I know he is a fighter pilot, a history buff, and a corporate whiz---however maybe he got his science tutorials from Uncle Ronnie.
THE LEAD INDUSTRY GETS ITS TURN.
Toxic
by Jonathan Cohn
Post date 12.18.02
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021223&s=cohn122302
You didn't have to be a fortune-teller to see that the October meeting of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was going to be more controversial than usual. The panel, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had been gearing up for a few months to consider whether the federal standard for lead poisoning, set in 1991, should be even tougher. The answer was likely to be yes, given new research linking even modest lead exposure to developmental problems in children.
But, just a few weeks before the meeting, the Bush administration shook up the advisory committee's membership. When it came time to fill a group of vacancies on the panel this year, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy Thompson rejected several nominees recommended by the staff scientists at the CDC in favor of five people who seemed likely to look upon further tightening of lead regulations skeptically, if not to oppose it outright.
One of the nominees had repeatedly stated that the current standard--endorsed by everybody from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Academy of Pediatrics--was too strict. Another had stated that children could tolerate lead levels seven times the current standard without suffering cognitive harm. Even more disturbing, at least two of the new appointees had direct financial ties to the lead industry: One was a consultant whose clients included a prominent lead-smelting company fighting a lawsuit over pollution in Washington state. Another, a pediatric toxicologist from Oklahoma, had been a paid defense witness in several liability suits against lead-paint companies.
THE LEAD INDUSTRY GETS ITS TURN.
Toxic
by Jonathan Cohn
Post date 12.18.02
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021223&s=cohn122302
You didn't have to be a fortune-teller to see that the October meeting of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was going to be more controversial than usual. The panel, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), had been gearing up for a few months to consider whether the federal standard for lead poisoning, set in 1991, should be even tougher. The answer was likely to be yes, given new research linking even modest lead exposure to developmental problems in children.
But, just a few weeks before the meeting, the Bush administration shook up the advisory committee's membership. When it came time to fill a group of vacancies on the panel this year, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tommy Thompson rejected several nominees recommended by the staff scientists at the CDC in favor of five people who seemed likely to look upon further tightening of lead regulations skeptically, if not to oppose it outright.
One of the nominees had repeatedly stated that the current standard--endorsed by everybody from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Academy of Pediatrics--was too strict. Another had stated that children could tolerate lead levels seven times the current standard without suffering cognitive harm. Even more disturbing, at least two of the new appointees had direct financial ties to the lead industry: One was a consultant whose clients included a prominent lead-smelting company fighting a lawsuit over pollution in Washington state. Another, a pediatric toxicologist from Oklahoma, had been a paid defense witness in several liability suits against lead-paint companies.