Subject: Re Graham IS one ofthe "usual suspects" (Newton)(Kane).
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 212936 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
.........Response from EMF-L......
I believe Robert is correct in the important observation he has
forwarded below...... Also, Graham's Harvard group conducted a
very much pro-industry "risk" analysis of the power line EMF/leukemia
issue...... In about 1995. (I have it somewhere in my files.)
His shop operated much like the "pro-tobacco" community of scientists
that had perfected that cozy relationship of "standard operational procedures"
(SOP) with the tobacco industry thirty years earlier:
Just call us, tobacco-man, we will provide the study and the answers
you want..... What a neat place to be "housed" too -- Harvard.....
.......guru.......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Graham IS one ofthe "usual suspects" (Newton).
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:46:31 -0800
From: "robert c. kane"
Reply-To: rkane@tds.net
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3AAFDFA9.60D04390@emfguru.com>
Roy,
Did I miss it somewhere along the line or have we failed to point out
that Graham's Harvard Center for Risk Analysis was selected as the peer
review for the CTIA/WTR research program?
Roy Beavers wrote:
>
> ............From EMF-L........
>
> Jan, thanks forthis!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT -- Graham is a regular
> Moulder or Repacholi when it comes to his ties (and record) with
> industry...... Not the kind of "pro-public interest" appointment that
>
> Bush promised during his campaign.......guru......
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Regulatory Nominee Assailed in Report (washingtonpost.com)
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:12:49 -0800
> From: JNewton at EMRNetwork
> To: guru@emfguru.com
>
>
>
> FEDERAL PAGE/The Administration
>
>
> Regulatory Nominee Assailed in Report
> Consumer Group Alleges Corporate Ties
>
> _____From the Web_____
> • 'Public Citizen's' Report on Graham (pdf)
>
>
>
> E-Mail This Article
> Printer-Friendly Version
> Subscribe to The Post
> By Cindy Skrzycki
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, March 14, 2001; Page E01
>
> Even before his confirmation hearing as chief regulatory overseer for
> the Bush administration is scheduled, Harvard professor John D. Graham
> is being attacked as corporate America's back door to the White House.
>
> Graham's nomination as head of the Office of Information and
> Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget may sound
> like a bureaucratic dead end. But the office is the nerve center for
> reviewing and approving -- or killing -- all major federal
> regulations, which can affect the lives of millions of Americans.
>
> That's what has Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, so upset.
> It issued a 130-page report Monday slamming Graham and the Harvard
> Center for Risk Analysis, which he founded in 1989.
>
> It denounced the corporate funding of the center and accused Graham of
> using his affiliation with Harvard, where he is a professor of policy
> and decision sciences, "to lend a scientific veneer to corporate
> efforts to roll back safety and environmental standards, and to push
> for a top-down reorganization of the country's basic regulatory
> scheme."
>
> The scathing report has mobilized Graham's supporters, who said he is
> respected in his field of regulatory analysis. More than 50 economists
> signed a letter saying, "It is very regrettable that some interest
> groups that disagree with John's views . . . have chosen to impugn his
> integrity by implying that his views are for sale rather than
> confronting the merits of his arguments."
>
> Graham, 44, declined comment yesterday, citing his pending
> confirmation hearing.
>
> Trained in economics and public policy, Graham uses "comparative risk
> analysis" to balance the need for regulation against the risk of the
> event actually happening, or comparing it with another situation that
> might cause more harm.
>
> Lisa Heinzerling, who teaches environmental law and policy at
> Georgetown University, said Graham "says that the risks of dying posed
> by exposure to dioxin are one in 100, which is comparable to the risk
> of dying in an auto, so we shouldn't be too worried about it. So, it's
> often just an excuse for not regulating."
>
> Graham supporters don't agree.
>
> "There isn't a person better qualified for the job. He is the premier
> scholar in the field of cost-benefit and risk analysis," said Robert
> Litan, co-director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
> Studies.
>
> "The public interest community has long been hostile to cost-benefit
> analysis. I guess the opposition doesn't surprise me. But he is not
> the John Ashcroft of regulatory policy. He is a balanced, very
> well-known and highly regarded expert in this field regardless of
> where he has gotten money before."
>
> Sally Katzen, who held the top regulatory job at the Office of
> Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, said that
> although some people may not agree with Graham's philosophy of
> relative risk, "He's very proficient in the field of regulatory
> analysis."
>
> The Public Citizen report expressed concern that Graham's dependence
> on corporate funding will influence his decisions at OMB.
>
> The Web site for Graham's Center for Risk Analysis lists its donors,
> though there is no information on how much they gave. They include
> corporations, trade associations and the government. Among them are
> Merck & Co., Monsanto Co., International Paper Co., Kraft Foods Inc.,
> Coca-Cola Co., Dow Chemical Co., the American Chemistry Council and
> the American Automobile Manufacturers Association.
>
> Although the center does not routinely disclose its budget, a source
> close to the organization said it was $3 million last year. Of that
> amount, 40 percent was donated by private sources and was
> unrestricted; 30 percent came from government; 20 percent from private
> donors for specific projects; and 10 percent from Harvard.
>
> The Public Citizen report charges that research Graham did for AT&T
> Wireless Communications was biased because it did not advocate a ban
> on cell-phone use in vehicles. A spokesman for the center said it was
> widely disclosed that AT&T paid $300,000 for the study and it was
> peer-reviewed by a dozen scientists.
>
> Public Citizen also said Graham was closely aligned with the tobacco
> industry and solicited funds from it. The center asked Philip Morris
> Cos. for a $25,000 contribution and got $10,000, a source familiar
> with its funding said.
>
> A source close to Graham said he is steeling himself to work with the
> people who criticize him when he comes to Washington. He is "a smart,
> articulate and informed person who knows a good regulation from a bad
> one," the source said.
>
> Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
>
> © 2001 The Washington Post Company
>
>
> SEARCH
> News
> Post Archives
>
> Advanced Search
> Politics Where
> You Live
>
> Enter state abbrev.
> or ZIP code
>
>
>
>
> Home | Register Web Search:
>
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com