Mary D. Nichols
California Air Resources Board
Another troubling story out of California. Last year, I reported on a scandal involving the California Air Resources Board (CARB)and a study they commissioned that reported that diesel oil particulate was causing thousands of deaths. Based on this study by one Hien Tran, new regulations were passed that have resulted in huge monetary losses as well as job losses for the industries involved with diesel engines.
As previously reported, it turned out that Mr Tran had falsified his educational resume claiming he had a PHD from the University of California at Davis. In reality, all he had was a diploma from some diploma mill in London run by a guy who was living in Israel as a fugitive from the US on sex charges.
To make matters worse, the head of CARB, a radical environmental activist named Mary D. Nichols, appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger,....
....who commissioned Tran's study, learned of Tran's deception, yet chose not to advise her fellow board members as they were voting on and passing the above-mentioned legislation. In addition, Nichols remains as head of CARB, and Tran-though demoted- is still employed by CARB.
That brings us to this story by investigative reporter Lois Henry of the Bakersfield Californian regarding the recent firing of Professor James Enstrom from the UCLA Environmental Health Studies Department.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/columnist/henry/x1415295919/Independent-thought-not-wanted-at-UCLA
Henry was interviewed today by the John and Ken radio show (KFI 640 am).
So if you are wondering who is behind the firing of Professor Enstrom, there is more. Enstrom's 2005 study was in contradiction to Tran's findings. In addition, Enstrom gave an interview on the John and Ken radio show, in which he exposed the fraud surrounding Tran and his study. And guess who is still listed as professor-in-residence at the UCLA School of Law and Institute of the Environment.
Mary D. Nichols.
So the question arises; what was Mary Nichols' role, if any, in the decision to fire Professor Enstrom after 34 years at UCLA?
But there is positive news. According to the article my school, UC-Irvine, has someone else not afraid to speak out. I don't know Professor Robert Phalen, but I would be pleased to buy him a beer based on what I read in Henry's article. Of course, one phone call from someone like Nichols, and perhaps, he will be the next to fall.
Or me for that matter.
6 comments:
That's right Gary, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
Does the case against deisel particulates and the danger they pose to human health really rest on one study by a man who forged his academic credentials?
I've known about it for years. It is commonplace in multiple studies and medical impacts. What does weaving this byzantine labrynth of intrigue have to do with it? Facts are facts, regardless of whether one or two people who recognize the facts are guilty of various improprieties.
If Albert Einstein were proven to have had an affair with Eleanor Roosevelt, would it cease to be true that E = MC squared?
If one of your fellow DEA agents were a bigamist, would the last major dealer he participated in arresting be innocent?
Siarlys,
I am no scientist. However, Enstrom did a 2005 study that contradicted what Tran reported. Tran referenced Enstrom's report while dismissing it. And for Lance's benefit, Enstrom's report was peer reviewed and published in certain scientific journals. The fact remains that Tran was a fraud and that Nichols hid his falsified resume from the rest of the board as they were voting to pass this regulation that is costing tons of $ and jobs for businesses and individuals in California who do business with diesel engines.
Also there is a difference between personal misconduct and misconduct that is part and parcel of the job they are supposed to be doing. This is a legitimate scandal.
It is a legitimate scandal. My question is, should policy be made by scrapping a whole set of regulations, based on the fact that one person who authored some papers which would appear to support the science behind the regulations was in fact committing scandalous fraud.
One reasonable answer is, if that individual's fraudulent research is the PRIMARY evidence for the conclusions supporting the regulation, yes, put everything on hold and study the subject some more.
Another reasonable answer is, there are twenty years of peer-reviewed papers supporting the basic science, it is most unfortunate that we have this guy committing scandalous fraud when we hired him to do one more study, but, the health of the people of California requires we proceed. Removing his paper from the pile of evidence doesn't leave us uncertain as to the truth.
There are plenty of jobs to be generated in biodiesel and other new technologies. I don't buy the line that protecting health and safety costs businesses money. Of course it does. Its a necessary and legitimate cost of doing business. Unfortunately, most business owners aren't so ethical that they will do the right thing without being regulated. More accurately, ethical business owners will be driven out of business by unethical business owners, unless there is sufficient regulation to insure a level playing field.
"One reasonable answer is, if that individual's fraudulent research is the PRIMARY evidence for the conclusions supporting the regulation, yes, put everything on hold and study the subject some more."
That's the case and the regs stand.
Its not the case Gary. The hazards of particulate pollution from diesel engines has been well established for years. I was reading about it while I drove a diesel powered bus. I feel so much better since I stopped driving for that company. It took a year for my health to get better. No, that's not peer reviewed research, it is strictly anecdotal. But its why I credit the MANY papers long since published on the subject.
So the question arises; what was Mary Nichols' role, if any, in the decision to fire Professor Enstrom after 34 years at UCLA?
As has been pointed out elsewhere: none.
Post a Comment