Medicare Meets Mephistopholes Online Book Specials Liberty & Learning


Click here to learn more about supporting the Cato Institute.
Now accepting PayPal

Cato Global

October 9, 2006

Daily Podcast

The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform
featuring John Samples

RSS Feed   [Archives]

Daily Commentary

Plato's Britain

by Marian L. Tupy

RSS Feed   [Archives]

Daily Dispatch

Cato Unbound

Cato's Online Monthly Magazine

Cato In the Media

Ted Galen Carpenter will discuss North Korea's nuclear program on MSNBC on Monday at 11:00 a.m. ET

Cato Audio
Question MarkAsk Our Scholars

Series 1: Q and A With Steve Milloy

Continued from page 2...

Page: 1, 2, 3

Question My brother-in-law lawyer says that complaints about huge financial awards for frivolous claims like the McDonalds hot coffee case are overblown. He points out that a judge reduced dramatically that award, and there are actually very few other cases like that. I pointed out to him the silicone breast implant cases, and the cell phone (brain cancer) cases. What other precedent-setting legal outrages come to mind, besides the tobacco and gun cases?

Answer Courtrooms are filled with junk science fueled litigation. A partial list includes:

Question Mr. Milloy, I enjoy your website and column and am glad that there is someone out there drawing attention to questionable scientific work. Are there any environmental/health regulations or laws enacted that you see as positive? Reading your columns, one could get the impression that no law or regulation will ever meet your standards. I know this is likely not the case, so I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about some things that you see as "non-junk science based" legislation and regulation in the public health/environmental arena.

Answer This is too broad a question to be answered in a few paragraphs. Whether specific laws and regulations are positive depends on many facts and value judgments. Generally speaking, laws should not be enacted and regulations should not be implemented based on unsubstantiated claims.

I am often asked, "Hasn't the federal Clean Air Act produced dramatically cleaner air over the last 30 years?" The answer is "Yes, but at what cost?"

When the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem. That is even more the case today. Few people realize this after 30 years of non-stop junk science-fueled alarmism from environmental activists.

Under the Clean Air Act, Americans have spent about $500 billion, and surrendered many freedoms under an onerous command-and-control system. Impending future expenditures will dwarf those costs.

Could similar (or better) results have been achieved or be achieved at less cost to our pocketbooks and liberty? We'll need to eliminate junk science from the debate to find out.

Question Mr. Milloy: Recently I read, somewhere, that one benefit of sparse (large-lot) suburban development is that the trees and shrubbery create a carbon sink out-weighing the CO2 generated by the humans on the lot, while the more congested small-lot smart-growth condo's do not. What's your opinion on this?

Answer This is a global warming question for which I will mostly refer you to my earlier response on the topic. We may plant trees from now until the end of time. But we will never know whether we've had any effect on the carbon cycle, much less any impact on global climate. Nonetheless, urban green spaces can provide a refreshing break from heat-trapping urban concrete and asphalt.

Question Can you comment on the effects electronic radiation cell phone towers have on seniors? Thank you.

Answer Many studies have looked at microwave radiation emanating into the local environment from cell phone towers, including two recent major studies by the Canadian and UK governments. All conclude that the towers sited according to regulations are perfectly safe. These results are consistent with more than 50 years of study on the potential health effects of microwave radiation.

For more detailed information, check out the web site of Radiology professor John Moulder of the Medical College of Wisconsin:

Page: 1, 2, 3





Contact Us | Jobs at Cato | Links of Interest

Support the Cato Institute

Send this page to a friend

Print This Page

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2006 Cato Institute