KILLCARB.ORG
Dedicated to Putting an End to a Rogue State Agency

Join Our CARB Awareness Email List
Email:
For Email Marketing you can trust
HOME
Forum
Eve's Corner
Make Your Signs
Make Your Own T-Shirts
Tips for Truckers
The Gov
CARB Payroll
Who is CARB
Hien Tran Fraud
ClimateGate
Reading Room
Links of Interest




Was Dr. Enstrom fired for exposing Mary Nichols, John Froines & UC in fraud cover-up at CARB?


Dr. James EnstromDr. James Enstrom was instrumental in exposing the Hien Tran fraud and the violation of state statutes in the appointments of the CARB Scientific Board. A law suit is pending.  Dr. Enstrom's research contradicted that of Hien Tran, who claimed to hold a PhD and was the lead author of a report which CARB used to justify bad, new, industry killing regulations for diesel trucks and buses. Tran's PhD was actually from a diploma mill.  In 2008 Dr. Enstrom's letter to the California Air Resources Board was Ignored.  CARB's Mary Nichols and Dr. John Balmes (UCSF) knew of the Tran fraud and attempted a cover-up until the story hit the press. Industry leaders now question if Dr. Enstrom was fired for being a whistle blower.





California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association

California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association

California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association

California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association

California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association

  California Dump Truck Owners Association 334 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, California 91786  (909) 982-9898 Fax (909) 985-2348  web: cdtoa.org  August 10, 2010  Chancellor Gene D. Block  Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh  University of California  2147 Murphy Hall  Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405  Dear Chancellor Block and Provost Waugh:  The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions  taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than  35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s  efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John  Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty  status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their  appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of  violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author  of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran  fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr.  Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions  to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these  faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).  In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to  Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental  Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock  (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter--truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now  involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or  intimidate (or all three).  The first reason given for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal was insufficient funding to continue his employment.  Enstrom’s request for UCLA to provide a proper accounting of his funding (February 9, 2010) was  responded to (on February 10, 2010) with a formal layoff notice effective April 21, 2010. On February 12,  2010, Dr. Jackson promised a detailed explanation of potential accounting irregularities. Evidently there  were some “accounting errors” made by the Department, because a re-analysis showed that there was  approximately $45,000 of research funding and over 3,000 hours of unused vacation and sick leave, which  would allow full funding for Enstrom through December 11, 2011. According to Enstrom’s letter to Dean  Rosenstock on June 15, 2010, Drs. Jackson and Godwin promised to “help facilitate the use of my remaining  funding to pay my salary from February 2010 through June 2010, particularly if I did not contest the  validity of the two layoff notices”.  2  The details of any negotiations to save Dr. Enstrom’s position, such as trading vacation time and funding,  are not as important as the continued effort of UCLA faculty members to vilify and remove Dr. Enstrom  because his research contradicted senior UCLA faculty members’ stated positions. We would suggest that  UCLA’s conduct in the negotiations is poisoned by the underlying motivations for attempting to end Dr.  Enstrom’s career as a member of the faculty on vindictive grounds. We are not sure how you would read the  statement, “Particularly if I did not contest the validity of the two layoff notices,” but the words blackmail  (money to quiet the informer), bribery (something given to induce) and coercion (the unlawful act of  compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free  will, particularly by use or threat) all come to mind.  Would UCLA argue they are now advocates of agency overreach, or that they serve the public at large as a  source of serious and reliable inquiry on matters of public health and welfare? Is the action taken by UCLA  intended to intimidate any faculty member who might be critical of UCLA’s role in propping up the CARB  or CA EPA regulatory regime, based upon nationwide scientific studies that do not apply to California?  Now UCLA department heads claim that Dr. Enstrom performs research “not aligned with the academic  mission of the Department, and [his] research output and other contributions do not meet the Department  requirements” (June 30, 2010 letter from Dr. Godwin). Dr. Enstrom responded to this claim on July 14,  2010 with a four-page document that specifically and categorically refutes these statements, at least  according to his understanding of the Department’s mission and his contribution efforts, both on and off  campus utilizing symposiums and public forums. Even a cursory reading of this document sufficiently  refutes the UCLA claim as stated by Dr. Godwin.  This “non re-appointment” is not because of research not aligned with the UCLA mission, but because Dr.  Enstrom has actively tried to refute the continued efforts by UCLA faculty to pursue and support research  misrepresentations and overreaching that will harm the California economy. Dr. Enstrom has indeed  become a whistle blower in the best traditions – exposing UCLA and University of California faculty  misconduct – and he has been instrumental in supporting an effort to stop the excessive regulatory zeal of  the CARB and its parent organizations, the California and Federal EPA.  Nevertheless, while acknowledging Dr. Enstrom’s letter, the new position had not changed, noting that “any  unexpended funds will not be available for your use after August 30, 2010” (UCLA Letter of July 29, 2010).  We must assume that this is the penalty exacted upon Dr. Enstrom for not accepting the first offer to  “facilitate the use of my remaining funding to pay my salary.” Dr. Godwin did not respond to even one of  the statements Dr. Enstrom made in his denial of the validity of Dr. Godwin’s reasons for dismissal. No  dispute. No further support of UCLA’s position. No rationale offered justifying the arbitrary decision.  This conduct by professionals who should be respectful in dealing with a faculty member with more than 30  years of distinguished service indicates that malignant motives are in play – the kind of spiteful motives that  sometimes are on display in academia when personal enmity interferes with professional ethics and courtesy.  Mr. Skip Brown, one of the undersigned, attempted to contact Dr. Rosenstock on August 4, 2010, leaving a  message with her (apparent) receptionist, Rebecca, requesting a conference. To this date, she has not  responded. He also contacted Dr. Godwin on August 6, 2010, and, after identifying himself and his request  for information as to what is the “mission of the Department,” she stated she could not discuss these  personnel matters with anyone else but Dr. Enstrom and promptly hung up. Mr. Brown did not intend to  discuss “personnel matters,” but Dr. Godwin’s abrupt hang-up precluded him from clarifying the request as  to only find out the mysterious “mission of the Department” that Dr. Enstrom was accused of not being  aligned with.  3  If Dr. Enstrom’s efforts over the last several years are not spot-on with the UCLA SPH website statement:  “The Department of Environmental Health Sciences explores the fundamental relationship between human  health and the environment,” then we would like someone to explain where he has been going wrong for the  last six years (at a minimum).  It is important you understand that the industries that utilize and own diesel powered equipment and trucks  that we represent, are made up of somewhat “simple folk.” We tend to call a spade a spade and treat issues  such as these directly. After all, we deal in the real world of contractual obligations with firm performance  requirements and deadlines. We read these letters and attempt to come to a conclusion from them as to the  proper disposition of the Dr. Enstrom matter. We have already stated our opinion of Dr. Enstrom and his  efforts for true and factual science in the matter of health effects from diesel particulate matter (see CDTOA  Letter, June 23, 2010). Make no mistake, the cost to implement the onerous California Air Resources Board  (CARB) regulations emanating from UCLA sanctioned studies are immense, and too many will ultimately  be overwhelming.  We received a response to our letter from Dr. Rosenstock dated June 30, 2010 stating that “all policies and  procedures are being followed in this matter, and we hope to come to a satisfactory resolution shortly.”  Well, if this is how you follow “all policies and procedures,” the days of the “free expression of ideas and  discussion” are now officially ended in the UCLA Campus. Dr. Enstrom is the subject of this “systemic  suppression of academic freedoms” and, frankly, this is nothing less than character assassination by UCLA.  Why? Because he disagrees with the very professors who hold sway over his position. Additionally, he has  gone public with this disagreement. These professors have stated that diesel PM2.5 is minimually causing  thousands of premature deaths if not killing thousands of Californians every year (apparently according to  nationwide studies). These numbers that are continually parroted by CARB and EPA are as vague and  irresponsible as the SPH Department’s response to Dr. Enstrom for his layoff. His extensive study (of  California residents only) shows no premature death from PM in California. His research is supported by  several other scientists in this field, but not scientists from UCLA. Industry is rightfully demanding that the  CARB review all studies before implementing regulations, based upon Dr. Enstrom’s and others’ research.  At this time, mainly due to these “new” findings, CARB has forestalled implementation of the regulations,  all mainly due to Dr. Enstrom’s academic freedoms.  Because of his politically unpopular research results, Dr. Enstrom is on the “internal hit list” for removal. In  the elite salons and faculty lounges at UCLA, it has been determined that he offends the “consensus” and his  idea of free academic debate and inquiry are now too disruptive. UCLA would claim to be the protector of  free academic inquiry, but this retaliation is clearly the product of a despicable intolerance and a cover-up of  UCLA faculty misconduct already outlined above. Most importantly, this retaliation appears to be intended  to protect the relationship of UCLA and the state agencies that provide so much grant funding and many  appointments for UCLA and UC faculty. All these mutually beneficial arrangements might be disrupted by  Dr. Enstrom, which could mean that his insistence on reasonable academic inquiry and sound research really  is, as stated above by his department heads, “not in line with the academic mission of the department.” If the  mission of UCLA is to be the “bought-and-paid-for research institution” for whatever the CA EPA or  the CARB has on their “needs” list is shameful. Ultimately, UCLA and the UC system in general will  be held primarily responsible for the incompetent and “fixed” research and reports behind CARB  and EPA’s draconian regulations associated with PM2.5.  We may be members of the benighted class of taxpayers and not privy to the murmuring of UCLA faculty  members and administration, but we know that scientific questions are not decided by concurrence,  compromise, conformance, concession or consensus. We also know that Albert Einstein and other legitimate  and honest scientists insist on free inquiry. They also recognize that one good experiment or  4  study can disprove even the most iconic of the “consensus” positions of the elites at UCLA or anywhere  else. And Dr. Enstrom is not one to twist the science to get along with or to curry favor with CA EPA and  CARB, or pander to their political ambitions by puffing up bad studies to justify funding received and  regulatory overreach.  Dr. Enstrom followed the data, and he also followed the rules of proof of toxicity that are well established  and widely ignored by UCLA faculty and others wedded to the hyper-regulation policy making of anxious  environmentalists and their political allies. Dr. Enstrom started out a physicist and knows that science should  be skeptical and attached to accuracy in the best traditions of empiricism, not shills for agencies with money  and power.  The regulations passed by CARB are to be implemented supposedly based on true and accurate science IN  CALIFORNIA, but research by Dr. Enstrom and others outside of UCLA clearly does not support such  regulations. UCLA is now the sponsor of deceptive, unreliable research, and it appears to support not only  scientific but also professional misconduct. Now it proposes to cover it all up or make it go away by  discrediting a member of the faculty who exposed the systemic misconduct and the poorly crafted research.  It appears that the ruling class and the academic doyens have the world of science and academic inquiry  upside down and beholding to political and financial influence, not the pursuit of reliable science.  The research supported by UCLA faculty members used by the CARB and CA EPA shows that there may  be evidence of premature death causation from diesel PM in Pittsburgh (PA), and even that is subject to  question because it is a small effect in an observational study, but that is a long way from California and  ignores the evidence that there is no premature death problem in California at all. To apply nationwide  studies to California population projections to justify California regulations cannot be supported, but has  been proposed by CARB and CA EPA, following UCLA faculty counsel and advice. But then CARB and  CA EPA want to regulate and UCLA wants to get research money, so that incest and misconduct has been  exposed by Dr. Enstrom and retaliation is now in the air.  Taxpayers and citizens have an interest in retaliation directed at respected members of the UCLA faculty if  that has an impact on matters of public import. Dr. Enstrom’s research and his assistance have aided  members of the public in their efforts to insist that UCLA faculty members act in accordance with ethical  and professional canons and mores. Dr. Enstrom’s conduct has been in the best traditions of academic  inquiry, and the UCLA administration clearly by word, act and timing appears to be punishing a faculty  member for his honest and forthright efforts to assist the public. Members of the public have an interest in  holding UCLA to its mission and to academic ethics.  This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA  faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from  misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research  dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous  CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the  resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.  We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.”  Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr.  Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many  scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated.  Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP  Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his  status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has  suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to  complete this important work.  5  The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California  business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member  they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh  economic times.  Thank you very much for your consideration.  Sincerely yours,  Lee Brown, Executive Director Skip Brown, President  CA Dump Truck Owners Assoc. Delta Construction Company, Inc.  Bryan Bloom, Owner S. Stanley Young, PhD  Priority Moving, Inc. Assistant Director of Bioinformatics, NISS  Scott Watson, President Rod Michaelson  Import Plywood Marketing Group Bay Cities Paving and Grading/ORAIG  Rick Holliday Bill Davis, Executive Vice President  North Bay Corporation Southern California Contractors Association