Endless Exemptions: An Environmental Justice Critique of the Ongoing Use of Methyl Bromide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Comment is an environmental justice critique of the ongoing use of methyl bromide. Part I provides an overview of methyl bromide, the Montreal Protocol, the CAA, and the Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Part II critiques the system of CUEs by arguing that the ongoing use of methyl bromide, facilitated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), places an undue burden on minority and low income communities and, therefore, violates the Executive Order on Environmental Justice. In addition, Part II illustrates other instances in which the EPA has violated the Executive Order; argues that the CUE system violates the environmental and health policies behind the phaseout; examines the meaning of “critical” under both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Montreal Protocol; and demonstrates that the CUE system prioritizes agribusiness profit over human health. Therefore, Part III proposes alternatives to methyl bromide and shows that some alternatives satisfy the CAA criteria for sound alternatives by reducing the overall risk to human health and the environment, while others violate the criteria for sound alternatives. In analyzing alternatives to methyl bromide, Part III discusses the importance of government commitment to alternative technologies, the pursuit of legal remedies, and the role of community organizing in developing solutions to the ongoing use of methyl bromide. Part IV advocates for the immediate elimination of methyl bromide as the only guaranteed means of protecting the ozone layer and human health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".