LogFAQs > #900267279

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Did you read the article? It makes it so a peer reviewed scientific study is no longer good enough to qualify as evidence.

If any of the subjects of the study have their medical information protected via any kind of anonymity then it doesn't count as 'transparent'.

This is apparently a common enough thing that the most transparent aspect of this policy is to work around the pesky "science" that says fucking up the environment causes the humans living in it to be hurt.

I did read the article. It does not allow data that is not publicly accessible to be used to make policy. That is how transparency works. Too many times have things been made policy in regards to health that ended up being incorrect or shortsighted or not able to be shown correlated by future studies.

This creates myths, as shown above, that are incorrect and affect people for not just years but even generations.

Edit: If you want to ban something or so on, you need to be able to show public proof so that it can be understood by the public and also able to be challenged openly.

"Trust us, we are the government" might work for someone like me most the time, but it does not fly for most Americans.
---

LoL ID = imajericho
XBL GT = Corrik