Scenario: Scientific study of infant mortality and birth defect rates in a specific neighbourhood (e.g. Love Canal) is used to justify an EPA order shutting down a major manufacturing facility until such time as it ceases to pollute. The data correlates proximity to pollution sources with health data. Using the now-publicly-available data,
Property records are an already public data source of people who were in proximity to Love Canal or any other specific manufacturing facility.
Scenario: Scientific study of environmental effects of Chemical A are troubling, but inconclusive.
In other words, "we're scared of chemical A but can't prove any danger." Red flag words are "troubling" (emotion, not science) and "inconclusive." You can't prove "absolute safety", so "inconclusive" can only mean "we can't prove danger".
The EPA issues a ruling applying the Precautionary Principle, stopping use of Chemical A until further studies have been completed.
Then they have to ensure that the data from the studies they base this ruling on are online for others to see. Why is this a problem?
Industry lobbyists challenge the ruling, stating that the science is neither well-established nor reproducible.
Do we know what one concept of science is supposed to be? I think it's "reproducibility." You don't think the industry being singled out for unsupported regulation will file a lawsuit no matter what? Really? Since the law doesn't require that the EPA prove reproducibility of the data it uses to create special rules, why would reproducibility become a new issue?
Further study determines the fears were justified, but it's too late -- hundreds or thousands of people are already suffering adverse effects.
In other words, anything that anyone fears should be banned not on the science proving a danger, but because science cannot prove a lack of danger. It might turn out to actually be dangerous so it is better to ban it even when science cannot show any danger -- just in case.
"Think of the Children."
Would all the people who are opposing this law because it would open the science to independent analysis please raise your hands if you also think that science should be the prime basis for climate-based regulations? I find it odd that someone might claim that science should trump political or social concerns in one area but science is not important in environmental regulation.