South Carolina

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has an important responsibility to protect public health, provide reliable information, and ensure communities have the resources necessary to respond to health and environmental threats.

That includes maintaining access to vaccines and preventive healthcare, monitoring environmental hazards such as PFAS, asbestos, and contaminated drinking water, supporting disease prevention, and ensuring state and local agencies are prepared for public-health emergencies.

For rural communities, however, public health also requires addressing access to care. Healthcare may technically be available, but it means little to a family that must travel a long distance to receive basic or specialized services.

Rural South Carolina needs accessible healthcare professionals, emergency services, mental-health resources, preventive care, and maternal healthcare. We must also identify environmental and public-health risks early, rather than waiting until communities are already experiencing the consequences.

Public-health policy should be guided by credible evidence, transparent information, preparedness, and the real-world needs of the communities it is intended to serve. People deserve accurate information and access to appropriate resources so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

We need to listen to and hire scientists that have done actual research on these specific vaccines etc. and that we should give them the funding to be innovative in how they use these resources to protect human life.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

South Carolina faces many challenges and seems to be going backward in numerous areas due to the current accepted bastardization of ‘the truth’ and an unwillingness to accept sound, established science as a basis for good policy. Our state is underfunded and underserved regarding healthcare access, healthcare information, and healthcare education. Environmentally speaking, with every federal rollback of EPA regulations, SC sinks further into harmful environmental practices that will need to be addressed later at great cost. Again, breaking the supermajority will force legislators to work together. Vaccinations should be free, readily available and accessible, and promoted through a statewide ad campaign or state informational outlets. Moving to a Medicare for All system would be huge, but I’d settle for expanded Medicaid at this point. Though you didn’t mention it, child care access and costs need to be addressed under this topic of community well being. The inability to afford childcare prevents too many adults from entering the workforce or causes them to make unsafe choices.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Although I am a small government advocate, there is a place for regulation when it comes to public health and environmental protection. Vaccine science must be apolitical and focused on the relationship between doctor and patient. Whistleblowers and contrarians must be included in government work on public health and environmental protection. The best thing government can do is fund unbiased research on all the issues listed and turn that data over to decision makers in private industry and education. Plus, the public can elect more ENGINEERS and fewer lawyers!

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

I believe it is a core responsibility of government. In this era of social media, AI, and echo chambers, an objective truth is of paramount importance when it comes to health and wellbeing. I feel the government should provide clear, evidence based and expert backed guidance and solutions to these issues.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Have you seen who is in charge of HHS? The bar is low for doing better than the federal government, and while I am limited in my ability to change the reality of the anti-science leadership of HHS, I can still attempt to bring South Carolina onto the side of science. I would love to expand SCDHHS to ensure we are prepared for the next outbreak and continue the fight against regrettably resurfacing diseases. While government action is necessary in fighting preventable diseases, the biggest lesson to gain from COVID is that public education is a far more important tool in fighting disease than previously realized.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect public health and community well-being. Vaccines should be widely available and free at the point of service, because achieving herd immunity helps prevent avoidable illness, protects vulnerable residents, and supports a healthier workforce and stronger economy. Government must also identify, monitor, and address environmental hazards such as PFAS and asbestos, which can expose people to serious health risks without their knowledge or ability to protect themselves. Finally, strong investments in disease prevention and emergency preparedness are essential so that communities have an organized, coordinated, and effective response when crises occur—rather than being left to rely on improvised individual efforts after the damage has already begun.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Data centers and their impact on our natural resources and utility costs are issues I have already been addressing during my campaign. I support responsible economic development, but I do not believe South Carolina should rush to approve large-scale data centers without clear regulations and a full understanding of their long-term effects on surrounding communities.

Before these projects move forward, we need to know how much electricity and water they will require, whether existing infrastructure can support that demand, what environmental and public-health impacts may result, and who will ultimately pay for the infrastructure necessary to support them.

Working families and small businesses should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs while large corporations receive substantial incentives. I support greater transparency regarding tax incentives, energy and water consumption, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, and the long-term economic benefits promised to the community. Residents should also have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities.

My approach is straightforward: establish clear rules, protect our natural resources and existing ratepayers, ensure our infrastructure can support the development responsibly, and pursue investments that provide measurable benefits to the communities hosting them.

Economic development should strengthen a community, not shift its costs onto the people who already call it home.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Yes all these factors should be considered when considering new data centers. But I would go far as in banning all new data centers until further notice.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I speak to various groups throughout several counties regarding the impact of AI Hyperscale Data Centers and their rapid proliferation. When elected to the State House, I will immediately introduce a bill prohibiting the state and all counties, municipalities or political subdivisions within the state, from accepting or taking any action on permits or applications for “data centers” until the General Assembly establishes a comprehensive oversight and approval process for new data centers in the state that have a peak demand of 5MW or more. The public’s health and environmental impacts are my primary concerns. Air pollution, sound pollution (including infra audible sounds which negatively impact crops and wildlife), water pollution and aquifer drain, among many other impacts need evaluation for restriction, limits, and/or mitigation. Economically, these businesses need to pay their own way - no tax abatements like FILOTs or MCIPs or tax incentives (since we’re not creating a long term work force). They would be responsible for the cost of any required infrastructure upgrades—such as the electrical grid, substations, pumps, and emergency services—and also pay a fair price per kWh so that the residential users aren’t subsidizing their massive energy use.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I spent 40+ years in the construction, maintenance and operations of power plants (hydro, coal and nuclear). South Carolina has historically had relatively low price/ kw-hour due to utility decisions to use hydro and nuclear and coal (geographically close to coal supplies). State and county elected officials MUST stop offering incentives to data centers and MUST start negotiating for the prospective operators to: bring their own environmentally benign power supplies; use closed loop cooling and/ or cooling towers to reduce water usage and use available technology to mitigate noise issues.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support a moratorium on hyperscale data centers while we gather community and environmental impact data from the ones already built and running in our state and throughout the country. Then we use that data in combination with expert and community feedback to create the legislation around how we make data centers work for South Carolinians. We can’t ‘move fast and break things’ when we are talking about peoples’ lives.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

AI Data Centers are a net negative on humanity. They provide no tangible benefit while consuming inordinate amounts of our most precious resource, water. They serve no purpose other than to inflate the AI bubble further and have no place in the State of South Carolina. The burden of progress should never be placed upon the average American, but on those seeking that progress.

While I will likely have little support in banning AI Data Centers Statewide, establishing energy, water, and noise limits, as well as more stringent environmental protections for the facilities to uphold, is an obvious first step in ensuring that Data Centers do not take precedence over our people or our environment.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support an immediate moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers until South Carolina establishes strong protections for residents, ratepayers, and natural resources. The rapid expansion of AI and its supporting infrastructure has created significant uncertainty about long-term demands on our electrical grid and water supply. We cannot afford to wait until communities face higher utility bills, resource shortages, or lasting environmental harm before taking action.

Existing data centers must operate under clear regulatory safeguards. Residential and essential community needs should take priority whenever electricity or water supplies are strained. Data centers should also bear the full cost of the energy they consume and the infrastructure upgrades their operations require. Families and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize these facilities through higher utility rates.

Any future consideration of data-center development must include independent assessments of its economic, public-health, and environmental effects; meaningful public input; transparent reporting of water and energy consumption; and enforceable limits that protect grid reliability and local resources. If a proposed facility cannot operate without increasing costs or risks for the surrounding community, it should not be approved.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has an important responsibility to protect public health, provide reliable information, and ensure communities have the resources necessary to respond to health and environmental threats.

That includes maintaining access to vaccines and preventive healthcare, monitoring environmental hazards such as PFAS, asbestos, and contaminated drinking water, supporting disease prevention, and ensuring state and local agencies are prepared for public-health emergencies.

For rural communities, however, public health also requires addressing access to care. Healthcare may technically be available, but it means little to a family that must travel a long distance to receive basic or specialized services.

Rural South Carolina needs accessible healthcare professionals, emergency services, mental-health resources, preventive care, and maternal healthcare. We must also identify environmental and public-health risks early, rather than waiting until communities are already experiencing the consequences.

Public-health policy should be guided by credible evidence, transparent information, preparedness, and the real-world needs of the communities it is intended to serve. People deserve accurate information and access to appropriate resources so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

We need to listen to and hire scientists that have done actual research on these specific vaccines etc. and that we should give them the funding to be innovative in how they use these resources to protect human life.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

South Carolina faces many challenges and seems to be going backward in numerous areas due to the current accepted bastardization of ‘the truth’ and an unwillingness to accept sound, established science as a basis for good policy. Our state is underfunded and underserved regarding healthcare access, healthcare information, and healthcare education. Environmentally speaking, with every federal rollback of EPA regulations, SC sinks further into harmful environmental practices that will need to be addressed later at great cost. Again, breaking the supermajority will force legislators to work together. Vaccinations should be free, readily available and accessible, and promoted through a statewide ad campaign or state informational outlets. Moving to a Medicare for All system would be huge, but I’d settle for expanded Medicaid at this point. Though you didn’t mention it, child care access and costs need to be addressed under this topic of community well being. The inability to afford childcare prevents too many adults from entering the workforce or causes them to make unsafe choices.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Although I am a small government advocate, there is a place for regulation when it comes to public health and environmental protection. Vaccine science must be apolitical and focused on the relationship between doctor and patient. Whistleblowers and contrarians must be included in government work on public health and environmental protection. The best thing government can do is fund unbiased research on all the issues listed and turn that data over to decision makers in private industry and education. Plus, the public can elect more ENGINEERS and fewer lawyers!

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

I believe it is a core responsibility of government. In this era of social media, AI, and echo chambers, an objective truth is of paramount importance when it comes to health and wellbeing. I feel the government should provide clear, evidence based and expert backed guidance and solutions to these issues.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Have you seen who is in charge of HHS? The bar is low for doing better than the federal government, and while I am limited in my ability to change the reality of the anti-science leadership of HHS, I can still attempt to bring South Carolina onto the side of science. I would love to expand SCDHHS to ensure we are prepared for the next outbreak and continue the fight against regrettably resurfacing diseases. While government action is necessary in fighting preventable diseases, the biggest lesson to gain from COVID is that public education is a far more important tool in fighting disease than previously realized.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect public health and community well-being. Vaccines should be widely available and free at the point of service, because achieving herd immunity helps prevent avoidable illness, protects vulnerable residents, and supports a healthier workforce and stronger economy. Government must also identify, monitor, and address environmental hazards such as PFAS and asbestos, which can expose people to serious health risks without their knowledge or ability to protect themselves. Finally, strong investments in disease prevention and emergency preparedness are essential so that communities have an organized, coordinated, and effective response when crises occur—rather than being left to rely on improvised individual efforts after the damage has already begun.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Data centers and their impact on our natural resources and utility costs are issues I have already been addressing during my campaign. I support responsible economic development, but I do not believe South Carolina should rush to approve large-scale data centers without clear regulations and a full understanding of their long-term effects on surrounding communities.

Before these projects move forward, we need to know how much electricity and water they will require, whether existing infrastructure can support that demand, what environmental and public-health impacts may result, and who will ultimately pay for the infrastructure necessary to support them.

Working families and small businesses should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs while large corporations receive substantial incentives. I support greater transparency regarding tax incentives, energy and water consumption, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, and the long-term economic benefits promised to the community. Residents should also have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities.

My approach is straightforward: establish clear rules, protect our natural resources and existing ratepayers, ensure our infrastructure can support the development responsibly, and pursue investments that provide measurable benefits to the communities hosting them.

Economic development should strengthen a community, not shift its costs onto the people who already call it home.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Yes all these factors should be considered when considering new data centers. But I would go far as in banning all new data centers until further notice.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I speak to various groups throughout several counties regarding the impact of AI Hyperscale Data Centers and their rapid proliferation. When elected to the State House, I will immediately introduce a bill prohibiting the state and all counties, municipalities or political subdivisions within the state, from accepting or taking any action on permits or applications for “data centers” until the General Assembly establishes a comprehensive oversight and approval process for new data centers in the state that have a peak demand of 5MW or more. The public’s health and environmental impacts are my primary concerns. Air pollution, sound pollution (including infra audible sounds which negatively impact crops and wildlife), water pollution and aquifer drain, among many other impacts need evaluation for restriction, limits, and/or mitigation. Economically, these businesses need to pay their own way - no tax abatements like FILOTs or MCIPs or tax incentives (since we’re not creating a long term work force). They would be responsible for the cost of any required infrastructure upgrades—such as the electrical grid, substations, pumps, and emergency services—and also pay a fair price per kWh so that the residential users aren’t subsidizing their massive energy use.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I spent 40+ years in the construction, maintenance and operations of power plants (hydro, coal and nuclear). South Carolina has historically had relatively low price/ kw-hour due to utility decisions to use hydro and nuclear and coal (geographically close to coal supplies). State and county elected officials MUST stop offering incentives to data centers and MUST start negotiating for the prospective operators to: bring their own environmentally benign power supplies; use closed loop cooling and/ or cooling towers to reduce water usage and use available technology to mitigate noise issues.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support a moratorium on hyperscale data centers while we gather community and environmental impact data from the ones already built and running in our state and throughout the country. Then we use that data in combination with expert and community feedback to create the legislation around how we make data centers work for South Carolinians. We can’t ‘move fast and break things’ when we are talking about peoples’ lives.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

AI Data Centers are a net negative on humanity. They provide no tangible benefit while consuming inordinate amounts of our most precious resource, water. They serve no purpose other than to inflate the AI bubble further and have no place in the State of South Carolina. The burden of progress should never be placed upon the average American, but on those seeking that progress.

While I will likely have little support in banning AI Data Centers Statewide, establishing energy, water, and noise limits, as well as more stringent environmental protections for the facilities to uphold, is an obvious first step in ensuring that Data Centers do not take precedence over our people or our environment.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support an immediate moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers until South Carolina establishes strong protections for residents, ratepayers, and natural resources. The rapid expansion of AI and its supporting infrastructure has created significant uncertainty about long-term demands on our electrical grid and water supply. We cannot afford to wait until communities face higher utility bills, resource shortages, or lasting environmental harm before taking action.

Existing data centers must operate under clear regulatory safeguards. Residential and essential community needs should take priority whenever electricity or water supplies are strained. Data centers should also bear the full cost of the energy they consume and the infrastructure upgrades their operations require. Families and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize these facilities through higher utility rates.

Any future consideration of data-center development must include independent assessments of its economic, public-health, and environmental effects; meaningful public input; transparent reporting of water and energy consumption; and enforceable limits that protect grid reliability and local resources. If a proposed facility cannot operate without increasing costs or risks for the surrounding community, it should not be approved.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Data centers and their impact on our natural resources and utility costs are issues I have already been addressing during my campaign. I support responsible economic development, but I do not believe South Carolina should rush to approve large-scale data centers without clear regulations and a full understanding of their long-term effects on surrounding communities.

Before these projects move forward, we need to know how much electricity and water they will require, whether existing infrastructure can support that demand, what environmental and public-health impacts may result, and who will ultimately pay for the infrastructure necessary to support them.

Working families and small businesses should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs while large corporations receive substantial incentives. I support greater transparency regarding tax incentives, energy and water consumption, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, and the long-term economic benefits promised to the community. Residents should also have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities.

My approach is straightforward: establish clear rules, protect our natural resources and existing ratepayers, ensure our infrastructure can support the development responsibly, and pursue investments that provide measurable benefits to the communities hosting them.

Economic development should strengthen a community, not shift its costs onto the people who already call it home.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has an important responsibility to protect public health, provide reliable information, and ensure communities have the resources necessary to respond to health and environmental threats.

That includes maintaining access to vaccines and preventive healthcare, monitoring environmental hazards such as PFAS, asbestos, and contaminated drinking water, supporting disease prevention, and ensuring state and local agencies are prepared for public-health emergencies.

For rural communities, however, public health also requires addressing access to care. Healthcare may technically be available, but it means little to a family that must travel a long distance to receive basic or specialized services.

Rural South Carolina needs accessible healthcare professionals, emergency services, mental-health resources, preventive care, and maternal healthcare. We must also identify environmental and public-health risks early, rather than waiting until communities are already experiencing the consequences.

Public-health policy should be guided by credible evidence, transparent information, preparedness, and the real-world needs of the communities it is intended to serve. People deserve accurate information and access to appropriate resources so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Yes all these factors should be considered when considering new data centers. But I would go far as in banning all new data centers until further notice.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

We need to listen to and hire scientists that have done actual research on these specific vaccines etc. and that we should give them the funding to be innovative in how they use these resources to protect human life.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I speak to various groups throughout several counties regarding the impact of AI Hyperscale Data Centers and their rapid proliferation. When elected to the State House, I will immediately introduce a bill prohibiting the state and all counties, municipalities or political subdivisions within the state, from accepting or taking any action on permits or applications for “data centers” until the General Assembly establishes a comprehensive oversight and approval process for new data centers in the state that have a peak demand of 5MW or more. The public’s health and environmental impacts are my primary concerns. Air pollution, sound pollution (including infra audible sounds which negatively impact crops and wildlife), water pollution and aquifer drain, among many other impacts need evaluation for restriction, limits, and/or mitigation. Economically, these businesses need to pay their own way - no tax abatements like FILOTs or MCIPs or tax incentives (since we’re not creating a long term work force). They would be responsible for the cost of any required infrastructure upgrades—such as the electrical grid, substations, pumps, and emergency services—and also pay a fair price per kWh so that the residential users aren’t subsidizing their massive energy use.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

South Carolina faces many challenges and seems to be going backward in numerous areas due to the current accepted bastardization of ‘the truth’ and an unwillingness to accept sound, established science as a basis for good policy. Our state is underfunded and underserved regarding healthcare access, healthcare information, and healthcare education. Environmentally speaking, with every federal rollback of EPA regulations, SC sinks further into harmful environmental practices that will need to be addressed later at great cost. Again, breaking the supermajority will force legislators to work together. Vaccinations should be free, readily available and accessible, and promoted through a statewide ad campaign or state informational outlets. Moving to a Medicare for All system would be huge, but I’d settle for expanded Medicaid at this point. Though you didn’t mention it, child care access and costs need to be addressed under this topic of community well being. The inability to afford childcare prevents too many adults from entering the workforce or causes them to make unsafe choices.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I spent 40+ years in the construction, maintenance and operations of power plants (hydro, coal and nuclear). South Carolina has historically had relatively low price/ kw-hour due to utility decisions to use hydro and nuclear and coal (geographically close to coal supplies). State and county elected officials MUST stop offering incentives to data centers and MUST start negotiating for the prospective operators to: bring their own environmentally benign power supplies; use closed loop cooling and/ or cooling towers to reduce water usage and use available technology to mitigate noise issues.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Although I am a small government advocate, there is a place for regulation when it comes to public health and environmental protection. Vaccine science must be apolitical and focused on the relationship between doctor and patient. Whistleblowers and contrarians must be included in government work on public health and environmental protection. The best thing government can do is fund unbiased research on all the issues listed and turn that data over to decision makers in private industry and education. Plus, the public can elect more ENGINEERS and fewer lawyers!

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support a moratorium on hyperscale data centers while we gather community and environmental impact data from the ones already built and running in our state and throughout the country. Then we use that data in combination with expert and community feedback to create the legislation around how we make data centers work for South Carolinians. We can’t ‘move fast and break things’ when we are talking about peoples’ lives.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

I believe it is a core responsibility of government. In this era of social media, AI, and echo chambers, an objective truth is of paramount importance when it comes to health and wellbeing. I feel the government should provide clear, evidence based and expert backed guidance and solutions to these issues.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

AI Data Centers are a net negative on humanity. They provide no tangible benefit while consuming inordinate amounts of our most precious resource, water. They serve no purpose other than to inflate the AI bubble further and have no place in the State of South Carolina. The burden of progress should never be placed upon the average American, but on those seeking that progress.

While I will likely have little support in banning AI Data Centers Statewide, establishing energy, water, and noise limits, as well as more stringent environmental protections for the facilities to uphold, is an obvious first step in ensuring that Data Centers do not take precedence over our people or our environment.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Have you seen who is in charge of HHS? The bar is low for doing better than the federal government, and while I am limited in my ability to change the reality of the anti-science leadership of HHS, I can still attempt to bring South Carolina onto the side of science. I would love to expand SCDHHS to ensure we are prepared for the next outbreak and continue the fight against regrettably resurfacing diseases. While government action is necessary in fighting preventable diseases, the biggest lesson to gain from COVID is that public education is a far more important tool in fighting disease than previously realized.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support an immediate moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers until South Carolina establishes strong protections for residents, ratepayers, and natural resources. The rapid expansion of AI and its supporting infrastructure has created significant uncertainty about long-term demands on our electrical grid and water supply. We cannot afford to wait until communities face higher utility bills, resource shortages, or lasting environmental harm before taking action.

Existing data centers must operate under clear regulatory safeguards. Residential and essential community needs should take priority whenever electricity or water supplies are strained. Data centers should also bear the full cost of the energy they consume and the infrastructure upgrades their operations require. Families and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize these facilities through higher utility rates.

Any future consideration of data-center development must include independent assessments of its economic, public-health, and environmental effects; meaningful public input; transparent reporting of water and energy consumption; and enforceable limits that protect grid reliability and local resources. If a proposed facility cannot operate without increasing costs or risks for the surrounding community, it should not be approved.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect public health and community well-being. Vaccines should be widely available and free at the point of service, because achieving herd immunity helps prevent avoidable illness, protects vulnerable residents, and supports a healthier workforce and stronger economy. Government must also identify, monitor, and address environmental hazards such as PFAS and asbestos, which can expose people to serious health risks without their knowledge or ability to protect themselves. Finally, strong investments in disease prevention and emergency preparedness are essential so that communities have an organized, coordinated, and effective response when crises occur—rather than being left to rely on improvised individual efforts after the damage has already begun.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

In South Carolina, a student’s ZIP code should not determine the quality of education or career opportunities available to them.

This is particularly important in rural communities. Workforce preparedness begins in our K–12 schools, where students need strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, along with opportunities to understand how those subjects translate into real careers.

I support stronger partnerships among public schools, technical colleges, universities, employers, and emerging industries. Dual enrollment, apprenticeships, hands-on learning, technical credentials, and career-focused programs can provide students with multiple pathways to success.

Workforce development must also include adults seeking new skills or a career change. As South Carolina works to attract industries in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, energy, artificial intelligence, and other science- and technology-based fields, we must commit equally to preparing South Carolinians for those opportunities.

Our goal should not simply be to bring the jobs of the future to South Carolina. We should make sure South Carolinians are prepared to fill them.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We should do a top to bottom audit of the SC K-12 and community colleges funding and how we prepare our students. We need to ensure our money is going directly to the students and to benefit them through their journey in our schools. And science and biotech should be at the top of the list in what we prioritize.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We’ve increased teacher salaries, but it’s still not enough to bring the needed skilled teachers to SC and retain them. I’d like to propose an ongoing step up in salaries for the next 5 years and then peg raises to inflation. Reallocating more state funding per student and having qualified administrators who aren’t distracted by banning books, arguing about bathroom use, and putting the Ten Commandments in every classroom, may give us the ability to actually focus on student growth and quality education. Voting our way out of a GOP supermajority will force the GOP to consider the requests of the minority party – and the constituents, who typically understand that focusing on education and healthcare benefits everyone

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am running for a federal office. We can do the following: stop having the federal government mandate non educational priorities on local schools. Let the states and counties dictate curriculum, which must include science and trades. Take the federal government out of the student loan programs, which will reduce the costs for students to attend community colleges. As a large employer, the federal government must give regular feedback to K-12 and community colleges regarding the science preparedness of the students emerging from those schools.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I think we need to stop using tax dollars for private school vouchers programs and invest that money into our public schools. In a world where AI could take any job after a breakthrough development, I feel we also need to invest in trade schools and improve our job placement support in our state, including possibly funding courses at community colleges for re-training workers in badly impacted sectors.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am proud of North Carolina’s progress in Science, and I hope to help bring South Carolina up to par along with y’all. Our Education system is a joke here in SC, one of the worst in the nation. It is not the fault of our students that many do not have the necessary resources to succeed in their education. I hope to be able to pass legislation increasing our school funding to ensure the next generation of scientists can proudly say they came from the Carolinas.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

As the science and biotechnology industries continue to grow across the Carolinas, South Carolina must prepare its residents to compete for the jobs and economic opportunities they create. That preparation should begin in our K–12 schools through strong science and STEM instruction, modern laboratories and equipment, attracting qualified teachers, and opportunities for students to gain practical experience. Our community and technical colleges should offer affordable certificate and degree programs developed in partnership with universities, research institutions, and local employers so that training corresponds to real, well-paying jobs.

These opportunities must be accessible in rural and lower-income communities, not limited to wealthier school districts or major population centers. We should also create clear and affordable pathways for veterans and adults seeking to retrain, change careers, or simply transitioning from a role in the military that doesn’t parlay directly into a civilian career. Veterans specifically, should receive, dedicated career guidance and appropriate academic credit for relevant military education, training, and experience, allowing them to build upon the skills they already possess at no cost. By investing in education, hands-on training, apprenticeships, and employer partnerships, we can build a skilled workforce while ensuring that the benefits of this growing industry reach communities throughout South Carolina.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

In South Carolina, a student’s ZIP code should not determine the quality of education or career opportunities available to them.

This is particularly important in rural communities. Workforce preparedness begins in our K–12 schools, where students need strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, along with opportunities to understand how those subjects translate into real careers.

I support stronger partnerships among public schools, technical colleges, universities, employers, and emerging industries. Dual enrollment, apprenticeships, hands-on learning, technical credentials, and career-focused programs can provide students with multiple pathways to success.

Workforce development must also include adults seeking new skills or a career change. As South Carolina works to attract industries in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, energy, artificial intelligence, and other science- and technology-based fields, we must commit equally to preparing South Carolinians for those opportunities.

Our goal should not simply be to bring the jobs of the future to South Carolina. We should make sure South Carolinians are prepared to fill them.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We should do a top to bottom audit of the SC K-12 and community colleges funding and how we prepare our students. We need to ensure our money is going directly to the students and to benefit them through their journey in our schools. And science and biotech should be at the top of the list in what we prioritize.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We’ve increased teacher salaries, but it’s still not enough to bring the needed skilled teachers to SC and retain them. I’d like to propose an ongoing step up in salaries for the next 5 years and then peg raises to inflation. Reallocating more state funding per student and having qualified administrators who aren’t distracted by banning books, arguing about bathroom use, and putting the Ten Commandments in every classroom, may give us the ability to actually focus on student growth and quality education. Voting our way out of a GOP supermajority will force the GOP to consider the requests of the minority party – and the constituents, who typically understand that focusing on education and healthcare benefits everyone

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am running for a federal office. We can do the following: stop having the federal government mandate non educational priorities on local schools. Let the states and counties dictate curriculum, which must include science and trades. Take the federal government out of the student loan programs, which will reduce the costs for students to attend community colleges. As a large employer, the federal government must give regular feedback to K-12 and community colleges regarding the science preparedness of the students emerging from those schools.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I think we need to stop using tax dollars for private school vouchers programs and invest that money into our public schools. In a world where AI could take any job after a breakthrough development, I feel we also need to invest in trade schools and improve our job placement support in our state, including possibly funding courses at community colleges for re-training workers in badly impacted sectors.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am proud of North Carolina’s progress in Science, and I hope to help bring South Carolina up to par along with y’all. Our Education system is a joke here in SC, one of the worst in the nation. It is not the fault of our students that many do not have the necessary resources to succeed in their education. I hope to be able to pass legislation increasing our school funding to ensure the next generation of scientists can proudly say they came from the Carolinas.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

As the science and biotechnology industries continue to grow across the Carolinas, South Carolina must prepare its residents to compete for the jobs and economic opportunities they create. That preparation should begin in our K–12 schools through strong science and STEM instruction, modern laboratories and equipment, attracting qualified teachers, and opportunities for students to gain practical experience. Our community and technical colleges should offer affordable certificate and degree programs developed in partnership with universities, research institutions, and local employers so that training corresponds to real, well-paying jobs.

These opportunities must be accessible in rural and lower-income communities, not limited to wealthier school districts or major population centers. We should also create clear and affordable pathways for veterans and adults seeking to retrain, change careers, or simply transitioning from a role in the military that doesn’t parlay directly into a civilian career. Veterans specifically, should receive, dedicated career guidance and appropriate academic credit for relevant military education, training, and experience, allowing them to build upon the skills they already possess at no cost. By investing in education, hands-on training, apprenticeships, and employer partnerships, we can build a skilled workforce while ensuring that the benefits of this growing industry reach communities throughout South Carolina.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

In South Carolina, a student’s ZIP code should not determine the quality of education or career opportunities available to them.

This is particularly important in rural communities. Workforce preparedness begins in our K–12 schools, where students need strong foundations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, along with opportunities to understand how those subjects translate into real careers.

I support stronger partnerships among public schools, technical colleges, universities, employers, and emerging industries. Dual enrollment, apprenticeships, hands-on learning, technical credentials, and career-focused programs can provide students with multiple pathways to success.

Workforce development must also include adults seeking new skills or a career change. As South Carolina works to attract industries in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, energy, artificial intelligence, and other science- and technology-based fields, we must commit equally to preparing South Carolinians for those opportunities.

Our goal should not simply be to bring the jobs of the future to South Carolina. We should make sure South Carolinians are prepared to fill them.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We should do a top to bottom audit of the SC K-12 and community colleges funding and how we prepare our students. We need to ensure our money is going directly to the students and to benefit them through their journey in our schools. And science and biotech should be at the top of the list in what we prioritize.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

We’ve increased teacher salaries, but it’s still not enough to bring the needed skilled teachers to SC and retain them. I’d like to propose an ongoing step up in salaries for the next 5 years and then peg raises to inflation. Reallocating more state funding per student and having qualified administrators who aren’t distracted by banning books, arguing about bathroom use, and putting the Ten Commandments in every classroom, may give us the ability to actually focus on student growth and quality education. Voting our way out of a GOP supermajority will force the GOP to consider the requests of the minority party – and the constituents, who typically understand that focusing on education and healthcare benefits everyone

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am running for a federal office. We can do the following: stop having the federal government mandate non educational priorities on local schools. Let the states and counties dictate curriculum, which must include science and trades. Take the federal government out of the student loan programs, which will reduce the costs for students to attend community colleges. As a large employer, the federal government must give regular feedback to K-12 and community colleges regarding the science preparedness of the students emerging from those schools.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I think we need to stop using tax dollars for private school vouchers programs and invest that money into our public schools. In a world where AI could take any job after a breakthrough development, I feel we also need to invest in trade schools and improve our job placement support in our state, including possibly funding courses at community colleges for re-training workers in badly impacted sectors.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

I am proud of North Carolina’s progress in Science, and I hope to help bring South Carolina up to par along with y’all. Our Education system is a joke here in SC, one of the worst in the nation. It is not the fault of our students that many do not have the necessary resources to succeed in their education. I hope to be able to pass legislation increasing our school funding to ensure the next generation of scientists can proudly say they came from the Carolinas.

Q2 How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?

As the science and biotechnology industries continue to grow across the Carolinas, South Carolina must prepare its residents to compete for the jobs and economic opportunities they create. That preparation should begin in our K–12 schools through strong science and STEM instruction, modern laboratories and equipment, attracting qualified teachers, and opportunities for students to gain practical experience. Our community and technical colleges should offer affordable certificate and degree programs developed in partnership with universities, research institutions, and local employers so that training corresponds to real, well-paying jobs.

These opportunities must be accessible in rural and lower-income communities, not limited to wealthier school districts or major population centers. We should also create clear and affordable pathways for veterans and adults seeking to retrain, change careers, or simply transitioning from a role in the military that doesn’t parlay directly into a civilian career. Veterans specifically, should receive, dedicated career guidance and appropriate academic credit for relevant military education, training, and experience, allowing them to build upon the skills they already possess at no cost. By investing in education, hands-on training, apprenticeships, and employer partnerships, we can build a skilled workforce while ensuring that the benefits of this growing industry reach communities throughout South Carolina.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Public trust begins with transparency and communication.

Elected officials should be willing to listen to scientists, researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, and other subject-matter experts, including when the evidence challenges an existing political position. Science should not be accepted when it is politically convenient and dismissed when it is not.

At the same time, scientific information must be communicated in ways people can understand. The public deserves to know what the evidence shows, how conclusions were reached, what remains uncertain, and when new information changes our understanding of an issue.

I also believe experts should be involved earlier in the policymaking process. Lawmakers should seek reliable evidence before writing legislation and making major decisions, rather than searching for information afterward to justify a decision already made.

Building trust also requires listening to the public. Asking questions or expressing concerns should not automatically get someone dismissed as anti-science. People are more likely to trust institutions when they feel heard and when information is presented openly and respectfully.

Science should help us ask better questions, understand the consequences of our decisions, and develop better solutions. It should never become another political team.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

We need to speak truth to power that we believe in the science around anything. And make sure our scientists and politicians can speak in terms to people that they can understand about how science will change the world.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

It boggles my mind knowing we have access to more, and better, information than ever before, and yet so many are satisfied to accept unfounded theories, stories, fabrications, etc and perpetuate them with false authority. What can an elected official do?? Let’s start by demanding our elected officials tell the truth. Every time. That lies are called out. Every time. And that these people, who hold the public’s trust, are held accountable for deliberately betraying that trust. I’d like to see a world where truth is respected. Until then, I don’t see how to regain trust.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

As a federal elected official, I can root out the government bureaucracy that, for example, allowed the COVID 19 response to be political rather than science based. I can use zero based budgeting to force government funded research to focus on data driven, not political driven research. I can be an elected official that recognizes that science evolves and ALWAYS be transparent and always let contrarian views come into the sunlight.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Yes this! But the first thing the legislature of this state needs to do is to stop passing laws based on feelings and personal beliefs, and get back to making decisions based on research and data. If our politicians are always contradicting the settled science, then they are part of the problem not the solution.

Elected officials have a connection to their communities and can leverage that to increase trust in science (South Carolina is ranked 42nd in trust in science!). I feel that every time a new law, initiative, fund/grant, etc. is passed by the state legislature, it should be accompanied by blurb about how it aligns with the scientific consensus on the topic. It is a great opportunity to showcase the practical implementations of scientists’ work.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Elected officials have a responsibility to the truth. The largest cause of science denial and mistrust has been those very officials spreading misinformation and lies. The best way to build public trust again is to remove the rot and replace those who have contributed to needless deaths by lying to the public about life-saving vaccines and medication. We regrettably live in a time when millions of Americans treat the words of their elected officials as gospel on subjects they have no background in. Those officials have done tremendous damage to public trust and must be replaced before the next disaster and more people die needlessly.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Rebuilding public trust in science must begin with elected officials acting in good faith. Unfortunately, some officials have deliberately misrepresented scientific findings or exploited uncertainty to deepen public distrust for political advantage. Elected leaders should work with qualified, independent experts; communicate evidence in clear and accessible language; openly acknowledge uncertainty and changing information; and disclose potential conflicts of interest. They should also support strong public institutions and partner with trusted local voices—including educators, healthcare professionals, faith leaders, and community organizations—to make reliable information more accessible. Scientific conclusions should always remain open to legitimate scrutiny, but elected officials have a responsibility to distinguish honest debate from deliberate misinformation and to base public policy on the best available evidence rather than political convenience.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Data centers and their impact on our natural resources and utility costs are issues I have already been addressing during my campaign. I support responsible economic development, but I do not believe South Carolina should rush to approve large-scale data centers without clear regulations and a full understanding of their long-term effects on surrounding communities.

Before these projects move forward, we need to know how much electricity and water they will require, whether existing infrastructure can support that demand, what environmental and public-health impacts may result, and who will ultimately pay for the infrastructure necessary to support them.

Working families and small businesses should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs while large corporations receive substantial incentives. I support greater transparency regarding tax incentives, energy and water consumption, infrastructure costs, environmental impacts, and the long-term economic benefits promised to the community. Residents should also have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect their communities.

My approach is straightforward: establish clear rules, protect our natural resources and existing ratepayers, ensure our infrastructure can support the development responsibly, and pursue investments that provide measurable benefits to the communities hosting them.

Economic development should strengthen a community, not shift its costs onto the people who already call it home.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has an important responsibility to protect public health, provide reliable information, and ensure communities have the resources necessary to respond to health and environmental threats.

That includes maintaining access to vaccines and preventive healthcare, monitoring environmental hazards such as PFAS, asbestos, and contaminated drinking water, supporting disease prevention, and ensuring state and local agencies are prepared for public-health emergencies.

For rural communities, however, public health also requires addressing access to care. Healthcare may technically be available, but it means little to a family that must travel a long distance to receive basic or specialized services.

Rural South Carolina needs accessible healthcare professionals, emergency services, mental-health resources, preventive care, and maternal healthcare. We must also identify environmental and public-health risks early, rather than waiting until communities are already experiencing the consequences.

Public-health policy should be guided by credible evidence, transparent information, preparedness, and the real-world needs of the communities it is intended to serve. People deserve accurate information and access to appropriate resources so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

Yes all these factors should be considered when considering new data centers. But I would go far as in banning all new data centers until further notice.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

We need to listen to and hire scientists that have done actual research on these specific vaccines etc. and that we should give them the funding to be innovative in how they use these resources to protect human life.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I speak to various groups throughout several counties regarding the impact of AI Hyperscale Data Centers and their rapid proliferation. When elected to the State House, I will immediately introduce a bill prohibiting the state and all counties, municipalities or political subdivisions within the state, from accepting or taking any action on permits or applications for “data centers” until the General Assembly establishes a comprehensive oversight and approval process for new data centers in the state that have a peak demand of 5MW or more. The public’s health and environmental impacts are my primary concerns. Air pollution, sound pollution (including infra audible sounds which negatively impact crops and wildlife), water pollution and aquifer drain, among many other impacts need evaluation for restriction, limits, and/or mitigation. Economically, these businesses need to pay their own way - no tax abatements like FILOTs or MCIPs or tax incentives (since we’re not creating a long term work force). They would be responsible for the cost of any required infrastructure upgrades—such as the electrical grid, substations, pumps, and emergency services—and also pay a fair price per kWh so that the residential users aren’t subsidizing their massive energy use.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

South Carolina faces many challenges and seems to be going backward in numerous areas due to the current accepted bastardization of ‘the truth’ and an unwillingness to accept sound, established science as a basis for good policy. Our state is underfunded and underserved regarding healthcare access, healthcare information, and healthcare education. Environmentally speaking, with every federal rollback of EPA regulations, SC sinks further into harmful environmental practices that will need to be addressed later at great cost. Again, breaking the supermajority will force legislators to work together. Vaccinations should be free, readily available and accessible, and promoted through a statewide ad campaign or state informational outlets. Moving to a Medicare for All system would be huge, but I’d settle for expanded Medicaid at this point. Though you didn’t mention it, child care access and costs need to be addressed under this topic of community well being. The inability to afford childcare prevents too many adults from entering the workforce or causes them to make unsafe choices.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I spent 40+ years in the construction, maintenance and operations of power plants (hydro, coal and nuclear). South Carolina has historically had relatively low price/ kw-hour due to utility decisions to use hydro and nuclear and coal (geographically close to coal supplies). State and county elected officials MUST stop offering incentives to data centers and MUST start negotiating for the prospective operators to: bring their own environmentally benign power supplies; use closed loop cooling and/ or cooling towers to reduce water usage and use available technology to mitigate noise issues.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Although I am a small government advocate, there is a place for regulation when it comes to public health and environmental protection. Vaccine science must be apolitical and focused on the relationship between doctor and patient. Whistleblowers and contrarians must be included in government work on public health and environmental protection. The best thing government can do is fund unbiased research on all the issues listed and turn that data over to decision makers in private industry and education. Plus, the public can elect more ENGINEERS and fewer lawyers!

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support a moratorium on hyperscale data centers while we gather community and environmental impact data from the ones already built and running in our state and throughout the country. Then we use that data in combination with expert and community feedback to create the legislation around how we make data centers work for South Carolinians. We can’t ‘move fast and break things’ when we are talking about peoples’ lives.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

I believe it is a core responsibility of government. In this era of social media, AI, and echo chambers, an objective truth is of paramount importance when it comes to health and wellbeing. I feel the government should provide clear, evidence based and expert backed guidance and solutions to these issues.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

AI Data Centers are a net negative on humanity. They provide no tangible benefit while consuming inordinate amounts of our most precious resource, water. They serve no purpose other than to inflate the AI bubble further and have no place in the State of South Carolina. The burden of progress should never be placed upon the average American, but on those seeking that progress.

While I will likely have little support in banning AI Data Centers Statewide, establishing energy, water, and noise limits, as well as more stringent environmental protections for the facilities to uphold, is an obvious first step in ensuring that Data Centers do not take precedence over our people or our environment.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Have you seen who is in charge of HHS? The bar is low for doing better than the federal government, and while I am limited in my ability to change the reality of the anti-science leadership of HHS, I can still attempt to bring South Carolina onto the side of science. I would love to expand SCDHHS to ensure we are prepared for the next outbreak and continue the fight against regrettably resurfacing diseases. While government action is necessary in fighting preventable diseases, the biggest lesson to gain from COVID is that public education is a far more important tool in fighting disease than previously realized.

Q1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?

I support an immediate moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers until South Carolina establishes strong protections for residents, ratepayers, and natural resources. The rapid expansion of AI and its supporting infrastructure has created significant uncertainty about long-term demands on our electrical grid and water supply. We cannot afford to wait until communities face higher utility bills, resource shortages, or lasting environmental harm before taking action.

Existing data centers must operate under clear regulatory safeguards. Residential and essential community needs should take priority whenever electricity or water supplies are strained. Data centers should also bear the full cost of the energy they consume and the infrastructure upgrades their operations require. Families and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize these facilities through higher utility rates.

Any future consideration of data-center development must include independent assessments of its economic, public-health, and environmental effects; meaningful public input; transparent reporting of water and energy consumption; and enforceable limits that protect grid reliability and local resources. If a proposed facility cannot operate without increasing costs or risks for the surrounding community, it should not be approved.

Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?

Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect public health and community well-being. Vaccines should be widely available and free at the point of service, because achieving herd immunity helps prevent avoidable illness, protects vulnerable residents, and supports a healthier workforce and stronger economy. Government must also identify, monitor, and address environmental hazards such as PFAS and asbestos, which can expose people to serious health risks without their knowledge or ability to protect themselves. Finally, strong investments in disease prevention and emergency preparedness are essential so that communities have an organized, coordinated, and effective response when crises occur—rather than being left to rely on improvised individual efforts after the damage has already begun.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Public trust begins with transparency and communication.

Elected officials should be willing to listen to scientists, researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, and other subject-matter experts, including when the evidence challenges an existing political position. Science should not be accepted when it is politically convenient and dismissed when it is not.

At the same time, scientific information must be communicated in ways people can understand. The public deserves to know what the evidence shows, how conclusions were reached, what remains uncertain, and when new information changes our understanding of an issue.

I also believe experts should be involved earlier in the policymaking process. Lawmakers should seek reliable evidence before writing legislation and making major decisions, rather than searching for information afterward to justify a decision already made.

Building trust also requires listening to the public. Asking questions or expressing concerns should not automatically get someone dismissed as anti-science. People are more likely to trust institutions when they feel heard and when information is presented openly and respectfully.

Science should help us ask better questions, understand the consequences of our decisions, and develop better solutions. It should never become another political team.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

We need to speak truth to power that we believe in the science around anything. And make sure our scientists and politicians can speak in terms to people that they can understand about how science will change the world.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

It boggles my mind knowing we have access to more, and better, information than ever before, and yet so many are satisfied to accept unfounded theories, stories, fabrications, etc and perpetuate them with false authority. What can an elected official do?? Let’s start by demanding our elected officials tell the truth. Every time. That lies are called out. Every time. And that these people, who hold the public’s trust, are held accountable for deliberately betraying that trust. I’d like to see a world where truth is respected. Until then, I don’t see how to regain trust.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

As a federal elected official, I can root out the government bureaucracy that, for example, allowed the COVID 19 response to be political rather than science based. I can use zero based budgeting to force government funded research to focus on data driven, not political driven research. I can be an elected official that recognizes that science evolves and ALWAYS be transparent and always let contrarian views come into the sunlight.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Yes this! But the first thing the legislature of this state needs to do is to stop passing laws based on feelings and personal beliefs, and get back to making decisions based on research and data. If our politicians are always contradicting the settled science, then they are part of the problem not the solution.

Elected officials have a connection to their communities and can leverage that to increase trust in science (South Carolina is ranked 42nd in trust in science!). I feel that every time a new law, initiative, fund/grant, etc. is passed by the state legislature, it should be accompanied by blurb about how it aligns with the scientific consensus on the topic. It is a great opportunity to showcase the practical implementations of scientists’ work.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Elected officials have a responsibility to the truth. The largest cause of science denial and mistrust has been those very officials spreading misinformation and lies. The best way to build public trust again is to remove the rot and replace those who have contributed to needless deaths by lying to the public about life-saving vaccines and medication. We regrettably live in a time when millions of Americans treat the words of their elected officials as gospel on subjects they have no background in. Those officials have done tremendous damage to public trust and must be replaced before the next disaster and more people die needlessly.

Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?

Rebuilding public trust in science must begin with elected officials acting in good faith. Unfortunately, some officials have deliberately misrepresented scientific findings or exploited uncertainty to deepen public distrust for political advantage. Elected leaders should work with qualified, independent experts; communicate evidence in clear and accessible language; openly acknowledge uncertainty and changing information; and disclose potential conflicts of interest. They should also support strong public institutions and partner with trusted local voices—including educators, healthcare professionals, faith leaders, and community organizations—to make reliable information more accessible. Scientific conclusions should always remain open to legitimate scrutiny, but elected officials have a responsibility to distinguish honest debate from deliberate misinformation and to base public policy on the best available evidence rather than political convenience.