It’s not about transparency: politics is intruding into USEPA science and it could cost the public’s health

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Schwartz J. Transparency” as mask? The EPA’s proposed rule on scientific data. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1496–7.

  2. 2.

    Goldman GT. Trump’s plan would make government stupid. Nature. 2019;570:417.

  3. 3.

    Mattson MP. Hormesis defined. Ageing Res Rev. 2008;7:1–7.

  4. 4.

    Burnett RT, et al. An integrated risk function for estimating the global burden of disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter exposure. Environ health Perspect. 2014;122:397–403.

  5. 5.

    Burnett R, et al. Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:9592–7.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard E. Peltier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peltier, R.E., Goldman, G.T. It’s not about transparency: politics is intruding into USEPA science and it could cost the public’s health. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-020-0229-z

Download citation