A recent letter to the editor concludes that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's rules objecting to "secret" science are a "good move in my opinion" ("Pruitt is correct to question secret science," April 26). And what is that opinion based on other than loaded words of the English language?

First, there is no such thing as "secret science." Second, the data supporting scientific claims is also out there with the exception of some health studies. The reason that health data is not always available is because respondents have privacy rights that must be considered. But to think that the data for environmental impact studies is missing is absurd.

Advertisement

Yet it is just such a claim that Mr Pruitt can make that can keep the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from correct recommendations. He can say that there is no data that shows the precise amount of global warming attributable to humans and be technically correct but woefully ignorant in the larger picture. Quantum mechanics has predictions that are accurate to an amazing degree — one part in 14 million, roughly 2 feet compared with the width of the United States. Yet Mr Pruitt calls this secret science as well.

Even your GPS, which is used by hundreds of millions of people every day, is not precisely accurate by Mr. Pruitt's standards but you can bet that he uses it all the time and would likely bet his life on it. His mixture of the term "secret" with the term "precise" is the real problem. The author should try to get on the same page as everyone else before writing a letter to a major publication.

John Robino, Roseville, Calif.

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement