Find the Summer Triangle

Image via Susan Jensen in Odessa, Washington.

June is here. In the N. Hemisphere, the days are long, the sun is at its most intense for the year, and the weather is warm, but not as warm as it will be later this summer. And the summer sky is with us, too. The famous asterism known as the Summer Triangle is ascending in the eastern sky on these June evenings.

The Summer Triangle is not a constellation. Instead, this pattern consists of three bright stars in three separate constellations – Deneb in the constellation Cygnus the Swan, Vega in the constellation Lyra the Harp, and Altair in the constellation Aquila the Eagle.

Learn to recognize the Summer Triangle asterism now, and you can watch it all summer as it shifts higher in the east, then finally appears high overhead in the late northern summer and early northern autumn sky.

How can you learn to recognize it? First, just go outside in early evening, face east, and try to notice three particularly bright stars. Those stars will probably be Vega, Deneb and Altair.

The Summer Triangle, ascending in the east on June evenings.

An asterism isn’t the same thing as a constellation, by the way. Constellations generally come to us from ancient times. In the 1930s, the International Astronomical Union officially drew the boundaries of the 88 constellations we recognize today.

On the other hand, asterisms are whatever you want them to be. They’re just patterns on the sky’s dome. You can also make up your own asterisms, in much the same way you can recognize shapes in puffy clouds on a summer day.

But some asterisms are so obvious that they’re recognized around the world. The Summer Triangle – a large triangular pattern consisting of three bright stars in three different constellations – is one of these.

So watch for the Summer Triangle. On June and July evenings, you’ll find it in the east at nightfall. It swings high overhead in the wee hours after midnight and sits rather high in the west at daybreak.

Scott MacNeill of Exit Pupil Creative Workshop captured this photo of the Summer Triangle, constellation Hercules, bright Milky Way, and the bright red star Antares among more.

Bottom line: It’s nearly summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Look for the Summer Triangle – three bright stars in three separate constellations – ascending in the east on June and July evenings.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/29zy3sN

Image via Susan Jensen in Odessa, Washington.

June is here. In the N. Hemisphere, the days are long, the sun is at its most intense for the year, and the weather is warm, but not as warm as it will be later this summer. And the summer sky is with us, too. The famous asterism known as the Summer Triangle is ascending in the eastern sky on these June evenings.

The Summer Triangle is not a constellation. Instead, this pattern consists of three bright stars in three separate constellations – Deneb in the constellation Cygnus the Swan, Vega in the constellation Lyra the Harp, and Altair in the constellation Aquila the Eagle.

Learn to recognize the Summer Triangle asterism now, and you can watch it all summer as it shifts higher in the east, then finally appears high overhead in the late northern summer and early northern autumn sky.

How can you learn to recognize it? First, just go outside in early evening, face east, and try to notice three particularly bright stars. Those stars will probably be Vega, Deneb and Altair.

The Summer Triangle, ascending in the east on June evenings.

An asterism isn’t the same thing as a constellation, by the way. Constellations generally come to us from ancient times. In the 1930s, the International Astronomical Union officially drew the boundaries of the 88 constellations we recognize today.

On the other hand, asterisms are whatever you want them to be. They’re just patterns on the sky’s dome. You can also make up your own asterisms, in much the same way you can recognize shapes in puffy clouds on a summer day.

But some asterisms are so obvious that they’re recognized around the world. The Summer Triangle – a large triangular pattern consisting of three bright stars in three different constellations – is one of these.

So watch for the Summer Triangle. On June and July evenings, you’ll find it in the east at nightfall. It swings high overhead in the wee hours after midnight and sits rather high in the west at daybreak.

Scott MacNeill of Exit Pupil Creative Workshop captured this photo of the Summer Triangle, constellation Hercules, bright Milky Way, and the bright red star Antares among more.

Bottom line: It’s nearly summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Look for the Summer Triangle – three bright stars in three separate constellations – ascending in the east on June and July evenings.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/29zy3sN

General Election 2017: What are the political parties promising for cancer and research?

A week away from the general election, all the main political parties have now published their manifestos, which act as the blueprint for what they will do over the next parliament should they be elected on June 8^th.

Unsurprisingly, we think cancer should be a key election topic. And voters agree with health named as the top concern in a recent poll.

This is why we’re asking our supporters to email their election candidates to make sure cancer remains a priority.

And we’ve put some of the manifestos under the microscope to see what they mean for cancer, research and patients.

1. Preventing cancer

We know that 4 in 10 cancer cases in the UK can be prevented, mainly through making lifestyle changes like quitting smoking and keeping to a healthy weight.

We’re pleased to see Labour and the Lib Dems pledge to extend restrictions on junk food marketing – a measure supported by the Scottish National Party (SNP). This would have a big impact on children’s eating habits and cancer risk. It’s also encouraging to see the Conservatives and SNP commit to provide clearer food labelling to help consumers make more informed choices.

As tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of cancer, we’ve been pushing to see a comprehensive tobacco control plan published. So it’s good to see commitments from Labour and the Lib Dems to produce a plan to build on the progress that’s been made in reducing smoking levels.

And in Wales, Plaid Cymru has set a target to save 10,000 lives over 10 years through public health and lifestyle changes.

2. Early and speedy diagnosis

The earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the more likely it is to be treated successfully. The 2015 Cancer Strategy for England estimates that 11,000 lives could be saved each year from early diagnosis.

Labour says it will continue to deliver the cancer strategy for England, and the Conservatives will bring in a new target to give cancer patients a definitive diagnosis within 28 days by 2020.

We know that the 62 day waiting time target for cancer patients in England to start their cancer treatment has not been met for the past three years. Whoever is elected must address this urgently to give patients the best chance of surviving.

One of the barriers to quick diagnosis is that we don’t have enough staff in diagnostic services like radiology and endoscopy. It’s vital that the next government does something about this – otherwise patients will lose out.

It’s encouraging that Labour and the Lib Dems have said they’ll produce plans to address these issues so that we don’t see shortages in the number of GPs, doctors, nurses and other professionals.

And the Conservatives have said they’ll increase the number of students in medical training to 1,500 a year, with Plaid Cymru aiming to train and recruit 1,000 doctors and 5,000 nurses for the Welsh NHS in the next 10 years.

3. Treatment

Every patient should have access to the best, evidence-based treatment that is suitable for them. We’ve asked all parties to push ahead with the recommendations in the Accelerated Access Review (AAR), which would help new treatments get to patients sooner.

So it’s good to see that the Conservatives intend to go ahead with the recommendations in the AAR if they’re re-elected. And Labour has promised that all patients will get the most effective new drugs and treatments while insisting on value for money agreements with pharmaceutical companies.

Plaid Cymru wants to introduce a new Medicines and Treatment Fund to make sure everyone can get the medicines they need, no matter where they live in Wales. And the SNP is calling on the UK government to stay part of the European Medicines Agency after Brexit so that access to vital drugs is maintained.

Speaking of Brexit…

4. Brexit and the importance of science and research

Science is global and no single county or organisation is going to beat cancer on its own.

So we’re pleased to see commitments from the Conservatives to increase the number of scientists working in the UK, and an ambition to maintain the UK’s position as the European hub for life sciences. The SNP has also recognised how important it is to continue to take part in European clinical trials and data sharing.

Labour says it’ll meet the target of 3% of GDP to be spent on research and development by 2030. The Conservatives want to invest 2.4% of GDP in research and development, aiming for 3% as a future goal. And the Lib Dems have promised to protect the science budget aiming to double innovation and research spending in the long term.

As our chief clinician, Peter Johnson, wrote recently, ground-breaking research can’t happen without brilliant researchers.

Around half of Cancer Research UK-funded PhD students and researchers come from outside the UK, so the next government must develop an immigration system that lets us attract, recruit and keep scientific talent from across the globe.

The Lib Dems want to continue to allow high-skilled immigration to support key areas of the economy. They also want to reintroduce work visas for graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths who find suitable jobs within 6 months of graduating. The SNP also calls for the full reinstatement of the post-study visa scheme for international students.

Labour has said its system will be based on the economic needs of the country. The Conservatives have pledged to reduce net migration, at the same time as helping areas of the economy that have skills shortages (such as the NHS).

Our Verdict

We’re pleased to see health and science high on the agenda for all parties in this general election.

It’s encouraging that all parties have laid out plans to prevent cancer, address workforce shortages to ensure earlier diagnosis and continue to invest in cancer treatments. It’s also great to see an emphasis on research and innovation, so that the UK can maintain its excellent science base.

Following the election, we’ll work with MPs to make sure cancer remains a high priority for them.

In the meantime, we’re asking all candidates to support our priorities for health and science and work with us to beat cancer sooner.

You can help us by emailing your election candidates, to make sure your voice is heard.

Teresa-Rae

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2s0U9Rc

A week away from the general election, all the main political parties have now published their manifestos, which act as the blueprint for what they will do over the next parliament should they be elected on June 8^th.

Unsurprisingly, we think cancer should be a key election topic. And voters agree with health named as the top concern in a recent poll.

This is why we’re asking our supporters to email their election candidates to make sure cancer remains a priority.

And we’ve put some of the manifestos under the microscope to see what they mean for cancer, research and patients.

1. Preventing cancer

We know that 4 in 10 cancer cases in the UK can be prevented, mainly through making lifestyle changes like quitting smoking and keeping to a healthy weight.

We’re pleased to see Labour and the Lib Dems pledge to extend restrictions on junk food marketing – a measure supported by the Scottish National Party (SNP). This would have a big impact on children’s eating habits and cancer risk. It’s also encouraging to see the Conservatives and SNP commit to provide clearer food labelling to help consumers make more informed choices.

As tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of cancer, we’ve been pushing to see a comprehensive tobacco control plan published. So it’s good to see commitments from Labour and the Lib Dems to produce a plan to build on the progress that’s been made in reducing smoking levels.

And in Wales, Plaid Cymru has set a target to save 10,000 lives over 10 years through public health and lifestyle changes.

2. Early and speedy diagnosis

The earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the more likely it is to be treated successfully. The 2015 Cancer Strategy for England estimates that 11,000 lives could be saved each year from early diagnosis.

Labour says it will continue to deliver the cancer strategy for England, and the Conservatives will bring in a new target to give cancer patients a definitive diagnosis within 28 days by 2020.

We know that the 62 day waiting time target for cancer patients in England to start their cancer treatment has not been met for the past three years. Whoever is elected must address this urgently to give patients the best chance of surviving.

One of the barriers to quick diagnosis is that we don’t have enough staff in diagnostic services like radiology and endoscopy. It’s vital that the next government does something about this – otherwise patients will lose out.

It’s encouraging that Labour and the Lib Dems have said they’ll produce plans to address these issues so that we don’t see shortages in the number of GPs, doctors, nurses and other professionals.

And the Conservatives have said they’ll increase the number of students in medical training to 1,500 a year, with Plaid Cymru aiming to train and recruit 1,000 doctors and 5,000 nurses for the Welsh NHS in the next 10 years.

3. Treatment

Every patient should have access to the best, evidence-based treatment that is suitable for them. We’ve asked all parties to push ahead with the recommendations in the Accelerated Access Review (AAR), which would help new treatments get to patients sooner.

So it’s good to see that the Conservatives intend to go ahead with the recommendations in the AAR if they’re re-elected. And Labour has promised that all patients will get the most effective new drugs and treatments while insisting on value for money agreements with pharmaceutical companies.

Plaid Cymru wants to introduce a new Medicines and Treatment Fund to make sure everyone can get the medicines they need, no matter where they live in Wales. And the SNP is calling on the UK government to stay part of the European Medicines Agency after Brexit so that access to vital drugs is maintained.

Speaking of Brexit…

4. Brexit and the importance of science and research

Science is global and no single county or organisation is going to beat cancer on its own.

So we’re pleased to see commitments from the Conservatives to increase the number of scientists working in the UK, and an ambition to maintain the UK’s position as the European hub for life sciences. The SNP has also recognised how important it is to continue to take part in European clinical trials and data sharing.

Labour says it’ll meet the target of 3% of GDP to be spent on research and development by 2030. The Conservatives want to invest 2.4% of GDP in research and development, aiming for 3% as a future goal. And the Lib Dems have promised to protect the science budget aiming to double innovation and research spending in the long term.

As our chief clinician, Peter Johnson, wrote recently, ground-breaking research can’t happen without brilliant researchers.

Around half of Cancer Research UK-funded PhD students and researchers come from outside the UK, so the next government must develop an immigration system that lets us attract, recruit and keep scientific talent from across the globe.

The Lib Dems want to continue to allow high-skilled immigration to support key areas of the economy. They also want to reintroduce work visas for graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths who find suitable jobs within 6 months of graduating. The SNP also calls for the full reinstatement of the post-study visa scheme for international students.

Labour has said its system will be based on the economic needs of the country. The Conservatives have pledged to reduce net migration, at the same time as helping areas of the economy that have skills shortages (such as the NHS).

Our Verdict

We’re pleased to see health and science high on the agenda for all parties in this general election.

It’s encouraging that all parties have laid out plans to prevent cancer, address workforce shortages to ensure earlier diagnosis and continue to invest in cancer treatments. It’s also great to see an emphasis on research and innovation, so that the UK can maintain its excellent science base.

Following the election, we’ll work with MPs to make sure cancer remains a high priority for them.

In the meantime, we’re asking all candidates to support our priorities for health and science and work with us to beat cancer sooner.

You can help us by emailing your election candidates, to make sure your voice is heard.

Teresa-Rae

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2s0U9Rc

This weekend a great time to see Venus

Image at top is from our friend Tom Wildoner at LeisurelyScientist.com. It’s the planet Venus in the east at dawn. Tomorrow morning – June 3, 2017 – Venus reaches a milestone in its present apparition in the morning sky. The planet will be at its greatest western elongation, or greatest angular distance west of the sun on our sky’s dome. Watch for Venus to blaze mightily in the east this weekend, as dawn climbs into the sky.

At this elongation, Venus swings 46^o west of the sun. After June 3, Venus will slowly but surely fall sunward (toward sunrise) and ultimately pass behind the sun (at superior conjunction) on January 9, 2018. That’s when this world will transition out of the morning sky and into the evening sky.

You can’t miss Venus. It’s the brightest planet, and 3rd-brightest object in the sky after the sun and moon. Here’s a colorful view from Lisa Spielmaker in Michigan.

On these early June mornings, the planet Uranus snuggles up closely with Venus before dawn. Uranus is too low in the morning sky to be seen by the eye alone, but if your sky is perfectly clear and free of city lights – and if you look in those magic moments when Venus and Uranus are relatively high in the sky, yet relatively free of dawn’s early light – you might glimpse Uranus with binoculars.

Uranus is some 10,000 times fainter than Venus. But don’t mistake the star Omicron Piscium for this faint planet. Omicron Piscium and Uranus both share the same binocular field with Venus, but this 4th-magnitude star (which you may see with the unaided eye) is about four times brighter than Uranus yet 2,600 times fainter than Venus. See sky chart below.

If you’re up for a sky watching challenge, try your luck at viewing the planet Uranus with binoculars.

Because Venus orbits the sun inside of Earth’s orbit, this inferior planet always stays relatively close to the sun in our sky. Venus can never be opposite the sun, like a full moon. Venus can’t even be 90^o from the sun, as the half-lit moon is at its first quarter or last quarter phase.

At its greatest elongation, Venus is only about half the angular distance of a quarter moon from the sun.

At its greatest elongation, Venus always appears half-illuminated by sunshine in the telescope. Image via US Naval Observatory.

Although Venus extends as far as 46^o west of the sun from everyplace worldwide, that does not mean Venus rises an equal amount of time before sunrise. At the Earth’s equator (0^o latitude), Venus rises a solid 3 hours before the sun. However, at mid-northern attitudes, Venus rises some 2 hours before sunrise; and at mid-southern latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Venus rises about 4 hours before sunup. Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you the rising times of Venus, Mercury and the sun in your sky.

There are two reasons why Venus rises sooner before sunrise at more southerly latitudes. First, the ecliptic – pathway of the sun, moon and planets – hits the morning horizon at a steep angle in the Southern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, it hits at a shallower angle at northerly latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Moreover, Venus lies somewhat south of the ecliptic, causing Venus to rise all the earlier in the Southern Hemisphere, but all the later in the Northern Hemisphere.

From the Southern Hemisphere, you have a decent chance of spotting the planet Mercury below Venus, before sunrise. Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you the rising time of the sun, Mercury and Venus in your sky.

By late July 2017 at mid-northern latitudes, Venus will be rising about 3 hours before the sun. That’s strange because Venus will be closer to the sun on the sky’s dome (39^o west of the sun in late July 2017, in contrast to 46^o west of the sun in early June). Closer to the sun, but rising sooner before sunrise … how does that happen? The answer is the ecliptic in the July morning sky will be steeper with respect to the predawn horizon than in early June. The angle of the ecliptic will more than make up for Venus’ shrinking elongation.

By the way, there’s something wonderful to see in the evening sky this weekend, too.

On June 2, 3 and 4, 2017, the moon will be sweeping past Jupiter. With Venus up before dawn, Jupiter is now the brightest starlike object in the evening sky. If your sky is somewhat dark, watch for the constellation Corvus the Crow, which points at Spica.

Bottom line: June 3, 2017 marks Venus’ greatest western (morning) elongation, but – for us in the Northern Hemisphere – not necessarily the maximum time period between Venus-rise and sunrise.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2rE1RAK

Image at top is from our friend Tom Wildoner at LeisurelyScientist.com. It’s the planet Venus in the east at dawn. Tomorrow morning – June 3, 2017 – Venus reaches a milestone in its present apparition in the morning sky. The planet will be at its greatest western elongation, or greatest angular distance west of the sun on our sky’s dome. Watch for Venus to blaze mightily in the east this weekend, as dawn climbs into the sky.

At this elongation, Venus swings 46^o west of the sun. After June 3, Venus will slowly but surely fall sunward (toward sunrise) and ultimately pass behind the sun (at superior conjunction) on January 9, 2018. That’s when this world will transition out of the morning sky and into the evening sky.

You can’t miss Venus. It’s the brightest planet, and 3rd-brightest object in the sky after the sun and moon. Here’s a colorful view from Lisa Spielmaker in Michigan.

On these early June mornings, the planet Uranus snuggles up closely with Venus before dawn. Uranus is too low in the morning sky to be seen by the eye alone, but if your sky is perfectly clear and free of city lights – and if you look in those magic moments when Venus and Uranus are relatively high in the sky, yet relatively free of dawn’s early light – you might glimpse Uranus with binoculars.

Uranus is some 10,000 times fainter than Venus. But don’t mistake the star Omicron Piscium for this faint planet. Omicron Piscium and Uranus both share the same binocular field with Venus, but this 4th-magnitude star (which you may see with the unaided eye) is about four times brighter than Uranus yet 2,600 times fainter than Venus. See sky chart below.

If you’re up for a sky watching challenge, try your luck at viewing the planet Uranus with binoculars.

Because Venus orbits the sun inside of Earth’s orbit, this inferior planet always stays relatively close to the sun in our sky. Venus can never be opposite the sun, like a full moon. Venus can’t even be 90^o from the sun, as the half-lit moon is at its first quarter or last quarter phase.

At its greatest elongation, Venus is only about half the angular distance of a quarter moon from the sun.

At its greatest elongation, Venus always appears half-illuminated by sunshine in the telescope. Image via US Naval Observatory.

Although Venus extends as far as 46^o west of the sun from everyplace worldwide, that does not mean Venus rises an equal amount of time before sunrise. At the Earth’s equator (0^o latitude), Venus rises a solid 3 hours before the sun. However, at mid-northern attitudes, Venus rises some 2 hours before sunrise; and at mid-southern latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Venus rises about 4 hours before sunup. Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you the rising times of Venus, Mercury and the sun in your sky.

There are two reasons why Venus rises sooner before sunrise at more southerly latitudes. First, the ecliptic – pathway of the sun, moon and planets – hits the morning horizon at a steep angle in the Southern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, it hits at a shallower angle at northerly latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

Moreover, Venus lies somewhat south of the ecliptic, causing Venus to rise all the earlier in the Southern Hemisphere, but all the later in the Northern Hemisphere.

From the Southern Hemisphere, you have a decent chance of spotting the planet Mercury below Venus, before sunrise. Click here for recommended almanacs; they can give you the rising time of the sun, Mercury and Venus in your sky.

By late July 2017 at mid-northern latitudes, Venus will be rising about 3 hours before the sun. That’s strange because Venus will be closer to the sun on the sky’s dome (39^o west of the sun in late July 2017, in contrast to 46^o west of the sun in early June). Closer to the sun, but rising sooner before sunrise … how does that happen? The answer is the ecliptic in the July morning sky will be steeper with respect to the predawn horizon than in early June. The angle of the ecliptic will more than make up for Venus’ shrinking elongation.

By the way, there’s something wonderful to see in the evening sky this weekend, too.

On June 2, 3 and 4, 2017, the moon will be sweeping past Jupiter. With Venus up before dawn, Jupiter is now the brightest starlike object in the evening sky. If your sky is somewhat dark, watch for the constellation Corvus the Crow, which points at Spica.

Bottom line: June 3, 2017 marks Venus’ greatest western (morning) elongation, but – for us in the Northern Hemisphere – not necessarily the maximum time period between Venus-rise and sunrise.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2rE1RAK

What?? Trump administration says unions don’t have role in defending an OSHA regulation? [The Pump Handle]

Add this to the list of absurdities from the Trump Administration: the Justice Department (DOJ) is arguing that the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers (USW) should rely on the DOJ to defend an Obama-era OSHA regulation. Seriously?

The rule that DOJ says it will defend on the unions’ behalf was adopted by OSHA in May 2016 and concerns the reporting of injuries by employers. It is being threatened by a frivolous lawsuit brought the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Home Builders, and the National Chicken Council.  The business associations filed their lawsuit in the U.S. district court for the western district of Oklahoma—a venue they believe will favor them—to argue against the OSHA rule.

Soon afterwards, the AFL-CIO and USW filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend the OSHA rule. The unions argue they should be granted the right to participate in the lawsuit because they have more than 12 million members who are affected by the new regulation and they were active participants in the rulemaking proceedings which led to the new OSHA reporting rule.

But in a brief dated May 30, DOJ attorneys tell the court that the unions do not meet all of the requirements to justify being a party to the litigation. They say:

“The unions do not satisfy the fourth requirement because they have not shown—and could not show—that the Government would inadequately represent their interests.”

They also write:

“any member of the public who seeks to intervene as of right in defense of a regulation must first clear a high bar…. [that their] interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.”

In other words, the unions should rely on Trump’s DOJ to defend OSHA’s regulation. This is the same Trump administration that is requiring agencies to identify two regulations to repeal for any single regulation the agency may want to implement. It’s also the same Trump administration that has teams set up in every agency to identify regulations to repeal, replace, or modify. And the same Trump administration that has already suspended indefinitely the compliance date for this exact OSHA injury reporting rule. So why would unions trust this administration to defend it vigorously against the Chamber of Commerce et al’s frivolous lawsuit?

In OSHA’s 47 year history, it is unprecedented for the government to object to a union intervening to defend an OSHA regulation. But we should be getting used to “unprecedented” and “Trump” being used in the same sentence.

But I learned the following by reading the AFL-CIO and USW’s motion to participate in the lawsuit:

“Even when an applicant for intervention and the government seek the same outcome in a lawsuit, the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly recognized that it is ‘on its face impossible’ for a government agency to carry the task of protecting the public’s interests and the private interests of a prospective intervenor.” (citing Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002));

A group of public interest organizations also filed a motion to participate in the litigation to defend the OSHA injury reporting rule. They are the American Public Health Association (APHA), Public Citizen, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and Center for Media and Democracy. They are expecting to hear from DOJ by June 12 about their motion. I suspect they will hear the same DOJ nonsense that the unions heard, “trust us.”

As an APHA member, I say “trust Trump’s DOJ? Not gonna happen.”

 

 

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2rqGnEL

Add this to the list of absurdities from the Trump Administration: the Justice Department (DOJ) is arguing that the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers (USW) should rely on the DOJ to defend an Obama-era OSHA regulation. Seriously?

The rule that DOJ says it will defend on the unions’ behalf was adopted by OSHA in May 2016 and concerns the reporting of injuries by employers. It is being threatened by a frivolous lawsuit brought the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Home Builders, and the National Chicken Council.  The business associations filed their lawsuit in the U.S. district court for the western district of Oklahoma—a venue they believe will favor them—to argue against the OSHA rule.

Soon afterwards, the AFL-CIO and USW filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend the OSHA rule. The unions argue they should be granted the right to participate in the lawsuit because they have more than 12 million members who are affected by the new regulation and they were active participants in the rulemaking proceedings which led to the new OSHA reporting rule.

But in a brief dated May 30, DOJ attorneys tell the court that the unions do not meet all of the requirements to justify being a party to the litigation. They say:

“The unions do not satisfy the fourth requirement because they have not shown—and could not show—that the Government would inadequately represent their interests.”

They also write:

“any member of the public who seeks to intervene as of right in defense of a regulation must first clear a high bar…. [that their] interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.”

In other words, the unions should rely on Trump’s DOJ to defend OSHA’s regulation. This is the same Trump administration that is requiring agencies to identify two regulations to repeal for any single regulation the agency may want to implement. It’s also the same Trump administration that has teams set up in every agency to identify regulations to repeal, replace, or modify. And the same Trump administration that has already suspended indefinitely the compliance date for this exact OSHA injury reporting rule. So why would unions trust this administration to defend it vigorously against the Chamber of Commerce et al’s frivolous lawsuit?

In OSHA’s 47 year history, it is unprecedented for the government to object to a union intervening to defend an OSHA regulation. But we should be getting used to “unprecedented” and “Trump” being used in the same sentence.

But I learned the following by reading the AFL-CIO and USW’s motion to participate in the lawsuit:

“Even when an applicant for intervention and the government seek the same outcome in a lawsuit, the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly recognized that it is ‘on its face impossible’ for a government agency to carry the task of protecting the public’s interests and the private interests of a prospective intervenor.” (citing Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002));

A group of public interest organizations also filed a motion to participate in the litigation to defend the OSHA injury reporting rule. They are the American Public Health Association (APHA), Public Citizen, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and Center for Media and Democracy. They are expecting to hear from DOJ by June 12 about their motion. I suspect they will hear the same DOJ nonsense that the unions heard, “trust us.”

As an APHA member, I say “trust Trump’s DOJ? Not gonna happen.”

 

 

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2rqGnEL

The politics edition, pre-election special [Stoat]

In the politics edition I made some amazingly prescient comments that now appear somewhat dated. Not quite definitively wrong – next week will seal that – but before the election itself it will be fun to write down what I think to see how it stacks up against what happens.

Less than two months ago I said What will happen? Labour will do badly, obviously and I don’t see anyone disagreeing with that, then. Now we have the Torygraph saying stuff like Labour continue to narrow the gap on the Conservatives, with the General Election’s latest polls and odds showing that Theresa May may not actually win many more seats and so on, and suddenly it isn’t very funny any more (I’m all for the Tories not doing well, but I’m aghast that my fellow countryfolk are mad enough to support Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. Shameless bribery of the electorate is back, it seems).

What has led to this odd turnabout? Any number of things I suppose; partly the aforementioned shameless bribery (the Labour manifesto was widely decried¹ as the manifesto of a party that didn’t expect to have to implement it so was happy to promise everyone everything) but mostly the Tories being a shambles. Theresa May looks every day more and more like some dull pol who accidentally fell into the top job after shamelessly throwing her convictions away, but who can’t handle it.

Here’s a picture of some polls, taken from the Economist but I warn you, if you feel too cheered up by that, try clicking on the “just show how the old will vote” button and them remember that more of them do than the idiot young.

Speaking of TE, I notice that they endorse the LibDems for this election, and their summary of why is The leaders of both main parties have turned away from a decades-old vision of an open, liberal country.

Nice pic. Let’s quote some of their stuff: Mr Corbyn poses as a radical but is the most conservative—and the most dangerous—candidate of the lot. He wants to take the railways, water and postal service back into public ownership. He would resurrect collective pay-bargaining and raise the minimum wage to the point where 60% of young workers’ salaries are set by the state. His tax plan takes aim at high earners and firms, who would behave in ways his costings ignore. University would be free, as it was until the 1990s—a vast subsidy for the middle class and a blow to the poor. Yup.

But what about the Tories? The Tories would be much better than Labour. But they, too, would raise the drawbridge. Mrs May plans to leave the EU’s single market… she insists on cutting net migration by nearly two-thirds… she will not meet the target without starving the economy of the skills it needs to prosper—something she ought to know, having missed it for six years as home secretary. Her illiberal instincts go beyond her suspicion of globally footloose “citizens of nowhere”. Like Mr Corbyn she proposes new rights for workers, without considering that it would make firms less likely to hire them in the first place. She wants to make it harder for foreign companies to buy British ones. Her woolly “industrial strategy” seems to involve picking favoured industries and firms… She has even adopted Labour’s “Marxist” policy of energy-price caps… She wanted the election campaign to establish her as a “strong and stable” prime minister. It has done the opposite… the centrepiece of her manifesto, a plan to make the elderly pay more for social care, was reversed after just four days… It does not bode well for the Brexit talks. A campaign meant to cement her authority feels like one in which she has been found out. So, she’s rubbish, but less rubbish that Corbyn. Yup.

And the LibDems? It is a dismal choice for this newspaper, which sees little evidence of our classical, free-market liberal values in either of the main parties… No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats… They are more honest than the Tories about the need to raise taxes for public services; and more sensible than Labour, spreading the burden rather than leaning only on high-earners. Unlike Labour they would reverse the Tories’ most regressive welfare cuts. They are on the right side of other issues: for devolution of power from London, reform of the voting system and the House of Lords, and regulation of markets for drugs and sex. Yup.

If I was in the Cambridge ward, I’d vote LibDem. But I’m in South Cambs, which is inevitably Tory, so I’ll probably vote Green instead.

Regrets

Our dear PM is probably regretting calling the election now. I rather regret that she so casually threw away the 5-year-fixed-term-parliaments act. It was weak, true, but had it been allowed to bed in it might have become a tradition, and stronger. Now it is gone.

Speculation

The most likely result is a Tory victory with a (perhaps marginally) increased majority. But that would be dull, so why not speculate? A possible result is a hung parliament with – if my fellow electorate are not too foolish – the possibility of a Tory-LibDem coalition having a majority. Of course the obvious objection to that is that the LibDems got badly burned last time, why would they wish to try again? And the obvious answer would be that they’d have to be given something they really want. Which could be, some variant on a second referendum on Brexit. Done baldly it might not work but more subtly as “a referendum on a deal, in good time to patch things up if there is no deal” might do it. Of course some Tories and all the Kippers would go apeshit, so it would be worth it just to see that, but it might make it rather hard to stitch together.

Notes

1. By the cognoscenti, of course. The hoi polloi don’t seem to have been given the sekrit decoder ring.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qGTILS

In the politics edition I made some amazingly prescient comments that now appear somewhat dated. Not quite definitively wrong – next week will seal that – but before the election itself it will be fun to write down what I think to see how it stacks up against what happens.

Less than two months ago I said What will happen? Labour will do badly, obviously and I don’t see anyone disagreeing with that, then. Now we have the Torygraph saying stuff like Labour continue to narrow the gap on the Conservatives, with the General Election’s latest polls and odds showing that Theresa May may not actually win many more seats and so on, and suddenly it isn’t very funny any more (I’m all for the Tories not doing well, but I’m aghast that my fellow countryfolk are mad enough to support Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. Shameless bribery of the electorate is back, it seems).

What has led to this odd turnabout? Any number of things I suppose; partly the aforementioned shameless bribery (the Labour manifesto was widely decried¹ as the manifesto of a party that didn’t expect to have to implement it so was happy to promise everyone everything) but mostly the Tories being a shambles. Theresa May looks every day more and more like some dull pol who accidentally fell into the top job after shamelessly throwing her convictions away, but who can’t handle it.

Here’s a picture of some polls, taken from the Economist but I warn you, if you feel too cheered up by that, try clicking on the “just show how the old will vote” button and them remember that more of them do than the idiot young.

Speaking of TE, I notice that they endorse the LibDems for this election, and their summary of why is The leaders of both main parties have turned away from a decades-old vision of an open, liberal country.

Nice pic. Let’s quote some of their stuff: Mr Corbyn poses as a radical but is the most conservative—and the most dangerous—candidate of the lot. He wants to take the railways, water and postal service back into public ownership. He would resurrect collective pay-bargaining and raise the minimum wage to the point where 60% of young workers’ salaries are set by the state. His tax plan takes aim at high earners and firms, who would behave in ways his costings ignore. University would be free, as it was until the 1990s—a vast subsidy for the middle class and a blow to the poor. Yup.

But what about the Tories? The Tories would be much better than Labour. But they, too, would raise the drawbridge. Mrs May plans to leave the EU’s single market… she insists on cutting net migration by nearly two-thirds… she will not meet the target without starving the economy of the skills it needs to prosper—something she ought to know, having missed it for six years as home secretary. Her illiberal instincts go beyond her suspicion of globally footloose “citizens of nowhere”. Like Mr Corbyn she proposes new rights for workers, without considering that it would make firms less likely to hire them in the first place. She wants to make it harder for foreign companies to buy British ones. Her woolly “industrial strategy” seems to involve picking favoured industries and firms… She has even adopted Labour’s “Marxist” policy of energy-price caps… She wanted the election campaign to establish her as a “strong and stable” prime minister. It has done the opposite… the centrepiece of her manifesto, a plan to make the elderly pay more for social care, was reversed after just four days… It does not bode well for the Brexit talks. A campaign meant to cement her authority feels like one in which she has been found out. So, she’s rubbish, but less rubbish that Corbyn. Yup.

And the LibDems? It is a dismal choice for this newspaper, which sees little evidence of our classical, free-market liberal values in either of the main parties… No party passes with flying colours. But the closest is the Liberal Democrats… They are more honest than the Tories about the need to raise taxes for public services; and more sensible than Labour, spreading the burden rather than leaning only on high-earners. Unlike Labour they would reverse the Tories’ most regressive welfare cuts. They are on the right side of other issues: for devolution of power from London, reform of the voting system and the House of Lords, and regulation of markets for drugs and sex. Yup.

If I was in the Cambridge ward, I’d vote LibDem. But I’m in South Cambs, which is inevitably Tory, so I’ll probably vote Green instead.

Regrets

Our dear PM is probably regretting calling the election now. I rather regret that she so casually threw away the 5-year-fixed-term-parliaments act. It was weak, true, but had it been allowed to bed in it might have become a tradition, and stronger. Now it is gone.

Speculation

The most likely result is a Tory victory with a (perhaps marginally) increased majority. But that would be dull, so why not speculate? A possible result is a hung parliament with – if my fellow electorate are not too foolish – the possibility of a Tory-LibDem coalition having a majority. Of course the obvious objection to that is that the LibDems got badly burned last time, why would they wish to try again? And the obvious answer would be that they’d have to be given something they really want. Which could be, some variant on a second referendum on Brexit. Done baldly it might not work but more subtly as “a referendum on a deal, in good time to patch things up if there is no deal” might do it. Of course some Tories and all the Kippers would go apeshit, so it would be worth it just to see that, but it might make it rather hard to stitch together.

Notes

1. By the cognoscenti, of course. The hoi polloi don’t seem to have been given the sekrit decoder ring.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qGTILS

Sad to be an American, grieving for Mother Earth and her people [The Pump Handle]

The text came in from my husband: “Canada is going to be getting warmer all the time.”

That was his way of telling me today’s news that President Trump is pulling out of the historic, global climate change agreement.  It makes me sad and brings to mind the words of Pope Francis in his encyclical letter “On Care for Our Common Home”:

“Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.”

Leadership “…is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good.”

“International negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good. Those who will have to suffer the consequences…will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility.”

We must hear “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement will have historic, monumental, and grave consequences for public health. The most vulnerable will suffer. I feel responsible for that suffering as an American.

Georges Benjamin, MD, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association released a statement saying:

“Today’s reckless decision is further abdication of leadership at the federal level to protect public health.”

Yesterday I saw a grade school boy in Virginia who was wearing one of those red “Make America Great Again” baseball caps. I hope he quickly sheds that cap and learns that America can never be great with a President who ignores science and uses his power to favor the few over the many.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qLe6qm

The text came in from my husband: “Canada is going to be getting warmer all the time.”

That was his way of telling me today’s news that President Trump is pulling out of the historic, global climate change agreement.  It makes me sad and brings to mind the words of Pope Francis in his encyclical letter “On Care for Our Common Home”:

“Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.”

Leadership “…is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good.”

“International negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good. Those who will have to suffer the consequences…will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility.”

We must hear “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement will have historic, monumental, and grave consequences for public health. The most vulnerable will suffer. I feel responsible for that suffering as an American.

Georges Benjamin, MD, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association released a statement saying:

“Today’s reckless decision is further abdication of leadership at the federal level to protect public health.”

Yesterday I saw a grade school boy in Virginia who was wearing one of those red “Make America Great Again” baseball caps. I hope he quickly sheds that cap and learns that America can never be great with a President who ignores science and uses his power to favor the few over the many.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qLe6qm

Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president

In an inexplicable abdication of any semblance of responsibility or leadership, Donald Trump has announced that he will begin the process to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty, joining Nicaragua and Syria as the only world countries rejecting the agreement. It now seems inevitable that the history books will view Trump as America’s worst-ever president.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris treaty is a mostly symbolic act. America’s pledges to cut its carbon pollution were non-binding, and his administration’s policies to date had already made it impossible for America to meet its initial Paris climate commitment for 2025. The next American president in 2020 can re-enter the Paris treaty and push for policies to make up some of the ground we lost during Trump’s reign.

However, withdrawing from the Paris treaty is an important symbolic move – a middle finger to the rest of the world, and to future generations. America is by far the largest historical contributor to climate change. Ironically, on the heels of Trump’s claim that most NATO members aren’t paying their fair share to the organization, America has announced that we won’t do our fair share to curb the climate change threats that we are the most responsible for.

The Rotting Republican Party

And the GOP has become the Party of Trump. His decision was reinforced by a letter from 22 Republican senators urging withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Those senators have coincidentally received over $10m in donations from the fossil fuel industry over the past five years.

Their reasoning was dubious at best, arguing that environmental attorneys will cite the international agreement in their efforts to prevent the Trump administration from eliminating President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. By law, the US government is required to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, because it poses a threat to public welfare. The Republican Senators wrote:

Environmentalists will argue that these [Clean Air Act] Section 115 requirements are, in fact, met more easily by the Paris Agreement because it includes enhanced transparency requirements in Article 13, which establishes a process for nations to submit plans to reduce emissions to one another and then to comment on the plans of one another.

As National Resource Defense Council climate and clean air program senior attorney David Doniger explained to me, this argument is nonsense:

They are making things up. EPA did not rely on Paris to justify the Clean Power Plan, and none of the parties defending the Plan has cited Paris as a legal basis. On Clean Air Act Section 115, no one I know has made, or even thought of, this argument.

It’s difficult to discern the Republican Senators’ motivations behind this letter. Even big oil and coal and many of America’s largest companies supported America staying in the Paris agreement. Industries don’t like the uncertainty involved in lurching in and out of international treaties, and experts are concerned about the effect on America’s international influence from tearing up this critically important agreement that we helped broker less than two years ago, that was signed by nearly every world country.

Perhaps the Republican Senators are trying to ride Trump’s nationalist, anti-globalist coattails. Maybe they think that their right-wing base will be excited if they stick it to the rest of the world on Paris. However, majorities of voters in every single county in the US support regulating carbon as a pollutant, and 71% of Americans (including 57% of Republicans) think the US should participate in the Paris agreement.

In short, efforts to pull out of the Paris treaty are woefully misguided, and almost everyone knows it. Everyone except 42% of Senate Republicans including leader Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and of course Trump’s senior advisor Steve Bannon and his EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. Additionally, the Koch brothers and Vladimir Putin are not fans of the treaty. Those two factors may best explain this decision by Trump and the Republican senators.

Good luck kids, you’ll need it

Political calculations aside, pulling America out of the Paris agreement is grossly immoral. Human-caused climate change puts the well-being of our children and grandchildren at risk. That’s especially true for poorer countries that lack the resources to adapt to its impacts, and that contributed the least to the problem. However, the move will also hurt the American economy, as Joseph Robertson wrote on these pages earlier this week:

With China, India, and the EU all moving toward record investments in clean energy and high-efficiency construction, transport and industrial production, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement risks making the US into an economic backwater. Withdrawal would effectively deprive American businesses and communities of the most efficient ways to boost investment, hiring, innovation, and return on investment.

Some Republican leaders are struggling to preserve their party’s credibility and viability. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned against the withdrawal. 20 House Republicans have now joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, whose goal is to craft economically beneficial climate policies that both parties can support. And a group of Republican elder statesmen including Secretaries of State and Treasury to Presidents Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush met with the White House seeking support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax plan.

So far, these leaders’ laudable efforts have failed. Trump and the majority of Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to increase American carbon pollution. They want to repeal all of America’s climate policies with no replacement plan. In short, they’re happy to let the world burn, and for our children and grandchildren suffer the consequences.

2020 election will be a climate referendum

This is the rotten state of today’s GOP. They’re happy to sell out the future of humanity for their own short-term political gain.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2rZ8P3n

In an inexplicable abdication of any semblance of responsibility or leadership, Donald Trump has announced that he will begin the process to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty, joining Nicaragua and Syria as the only world countries rejecting the agreement. It now seems inevitable that the history books will view Trump as America’s worst-ever president.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris treaty is a mostly symbolic act. America’s pledges to cut its carbon pollution were non-binding, and his administration’s policies to date had already made it impossible for America to meet its initial Paris climate commitment for 2025. The next American president in 2020 can re-enter the Paris treaty and push for policies to make up some of the ground we lost during Trump’s reign.

However, withdrawing from the Paris treaty is an important symbolic move – a middle finger to the rest of the world, and to future generations. America is by far the largest historical contributor to climate change. Ironically, on the heels of Trump’s claim that most NATO members aren’t paying their fair share to the organization, America has announced that we won’t do our fair share to curb the climate change threats that we are the most responsible for.

The Rotting Republican Party

And the GOP has become the Party of Trump. His decision was reinforced by a letter from 22 Republican senators urging withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Those senators have coincidentally received over $10m in donations from the fossil fuel industry over the past five years.

Their reasoning was dubious at best, arguing that environmental attorneys will cite the international agreement in their efforts to prevent the Trump administration from eliminating President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. By law, the US government is required to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, because it poses a threat to public welfare. The Republican Senators wrote:

Environmentalists will argue that these [Clean Air Act] Section 115 requirements are, in fact, met more easily by the Paris Agreement because it includes enhanced transparency requirements in Article 13, which establishes a process for nations to submit plans to reduce emissions to one another and then to comment on the plans of one another.

As National Resource Defense Council climate and clean air program senior attorney David Doniger explained to me, this argument is nonsense:

They are making things up. EPA did not rely on Paris to justify the Clean Power Plan, and none of the parties defending the Plan has cited Paris as a legal basis. On Clean Air Act Section 115, no one I know has made, or even thought of, this argument.

It’s difficult to discern the Republican Senators’ motivations behind this letter. Even big oil and coal and many of America’s largest companies supported America staying in the Paris agreement. Industries don’t like the uncertainty involved in lurching in and out of international treaties, and experts are concerned about the effect on America’s international influence from tearing up this critically important agreement that we helped broker less than two years ago, that was signed by nearly every world country.

Perhaps the Republican Senators are trying to ride Trump’s nationalist, anti-globalist coattails. Maybe they think that their right-wing base will be excited if they stick it to the rest of the world on Paris. However, majorities of voters in every single county in the US support regulating carbon as a pollutant, and 71% of Americans (including 57% of Republicans) think the US should participate in the Paris agreement.

In short, efforts to pull out of the Paris treaty are woefully misguided, and almost everyone knows it. Everyone except 42% of Senate Republicans including leader Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and of course Trump’s senior advisor Steve Bannon and his EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. Additionally, the Koch brothers and Vladimir Putin are not fans of the treaty. Those two factors may best explain this decision by Trump and the Republican senators.

Good luck kids, you’ll need it

Political calculations aside, pulling America out of the Paris agreement is grossly immoral. Human-caused climate change puts the well-being of our children and grandchildren at risk. That’s especially true for poorer countries that lack the resources to adapt to its impacts, and that contributed the least to the problem. However, the move will also hurt the American economy, as Joseph Robertson wrote on these pages earlier this week:

With China, India, and the EU all moving toward record investments in clean energy and high-efficiency construction, transport and industrial production, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement risks making the US into an economic backwater. Withdrawal would effectively deprive American businesses and communities of the most efficient ways to boost investment, hiring, innovation, and return on investment.

Some Republican leaders are struggling to preserve their party’s credibility and viability. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned against the withdrawal. 20 House Republicans have now joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, whose goal is to craft economically beneficial climate policies that both parties can support. And a group of Republican elder statesmen including Secretaries of State and Treasury to Presidents Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush met with the White House seeking support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax plan.

So far, these leaders’ laudable efforts have failed. Trump and the majority of Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to increase American carbon pollution. They want to repeal all of America’s climate policies with no replacement plan. In short, they’re happy to let the world burn, and for our children and grandchildren suffer the consequences.

2020 election will be a climate referendum

This is the rotten state of today’s GOP. They’re happy to sell out the future of humanity for their own short-term political gain.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2rZ8P3n