientists how to 'kick start' their science (research) by learning how to talk too publicly elected officials.  I could write an entire series about the whole day -- which was filled with talks and activities.  Instead, I would like to highlight a couple of overarching issues which cast a large shadow over the rest of the content.



That is how stories are sorted to be published.  Further, how stories are chosen for a given issue/print of the week.

Mass Shooting VS. Science: NO

During the late morning, the Chief Content Officer for channel 7 news in Los Angeles -- "ABC7" spoke about the ever-changing news cycle.  In the discussion, he elaborated on the specific techniques which are used (metrics) for deciding whether a story makes the news or not.  I was surprised to find out that the only hour out of a 24-hour cycle during which there is no news is from 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.



Turns out that the content editors aggregate their stories from a variety of sources: mail, email, social media, and data analytics.  The first three are not entirely surprising given the popularity of the delivery methods.  Social media offers up to date real-time analysis of stories.  Instant feedback to stories published on the ABC7 Facebook page, ABC7 Twitter page, or ABC7 Instagram.  These results/comments are fed back to the senior content editor along with his team to decide where to go (i.e., what new stories to search for/publish) next in the news world.



Makes sense, right?



Go with the content which is trending or soaring on the social media/internet landscape.  Right?



If I were working in the newsroom, I suppose the choice is obvious.  Especially, given the amount of real-time data arising out of a story.  Social media, along with the entire digital domain, has changed how news is analyzed, presented, and consumed by the corporations and consumer.



His take-home message was that he is interested in accumulating (collecting) stories from a variety of sources.  Send him one.  He stated that overall, the news channel still relies on 'scoops' from a variety of sources.  That point was a significant part of his presentation and repeated by his assistant reiterated during a Q & A session.



What was not apparent to me but arose during the Q & A session was the method of how the stories are chosen to run in a given news cycle.  The process by which content editors in newsrooms decide the worthiness of a story has fascinated me over time.



First, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times was asked how she chooses stories for a given week.  She stated very bluntly that she looks for the importance of the story.  How is this story going to change humanity?  Why is the world interested in this story?  What is the significance of the story now?  Reporters refer to these questions combined as the 'hook' of the story.



She was concerned about the fact that when a scientist is contacted, she is often disappointed to hear that the researcher cannot provide a 'hook' for her story.  My initial response was that scientists are not in charge of creating a 'hook' for their research.



After stewing on the ideas over the last week, I do believe that scientists should be able to explain the importance of their research to the public/news.  Although, whether that story is super-important or eye-catching is another problem.  Namely, the issue of the reporter, not the scientist.



As I mentioned earlier, another panelist was the assistant to the Chief Content Officer at ABC7.  She was asked by yours truly the following question:



Why does science not appear in the news more often?  Why don't you add more science content to the news cycle and look for the response?  Say, a profile of what a scientist looks like along with a brief summary of their research?



She started to answer the question by spreading her hands out like a table in front of herself.  With one hand she had a single sheet of paper representing a story about a Mass Shooting.  Whereas with the other hand, she had a story on the latest scientific discovery.  She placed both sheets down on the table in front of her to inspect side by side.



She answered that when stories are side by side, a decision is made on what to incorporate into the news cycle.  WHAT???????


My mind was blown away.


I could not believe that a story about the latest scientific discovery has to compete with a story about a Mass Shooting?  Does that make any sense to anybody reading this blog post?


Wow!


The two stories are entirely different.


Why would a news channel show the 'Pet of the week' to be adopted at the end of a segment, yet make science compete with a Mass Shooting?


Or make a weekly series called "What does a scientist look like?  What do they do?"


I am still trying hard to wrap my head around the concept that the news does not separate stories in terms of content.  What arises at the moment is compared head to head.  Amazing and unfair.

Science Is Constant, Not Sporadic

For those of us who practice the profession of science, the process is constant rather than sporadic.  Even if a discovery is made.  The development has many small findings which emerge to make significant developments in science.  That is, in terms of daily effort by professional scientists who get up and work every day to push the boundary of science forward.



Not every discovery is glamorous.  In fact, many small findings add up to significant development.  To me, reporting on the additive (small components) of science by the news would actually help change the public's perception of science for the better.



Are stellar scientists created overnight?  How about over 4 years at a University?  No.  Science is a practice which takes time.  Of course, that is not to say that people who are interested in science cannot understand and enjoy science without having to work endless hours in a laboratory.



Enjoying and understanding science does not mean continually practicing science research every day.


Therefore, comparing a scientific discovery to a Mass Shooting is not right.  Nor is trying to make the scientific discovery more important than the development actually is.  This blown out of proportion reporting not only confuses the public by instilling incorrect aspects regarding scientific research.  The public tends to think that only super smart (genius) people perform scientific research, which is not true at all.


The old saying:  Research is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.  A daily effort is made for discovery.  A Mass Shooting is a local tragedy to which no other innovation compares too.


The news corporations need to change their model by which a story is chosen and placed in a prioritized category for air time in a given news cycle.  Stories should appear based on unique content.  Viewers need guidance into what is out there in the world.  That is why most people (except for me) have 400 channels in their house.  Variety is the new norm.



If the news cycle continues to be made up of popular 'eye-catching' news only (i.e., Mass Shootings), then there will be no time for scientific discoveries.  Further, if Chief Content Officers do not decide to give time to introducing scientific developments, then a greater gap will grow. A difference between scientists and members of the public. In between which is the paywall provided by the publishers of the top science journals. Science will continue to reside behind a virtual paywall by the publishers of the top science journals.  And that is sad, considering that the scientific research which needs to be reported is being paid by taxpayer money -- U.S. Citizens tax money.  I think that we deserve to hear about scientific discoveries along with other important news.



Related Blog Posts:



1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Business Leaders Are More Receptive To Climate Solutions!

Photo by Benjamin Child on Unsplash

Rainstorms have been more frequently hitting the United States over the last year and a half.  What does this tell you?  How does the investment in infrastructure track with the frequency of storms?  Are we as a nation investing enough in solutions which go to combat the growing effects of climate change?  New reporting suggests that this might be the case over the last two years.



An article which appeared in Reuters titled "Climate activists find warmer reception at shareholder meetings" increasingly more proposals are being funded which are aimed at curbing/combatting climate change:

Of the 145 climate-related proposals filed for this year’s springtime annual meeting season, 39 percent led to deals and were withdrawn, according to Ceres, a Boston-based advocacy group that coordinates and tracks the resolutions. Last year the rate was 36 percent, and 21 percent in 2015.

The reporting is not a complete surprise given the success in transitioning toward clean/renewable energy occurring in European countries.  Over the last few years, the European Union has pushed remarkably well for a transition through making affordable financing available to countries will to make the transition.  As a result, more and more European countries can transition toward renewable energy sources.



Another way to view the success stated in the article cited above is to look at a graph of investment over time.  The graphic below shows the trend of green investment over 4 years:

Reuters

According to the graph on the right, which is the number of proposals versus time.  The blue columns represent the total number of projects received in a given year.  Whereas the purple represents the total number of proposals funded.  For 2015-18, the trend of an increasing number of proposals submitted is roughly matched by the rising number of the projects financed.



For 2019, the data is even more exciting.  The number of proposals drops for the year.  Although there is an increase in the number of projects funded.  This means that the total percentage of submitted proposals increased overall.  Of course, that was stated in the paragraph above.  Still, the data plotted above tells a beautiful story regarding investors warming up to climate activists.



The future is exciting for transitioning toward renewable energy sources.  Pictures (data graphs) speak a thousand words.  The Ceres group has provided a compelling story looking into the future based on the past.    An increasingly large number of jobs are opening up in the renewable energy sector.  This has kept up with the growing political will of the citizens of the United States.  Hopefully, this momentum does not slow down, but only gains strength to keep alive and well into the immediate future.  Stay tuned!



Related Blog Posts:



Does Climate Change Really Impact National Security?

Mayor Garcetti Moves Los Angeles Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!