There’s more ugliness like what went on recently with Oregon State University. This professor exposed corruption within the California University system that had ties to the California Air Resources Board’s botched PM2.5 rules. As we’ve seen recently, this PM2.5 regulatory action is so vile that the EPA does unannounced human experimentation.
From WND:
What’s academia’s response to a whistleblower who exposes fraudulent research and faked credentials on a panel of experts?
Fire the whistleblower, of course.
That’s the allegation in a new complaint filed against the regents of the University of California by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of former professor James E. Enstrom.
The lawsuit explains that Enstrom was a UCLA research professor for decades – until he blew the whistle on “junk environmental science and scientific misconduct at the University of California” and was dismissed.
“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud but violated California law for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”
French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”
…
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles alleges the school violated Enstrom’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments.
Enstrom’s Ph.D. from Stanford is in physics. He’s worked in the university system for more than 30 years. His difficulties started after his peer-reviewed inhalation toxicology report titled “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and total Mortality Among Elderly Californians 1973-2002,” the claim explains.
That study “found no relationship between PM2.5 (particulate matter) and total mortality in California,” the lawsuit said.
His finding contradicted the opinions of “several senior … faculty members. [Environmental Health Sciences] chair Jackson, EHS professors John Froines and Aurthur Winer, epidemiology and EHS professor Bente Ritz, and Dean Rosenstock have all publicly supported the widely popular – though scientifically unfounded – argument that diesel particulate matter and/or PM2.5 results in increased mortality risks for California citizens.”
Enstrom then contradicted the other researchers in testimony to the state legislature and further exposed the fraudulent credentials of Hien T. Tran, “a key CARB scientist and lead author of the October 24, 2008 CARB report on PM2.5 and premature death.
“Mr. Tran’s research report served as the primary public health justification for a new diesel vehicle regulatory scheme approved by CARB … Dr. Enstrom’s statements brought to light that Mr. Tran’s Ph.D. was not awarded by the University of California at Davis as Tran claimed. Mr. Tran subsequently admitted that he purchased his Ph.D. at a cost of $1,000 from ‘Thornhill University,’ a fake institution and Internet diploma mill based at a UPS store in New York.”
The complaint also asserted that members of a university committee had been serving indefinite terms, in violation of state rules limiting terms to three years.
=============================================================
Full story at WND
=============================================================
An essay in 2009 lays out why Enstrom was right:
California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations
Claiming their action will save thousands of Californians’ lives and reduce health care expenditures, the California Air Resources Board has imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science.
Vigorous protests of the new regulations and the claims of benefits were submitted by Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA and others, amounting to more than 100 pages of written criticisms of the CARB scientific process and the studies that CARB claimed showed thousands of deaths from diesel small particles.
The year-long process of development of the new regulations resulted in some very revealing public commentary, accusations of complicity in the scientific review process, and even misconduct by CARB officials.
In the biggest scandal, opposition scientists found the lead author of the key study by CARB had faked his Ph.D. and lacked expertise in air pollution research. In addition, CARB hired reviewers to review their own papers, naturally resulting in approval of the scientific studies that claimed the death and health effects.
Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in a May 27, 2008 essay in The Washington Times, declared the new regulations, called the “Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan” (GMERP), an overreach by CARB based on bad science that will drive business out of California.
Miller cited a large and detailed 2005 study by Enstrom, who has a real Ph.D. from Stanford and a Masters in Public Health from his current university, UCLA. Enstrom found no death effect in the period between 1983 and 2002 from fine particulate matter in the air.
In any fair analysis of science, such a study disproves the claims of CARB of thousands of deaths. Miller pointed out the harm to the California economy created by the new CARB rules will induce additional deaths due to the “income effect.” Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.
In a valiant effort to push back on the CARB diesel regulations, Enstrom and others provided commentary and analysis in 2008 that showed the CARB scientific process was poisoned with bias and insider dealing, including a review panel that was clearly not objective and was set up to give CARB what it wanted.
During the effort to urge CARB to reconsider the bad effects for little benefit, the Enstrom group found out the lead author for CARB on the study, Hien Tran, in fact did not have the Ph.D. claimed by CARB in its major study of air pollution and that he had authored no significant studies in air pollution toxicology.
On December 10, 2008, in a last effort to change CARB votes and ask for reconsideration of the new regulations with a more disciplined peer review and scientific process, Enstrom authored a letter to CARB reminding the board of the public comments submitted already by many distinguished scientists.
Enstrom noted CARB had not adequately responded to the many criticisms in the public comments raising process and evidentiary questions and refutations of the CARB claims of thousands of deaths. Submitters included Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute, Joseph Suchecki of the Engine Manufacturers Association, Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, a prominent and nationally known epidemiologist, Dr. Fred Lipfert, also a national figure in public health, and Dr. John Dunn (the author of this essay), a 30-plus-year epidemiologist from UCLA.
They all asserted the CARB death projections were the product of an excessive zeal at CARB and unacceptably weak research on current California air pollution health effects. Moreover, the commentators pointed out the GMERP rules would impose new regulatory and economic burdens on industry and business that would result in hardship for the consuming public and harm the failing and frail California economy.
The public commentary, mostly from scientists and more than 140 pages, was negative, with the expected supportive letters from environmental organizations.
In his December 10 letter, Enstrom pointed out CARB’s disregard of public scientific commentary, the biased nature of the CARB consultants, lack of scientific qualifications of CARB lead author Hien Tran, and reasons why CARB should reconstitute its review process and committee members and restudy its scientific reports and projections of deaths.
In another December 2008 letter to CARB board members, Enstrom, Anthony Fucaloro, a 35-year chemist from Claremont McKenna University, Matt Malkan, a 25-year astrophysicist from UCLA, and Robert Phalen, a 35-year air pollution toxicologist from UC Irvine, pointed out their concerns:
General Concerns Regarding Air Pollution Health Effects and Regulations
1) Pollution levels are much lower today than in previous decades and current health risks are small.
2) Small epidemiologic associations are often spurious, rather than cause-and-effect relationships.
3) Regulations designed to solve one problem may have consequences that do more harm than good.
4) Scientists who are not popular activists are often marginalized and their important research is ignored.
5) Conflict of interest regarding power and funding exists between regulators and conforming scientists.
6) New regulations must be based on a fair evaluation of all available evidence from diverse sources.
Specific Concerns Regarding October 24, 2008 CARB Staff Report on PM 2.5 and Premature Deaths
1) Authors have no relevant peer-reviewed publications and lead author has misrepresented his “Ph.D.”
2) Report and public comments were never shown to outside reviewers as stated in Executive Summary.
3) Five independent sources indicate no current relationship between PM2.5 and deaths in California.
4) California has fourth lowest total age-adjusted death rate among US states and few “premature deaths.”
5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in California are currently at record low levels.
6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in California.
Conclusion
Important epidemiologic and toxicological evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until the above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.
The CARB board passed the rules unanimously. So much for the democratic process and scientific debate that results in good public policy.
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency
Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center
Fort Hood, Texas
Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:
WOW!
I cannot imagine this is happening.
But, Watts points this out. And my gut keep telling me, “America is not going in the right direction right now.”
What do we do?
Keep quiet?
Or, tell the truth?
Watts?
Keep telling the truth.
Ghost.
Anthony and mods
I love the site.
I think you forget that an IP address associated with UEA, UVa or PSU might start a witch-hunt. I have no wish to endure the dunking stool! An email address goes to the person (the commentator) – most dot.gov, petitions etc. check this. My primary (personal) email address has (for 15 years!) been ‘throw-away’! (costs me money) . Likewise those that I use in commentary.
Lighten up! Does the commentator contribute? Is this a troll?
BTW, I’m unique. Check my comments. Others …. who knows?
Still, your gaff, your rules. I’ll live with that. Might deter useful (interesting?) comments.
Hey, y’all are good at detecting trolls.
Oh, your security may be high – but others have been compromised. I can identify spam.
.
R Babcock said:
June 16, 2012 at 10:12 am
Maybe we need a PM2.5 sequestration program?
————————————————————-
How about an envrio-wacko sequestration programme?
It is demonstrably evident that this CARB regulation is fraudulent, but it is allowed to stand. Mary Nichols and her co-perps should be up on charges.
Really? Then please provide links to them. The “attack the messenger” response, while completely failing to note ANY problem with the reporting in question, is the first and ,most telling mark of one who has nothing to support their specious claims.
WND – like every publication – has its limitations – however you present nothing to support your attack on them regarding THIS story.
In reading the story, compared with other similar stories, I found WND’s to be one of the most detailed and well supported commentaries on the issue – they outlined the issue factually and supported with numerous direct quotes.
Please share with the class here ANY part of the content of THIS WND story that supports your attack on them.
I don’t believe you can.
To paraphrase Lincoln,
You can fool some of the people all of the time
You can fool all of the people some of the time
But you can’t fool professor Enstrom!
Well, it’s not like they are jacking up tuition rates
http://www.pnj.com/article/20120614/NEWS01/120614019/UWF-raise-tuition-15-percent-?odyssey=nav
and buying country clubs
http://www.pnj.com/article/20120614/BUSINESS/120614013/UWF-approves-Scenic-Hills-golf-course-purchase
That’s the Florida way of doing it.
John says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:58 am
Let’s give Dr. Enstrom our support, because he’s been railroaded, but don’t say that ALL tiny particles are harmless. Plenty of evidence that diesel emissions can cause people to die earlier than they would have without diesel exposure.
I’ve spent thirty two years working at YYZ inhaling copious amounts of in-your-face diesel, jet exhaust and burnt rubber fumes.
What amazes and stuns me is the is the number of non-smoker friends/colleagues who have succumbed to lung cancer over the past five years.
I don’t believe the general public is exposed to the harmful levels of an airport ramp environment.
Err.. my point is it’s not smokers who are dying sooner per/airport/capita.
Anecdotal bull probably, but that’s what I see.
Research causes cancer. Lets try sequestering the EPA which furnishes bad research and see if cancer rates increase.
Stupidity is expensive. The downside is that when bad politicians and environmental zealots get into power, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Suing the Regents of the University of California is the definitely the appropriate response, and I hope Dr. Enstrom’s award costs the taxpayers of California dearly. In the long run, it will save them (and the rest of us) much more money.
Sean @12:34 pm is absolutely right when he says:
“Sounds to me like a fraud has possibly been committed by the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. This should go beyond a civil suit and the police should be involved. His (Dr. Enstrom’s) grant providers need also to be made aware that their moneys have been misappropriated by this department for other purposes.” In this case, these bastards should be held personally accountable for this detestable conduct. I wouldn’t advocate using the EPA’s tactics of crucifying them, but I would definitely recommend making an example of them.
I’ll repeat – please share exactly what WND’s “idiocy” and “gullibility” are?
And while you’re at it please share your other “serious” sources on this story.
Oh my! I thought that name was familiar! Dr James Enstrom has b@ur momisugly((s of steel! He has absolutely no qualms about swimming upstream in the pursuit of truth, and he won’t back down! First time I read him, about him was back in 2006, and then again at the time of the CARB fraud. I’m still digging thru all my old files to add his wit from CARB here. I thought I’d read it here, but I know where all the WUWT files I saved are! But here’s the “complete” 2006 -2007 article links to his Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research: Combating Lysenko Pseudoscience
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
To Ian at at 9:58 am, and to Fred Berple:
Certainly, climate change peer review has shown many cases of pal review, of obstruction of dissidents, and as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, reviewers never asking for data or code, just taking at trust how the researcher got to the findings. My sense is that level of trust is pretty common across different subject areas as well.
And you also cite political masters, in this case, either EPA at the federal level (the source of almost all US PM2.5 research dollars) or California counterparts.
So, should we conclude that all peer reviewed research, across the board, is trash? If it isn’t, and the field isn’t climate science, how can we decide whether it is trash without looking at it, or whether we should give a study a serious look?
The study showing black carbon to be 4 to 9 times worse that PM2.5 mass per se was not funded by EPA, it was funded by the Dutch ministry of the Environment. My sense is that the Europeans are serious about differentiating toxicity among PM2.5 components, for health reasons, while the US EPA is not, because EPA can justify on “cost benefit” grounds so many regulations, if any type of particle will kill you, and if each death, even if it comes a day or a week earlier than it would otherwise have come (in the case of people already very ill), is valued at $9.5 million per death.
You may recall the recent EPA ruling on mercury? The actual harm from mercury was valued at between half a million $ and $6 million (with an M) — the best EPA could come up with is that total US intelligence would increase by a aggregate total of 512 IQ points if US mercury emissions from power plants were reduced by 90%. That came to two one thousandths of an IQ point per affected child.
The rule costs about $10 billion (with a B). As Fred Berple points out, unemployment also results in premature death, and $10 B in costs will create unemployment, and there are cross-elasticities which would enable estimating the increase in unemployment. EPA does not calculate the increase in unemployment because of increased costs of electricity, which are large — they only calculate jobs lost at coal plants, vs. jobs gained in making pollution control equipment.
If the benefits are so tiny, how does EPA then justify these costs?
EPA shows “cost-effectiveness” not just by failing to include costs of unemployment due to higher electricity prices. More importantly, EPA claims that any and all tiny particles (not black carbon) reduced by the technologies needed to control mercury kill people, and that enough deaths were thereby avoided that the benefits of the rule (called “co-benefits) were worth over $100 billion (with a B), using the figure of $9.5 million benefit per death.
So if EPA had to look at the toxicity of each particle, they might not be able to justify their rules.
Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health. That is why no study by US researchers, or funded by the EPA, to my knowledge has ever looked at the difference in mortality of black carbon, vs. PM2.5, as the European researchers did.
So, by eliminating diesel emissions one lives 4-9 hours longer instead of just one hour longer?
To clipe at 1:54 pm:
You point out the number of non-smoking friends and colleagues who have succumbed to lung cancer over the years. Is it possible that exposure to diesel exhaust, over the years, might have something to do with that? What else would account for increases in lung cancer in non-smokers, unless you assume that lung cancer occurs at a fairly consistent rate among people who aren’t exposed to anything that might cause mutations in the lung? Is is possible that most to all of these lung cancer deaths are spontaneous mutations? It can’t be ruled out, but it seems to me that if toxins in the air are biologically active and act in similar ways to tobacco smoke, then I favor the idea of causation, in this case.
There are many studies which associate lung cancer with diesel exhaust. EPA doesn’t control the budget for cancer research, so US research showing strong associations between lung cancer and diesel exhaust DOES exist. Here is a recent study:
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jnci/press_releases/silvermandjs034.pdf
I don’t blame anyone on this thread if they are skeptical of ANY environmental science these days. I find myself always asking questions about each study I read. But I haven’t been able to bring myself to say that all environmental science is lousy. I think that the way EPA gets away with still assuming that all PM2.5 is equally harmful is that they has stonewalled and stalled on actually trying to seriously look at the subject. The studies they fund work at the edges of what they need to know, but never go directly to the question of comparative toxicity. The EU study I cited in my first post DOES go directly to this issue.
For most of my lifetime I’ve been subjected to a “trusted” cadre of news sources that have been found to be corrupt. Whenever someone asks me for my source, I tell them their complicity with the fraud warrants no response.
Heh! Found his CARB comments! This guy is a rare gem!! Like most of you here, and especially our gracious host, this guy is a seeker of truth.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/897-carb_enstrom_comments_on_statewide_truck_regulations_121008.pdf
Wake me up when there’s a better source than World Net Daily… like The National Enquirer.
Still, I did learn that Obama ‘fulfills’ the prophecy of Issiah 9:10… AGAIN!!!111
kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:59 am
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
If …Non smokers that live in rural areas STILL get Lung Cancer – You can’t END lung cancer…You Can REDUCE it with your logic…but not END it. 🙂
=======
Had I said:
“To end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
I would agree with you. However, that isn’t what I said.
“want to end” is a desire, which is logically consistent with impossibility.
Just wanted to point out that some of the people who responded to the request for comments who were critical of the report were academics. The point is that there are many in academia who value their objective and independent role in science and whose results are not influenced by the source of their research funds. In fact, my experience has been that this is much more the rule than the exception in most fields of research (I don’t know about climate science, but based on publicly disclosed problems, the value of objectivity and avoiding bias seems less than in other fields).
I just wish a source other than WND had been chosen. They aren’t always the most trustworthy source. In this case it appears to be ok, but they often engage in little more than reporting rumors.
ferd berple says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:17 am
It has been known for years that living in cities causes lung cancer. Lung cancer rates for non-smokers in cities being almost identical to those of smokers that live in rural areas.
Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates, while smokers that live in cities have the highest. Thus it can be argued that living in a city is as dangerous as smoking.
If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.
——–
The problem is the EPA and other folks who are supporting “rewilding” (basically giving
most of the land back to the flora and fauna who “own” it, more of the GAIA garbage).
Their intent is to push people into cities where everyone can drive tiny electric cars
(if any at all), and have everything in a small, controlled environment (complete with
CCTV cameras and speakers on every corner, cf. London). If cities are shown to
be more dangerous from an air pollution (or other) standpoint, all is lost from the
EPA’s point of view….hence their dim view of folks like professor Enstrom.
——
I also agree with the folks speaking about “good” and “bad” 2.5 particulates
(didn’t catch the unit, micron?, sorry). I grew up in a household with a
chain smoker (my Dad, four or more packs of unfiltered Camels a day
(smelled like camels too…as I recall….) and a Lucky Strike smoker (my Mom,
who quit in 1964 and is still here not smoking at 92). If passive smoke was
the big deal it was supposed to be, I suppose my mother, sister, and I would
be suffering for it, but so far we’re not (OK, we’ve got other problems, taxes, high
energy costs, AGW nuts, etc.). HOWEVER, I watched both my father and his
brother die painful deaths due to their smoking (black lungs and lymphoma,
among other things). I think they inhaled the “bad” 2.5s….
—–
We have TONs of diesels here in Germany, with more and more having
particulate filters (adds about 400 euros to the cost of the car, and
eventual maintenance costs and occasional ugly burning smells when the
particulate filter is burning off its debris. Supposedly they help, but
cars/trucks/diesel locomotives/tractors/etc. are only part of the problem.
The greens keep focusing on only a small part of the problem, usually
the one where the “solution” is most damaging to the economy, and
most expensive to the taxpayers….sigh…seems like California is heading
down the same path, unfortunately….
—–
Any chance to get the College/University accreditation folks involved with
this, especially considering that fraud may have been committed?
—–
I read WND too, as a counterbalance to SFGate (former Gleick hangout)
and other CA media on the far left of the scale, in hope that the truth
lies somewhere in between. If nothing else, it makes for interesting reading….
“””””………….michaeljmcfadden says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
George Smith wrote, “EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality” ……..”””
Well no michael, I most certainly did not say that or anything like it. That was posted by John; and I merely quoted him, with my usual “””””…..Whatever………””””” delimiters, so it is quite clear I was pasting someone else’s work. I may agree with what John said as to the EPA stance; generally did anyway; but you need to determine, who actually says stuff; so they get the credit fo it.
George
John says:
June 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
To Ian at at 9:58 am, and to Fred Berple:
And you also cite political masters, in this case, either EPA at the federal level (the source of almost all US PM2.5 research dollars) or California counterparts.
So, should we conclude that all peer reviewed research, across the board, is trash? If it isn’t, and the field isn’t climate science, how can we decide whether it is trash without looking at it, or whether we should give a study a serious look?
The study showing black carbon to be 4 to 9 times worse that PM2.5 mass per se was not funded by EPA, it was funded by the Dutch ministry of the Environment. My sense is that the Europeans are serious about differentiating toxicity among PM2.5 components, for health reasons, while the US EPA is not, because EPA can justify on “cost benefit” grounds so many regulations, if any type of particle will kill you, and if each death, even if it comes a day or a week earlier than it would otherwise have come (in the case of people already very ill), is valued at $9.5 million per death.
{{….snip…….}}
Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health. That is why no study by US researchers, or funded by the EPA, to my knowledge has ever looked at the difference in mortality of black carbon, vs. PM2.5, as the European researchers did.
You have a trusting faith in Europeans – I am one – I have had occasion to discuss emissions standards with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from various European countries. Some of them make Lisa Jackson look positively restrained. These snatched from the air figures such as “$9.5 million per death” are glibly thrown around when it suits politicians – but not when the deaths are from cold due to the cost of energy – when all of a sudden its OK as these are old people and have very low QALYS (look it up people you’ll need to know yours if you want medical care in future). From the Guardian (most probably a News Outlet you admire) ” Cold homes will kill up to 200 older people a day, warns Age UK; Rising energy bills will put millions at risk from ‘fuel poverty gap'”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/22/older-people-cold-energy-bills
But those old people won’t cost $9.5M each will they? Selective costs of death are the things of ‘death panels’ – but you have to use them equally in all areas John not just in your pensée du jour.
Another word you should learn satisficing look it up – in the real world you cannot optimize everything – you have to come to a compromise that gets each area as close as possible to an optimum – a ‘Nash Equilibrium’. In your concentration on reducing PM2.5 you reduce the quality of life of the population so that deaths from other causes rise. They could easily swamp your ‘projected’ PM2.5 death rate – will you apologize to the dead from these other causes or do they not matter? As you are aware this was the outcome of professor Enstrom’s research – more people would die due to the over concentration on reduction of PM2.5s.
There are many areas of life where Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien’ (or Il meglio è l’inimico del bene). Everyone wants their drains to be clean – but there comes a level at which further cleaning to sterile levels is of no benefit, indeed the money and effort required to continually sterilize the drains will be at the expense of other areas that need to be brought to an acceptable level. This fixation on one area at the expense of others is either an obsessive compulsive disorder – OR – a political strategy. In this case, it would appear we are witnessing a political strategy – a third way.
Whoops! Sorry George and John. My error! :/ Let’s see if I can do better with this one:
John ( I hope! ) wrote “Certainly, climate change peer review has shown many cases of pal review, of obstruction of dissidents, and as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, reviewers never asking for data or code, just taking at trust how the researcher got to the findings. ” and I’d like to respond by saying, Yep. Again, exactly the same thing with secondhand smoke “science.” See the “obstruction of dissidents” at:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.990/news_detail.asp
“Pal review” is also very common in this field. Once you know the various players you are always able to spot them in instances where the peer reviewers are identified openly. It’s one huge ball game of “You OK my work, and I’ll OK your work!” over and over again.
My experience with peer review outlined in that ACSH piece shows that it can have some value in pointing out possible weaknesses to a journal editor or committee, and can help researchers strengthen initial pieces that may be weak, but that it really doesn’t go much beyond that: the journal editors decide what they like and what they don’t like and then just use the peer review process to help them along with justifying their bias or getting the smudged apples polished up. It’s a VERY limited tool and is held in far too high a regard by journalists and the general public.
– MJM
P.S. John, I also just wanted to say that the cost of mercury perfection being balanced against a national IQ change of 512 points is brilliant. Amazing. I’ll bet a single airing of a Jerry Springer episode does more damage than that!