And I am even more certain that YOU have not read it. You talk about trade secrets or banning the words "climate" and things that aren't covered at all. You talk about "previous versions" of this bill that "ban models", yet haven't noticed the implicit acceptance of computer models in 2(3)B(ii). You think that data about a specific company's fracking mix has to be made public before studies that show any of the chemicals in that mix can be banned for use in fracking, and that's just not true.

It should be clear I've read it. I've quoted from it extensively in previous discussions about it, and in this one.

Stop being obtuse. If the only jurisdiction the EPA had was how much benzene someone could inject into an aquifer you might have some point. Their reach extends MUCH further than that, and you don't know what rules they might make tomorrow that impact you. Now, it's nice that you want them to be able to do it based on "we say..." from someone who can't produce a scientific study supporting their claims, but I am not so tolerant of government regulation.

You haven't read the bill and cannot support any of the claims you make about it, so you try to turn it into some personal issue to sidetrack the discussion. I have a common sense belief that they need to justify ALL of their regulations with science that can be reviewed by anyone who wishes to do so. It's that simple. Why do you have a problem with such review? What regulations do you personally want that cannot be supported by scientific studies and fact? I know because you've already told us: anything that can smack down evil corporations.

No, because YOU support any regulations that the EPA can come up that would smack me down, based on nothing more than "PopeRatzo says ...". Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

By the way, the job of the EPA is not to "prevent burgeoning hegemony" over anything, it's to create rules to protect the environment. Period. Those rules need justification. Why shouldn't they? I have yet to see anyone explain why they shouldn't.

And now your argument is pure ad hominem.

You tell wrong. Are you making it up out of whole cloth? It requires data to be available online in a form that anyone who wishes to verify or reproduce it can. It makes no requirement of reproducibility. Some people even lie and say that this law requires the EPA to reproduce it.

Close. You could read it for yourself if you want. It says nothing about all raw data, only "all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action". The raw data leads to results, the results are the scientific and technical information that are relied on.

They lie. There is no such language in the law. Read it for yourself. It is even shorter than the FCC net neutrality rules.

They lie. The data isn't banned, but use of data that isn't available "in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results" cannot be used in formulation of EPA regulations.

But what about private medical data? Doesn't have to be made available. "Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law." If your private medical data is covered by HIPAA, it doesn't have to be made available -- but it doesn't have to be made available anyway, only the results used to support regulatory actions. If you've signed away your legal protections to that data, well, you should have gotten legal advice prior to signing.

The process of peer-review is prior to publication. If it is published, then put it online and the law is satisfied. People here seem quite enamored with Open Access publishing, so any law that furthers the cause should be greeted with open arms. But here we have opposition to law, so keeping science private is somehow good.

That depends on what the "private database" contains, but I'd say that if you want public regulations then you should provide support for your desire and not just "because I say so". If your entire study is based on someone's private database then you have reproducibility and validity issues from the get-go and that means you aren't really doing science, you're trolling for data to support whatever conclusion you're looking for. That's the kind of science this law would stop, and I think that's just fine.

This law has nothing to do with corporate oversight.

This law says nothing about preventing the use of certain words.

THIS law says nothing about banning models.

So, basically, fuck science, if the EPA can write regulations that stop companies from doing things you don't like just because you don't like it, that's fine with you. The EPA doesn't have to have any reason at all to enact regulations strangling some corporate activity because corporations don't deserve fair treatment based on scientific evidence, they just need to be punished.

I would have hoped you understood that EPA also impacts private citizens and the same regulations that apply to evil corporations also apply to people like you. I say, fuck science, any regulation the EPA can come up with that smacks PopeRatzo down is a good'un. If science isn't necessary for corporate rules, they aren't necessary for public rules either.

Because the actual regulation wouldn't be "ban benzene", it would be "the MCL for benzene in public drinking water is X ppb", just as the regulations regarding MCL in drinking water are already written. I didn't think you would see a statement about banning chemical Z as a claim that the regulation would say nothing but "ban chemical Z". Sheesh. I thought the context of "toxic chemicals used in fracking" would have been obvious and assumed.

By writing a regulation. That regulation doesn't need to say anything about the mix of chemicals some oil company is using to frack, or any knowledge about the mix at all. All it has to do is ban Z for that use -- based on solid, reviewable studies that Z actually is bad and not just someone saying they think is must be bad and should be banned. Nobody needs to know what the mix is, or even if company XYZ is fracking or not. All there needs to be is a study showing why Z should be banned. For use in fracking. By ANY company.

It's not micromanagement to require EPA regulations to be based on publicly available and reviewable science. It's common sense.

Oh for goodness sakes. The law requiring public availability of data that regulations are based on doesn't prevent regulation. Not even close. Do you even know what the law says?

I think my point was that it is pretty much irrelevant if the ham can make complicated internal repairs to his radio, it is the fact that the ham can make repairs to large scale infrastructure. When the ground shakes really hard, it won't shake the itty bitty surface mount resistors off the circuit board in any of my radios, but it may knock the tower over and break the antenna and cut a feedline. I have spares for both, and if it does shake the resistors off the radio in any of the repeaters I run, I have spare radios I can put into service quickly.

Public safety users cannot do that. Commercial radio repair will be a scarce resource.

Because the public is too damn cheap to pay for 100% availability of telecom systems. You wouldn't pay what it would cost to have 100% available cell service during disasters, or any other public infrastructure for that matter. And governments don't pay for 100% capacity for their public safety communication systems, either, for the same reason. The public wouldn't put up with the taxes they'd have to pay to get there.

A five channel trunked radio system can handle five simultaneous users (ten when Phase II P25 with TDMA is available). What happens in a disaster when six people want to talk at the same time? You got it -- one doesn't get to.

We'll pay for service during normal times and complain about the prices, and then complain when the service dies during a disaster when it is overloaded.

Some poorly-anonymized data can be de-anonymized.

Here's a published result as would be required by law: "Of 1000 individuals with Crohn's Disease, 14% had a 200% increase of HDL levels after a three week exposure to water containing 30ppb As." Please de-anonymize that data. It's sufficient to reproduce the study and verify the results, but you can't determine the names of any of the participants.

"Gleaned from private sources" is irrelevant. "This data" is. It doesn't matter where the data came from, only that it be made available for review if it is going to be used for regulations.

The law doesn't require the EPA to have a team of domain-specific PhDs to go over the data. It requires YOU to put the data online in a way that someone who chooses to do so can verify it.

Ok, make the data available for review and we'll see what others qualified in the field make of it. Why are you trying to push regulations on the public when you refuse show them the data to support it?

This law has nothing to do with trade secrets. It says that data used to create rules by the EPA has to be publicly available in a way that can be reproduced.

If the EPA is basing regulations on trade secrets, they are doing it wrong and should be stopped. It would have been amazing to the founding fathers for someone to say "we're making a law against doing something, but we can't tell you why...".

They don't have to be that precise. And if they've given the data to EPA, then it ought to be public domain because EPA is an agency of, by, and for the people.

Interesting twist how now we want the government protecting companies and keeping secrets when we usually condemn that.

The laws are already challenged in court, for years. It's harder for EPA to win such lawsuits if the data is private, so making it public is a good thing.

This law is intended to prevent the use of junk science in regulatory activities. Make it public so it can be reviewed in public.

Real science can stand up to scientific scrutiny, so making the science public prior to making laws means it can be scrutinized. Keeping it secret just BEGS for lawsuits since there is otherwise no justification for the laws.

Let's see. Hundreds of reports say one thing, one says another. Is it better for EPA to go to court with nothing trying to counter the one available public report that says they were wrong to create a law, or would it be better for EPA to have hundreds of publicly reviewed reports to drop on the table to counter that one?

You think the public review of science that goes into a law will cause more lawsuits. Lawsuits will happen when EPA appears to be capricious, not when they can back up everything they do with verified and verifiable data.

The stupidity of having data used to create regulations for the public be publicly available? I think it is common sense.

The law doesn't require public access to private medical data. The law doesn't require publishing the list of people's names and their conditions for a medical study. It requires publishing the process and the results in a way that allows the study to be repeated for verification.

For example, the study using mice that showed that 10ppb As in drinking water harmed "mothers and their offspring" (mouse mothers and baby mice, not humans) didn't have to list the names of the mice, only aggregate numbers.

No, the law does not do that.

I think the studies that show that whatever is being used is harmful to the public should be public before those studies are used to make laws. The information that has to be public isn't "Company XYZ is using chemical Z", it is the study that says that chemical Z causes harm. Then EPA can ban its use.

Is the problem the use of chemical Z, or that company XYZ is using it? Why isn't is enough to ban Z? Who cares if it is XYZ or QRS, or what the mix they use is?

The law doesn't require the EPA to do the studies themselves.

The studies that produce data are supposed to be repeatable.

Every time the topic of availability of scientific data comes up, the general cry from slashdot readers is that information ought to be free. Here's that philosophy writ into law. The data that EPA uses to make rules and regulations has to be available online. Why isn't that a good thing, if all data ought to be online anyway?

If EPA is using unpublished, unreviewable data to make decisions, then yes, "emasculating" them is a good thing.

You're thinking small -- one airport. Think 100. A manned tower at each would require 200 controllers, at least. Remote controlled would require 10, maybe 15.

Of course, there is the issue of liability when the system fails and the only think left to pin it on is controller error.

What possible commercial activity using ham radio could trigger experimental activities? Given the ability to experiment now, how could allowing commercial ham usage improve that?

Cool. Consume the available ham frequencies with people selling ISP services. What a great way to promote ham radio.

I hate to tell you, but infrastructure in the ham radio world requires a great deal of dedication and commitment. You will find a few people who will do it for fun, but a lot more hams USE the infrastructure than provide any of it. In my county, for example, there are two VHF Winlink gateways. One is provided by a state grant of equipment and an associated requirement to keep it on air. The other is at my house.

No, a ham-operated public internet would not be what you want to rely on in a disaster, because 1) it would probably be down, too, and 2) were it operational, it would be clogged with users trying to use it and useless for disaster relief.