Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[RandomGuy]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 22, 11:57 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.

The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments.

"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths," the 13-member panel said.

It added that "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death."

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings "refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

The Academy panel examined short-term exposure — up to 24 hours — to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death "may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone."

Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.

While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.

The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.

Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.

But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.

Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.

"This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits," said Patton.

One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, you surprise me. Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

This article has very little merit in my eyes. Yes, Ozone is a very hazardous. That is a well known fact. Nitrogen Oxide is also rather unhealthy. NO has been nearly eliminated from auto exhausts. I see the article of mixing now and old facts with scare tactics. Ozone for example in the trace levels we see in the environment are harmless. It's like the levels of Chlorine you find in a swimming pool. Yes, some poeple are sensitive to it, but it's basically harmess. However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you? Same thing, just a higher concentration. Right?

I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels. Here is some data from a MSDS on Triatomic Oxygen (O3, Oxone):

General

Synonyms: trioxygen
Comment: Ozone is found in the atmosphere in varying proportions as it is produced continuously in the outer layers of the atmosphere by the action of solar UV radiation on oxygen in the air. It is also formed locally in the air from lightning and from electrical sparks. In the upper atmosphere it inhibits penetration of UV radiation and so is beneficial to life. At ground level it is a harmful pollutant because of the damage it can cause to lungs and to a wide range of materials.
Molecular formula: O3
CAS No: 10028-15-6
EINECS No:

----

Toxicity data

IHL-HMN TCLO thought to be near 1 ppm/2h.
IHL-CAT LC50 34500 ppb/3h
IHL-GPG LC50 24800 ppb/3h
IHL-HAM LC50 10500 ppb/4h
IHL-HMN LCLO 50 ppm/30m

Abbreviations:

ihl inhalation
hmn human
TCLo lowest published toxic concentration
gpg guinea pig
LC50 lethal concentration 50 percent kill
LCLo lowest published lethal concentration
ham hamster

I didn't find CAT. I assume it means a cat! Since this is from a UK site, I assume they use cats for experimentations. I never seen this in a USA lab MSDS.

Now notice how it says it's formed from lightning strikes and electrical spark? I can garentee you that more is formed my the motors in hybrid cars than what the article points to. This is an alarmist article Random. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Here is another MSDS on Ozone:

OZONE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

They tend to vary slightly from one source to another.

As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there. Still, there is very little we can do to reduce man made levels, and I see it as laughable when natural levels are far higher. You only come across notable levels in controlled environments. We used Ozone in two of the jobs I had. I think I know a thing or two about it.

One more thing. Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone.

[101A]

If Smog is such a big problem, why the are we focussed on CO2?

[xrayzebra]

When we exhale what kind of gas is it? And should we stop breathing,
Clam and Chump, I already know your answer.

[PixelPusher]

If Smog is such a big problem, why the are we focussed on CO2?

If diabetes is such a big problem, why the are we focussed on cancer?

[RandomGuy]

Random, you surprise me. Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

1) This administration has repeatedly been shown to place ideology over good science.

Given a pronounced tendency to use place ideology over all else, should you be more or less skeptical of what this administration says regarding scientific evidence?

[RandomGuy]

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?

FIRST TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

a National Academy of Sciences report

3) Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?

[RandomGuy]

This article has very little merit in my eyes. Yes, Ozone is a very hazardous.zone.

4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?

[RandomGuy]

I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels.

5) Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

scare tactics.

6) Please define "scare tactics".

[RandomGuy]

http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_basics.html

For what it is worth. Propaganda? Perhaps. Reasonable? Well, let's just say I won't be letting the Bush administration tell me what is reasonable or not.

[101A]

If diabetes is such a big problem, why the are we focussed on AIDS?

fixed it.

There's plenty of money in Diabetes AND Cancer research; however a disproportionate goes to AIDS.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.greenfacts.org/air-pollut...-effects.htm#1

The above link has a host of interesting links on ozone and pollution in general.

It uses a lot of World Health Organization reports, although the cited report is about 5 years old.

[Wild Cobra]

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

1) This administration has repeatedly been shown to place ideology over good science.

Given a pronounced tendency to use place ideology over all else, should you be more or less skeptical of what this administration says regarding scientific evidence?

I agree with the point you make. I don't agree with the accuracy of the article. It is very lacking and written is a very su ious way to carry any trust to the critical thinker unless you trust everything printed. I know you are not that way, so why do you trust the article?

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?

Again, I don't trust the article. What is the proper context of what they extrapolate this assessment from?

3) Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?

No. Again, it's the way the article is written and the authors conclusions I distrust.

4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?

It is absolutely reasonable. However, the article doesn't give good sources or link references for factual assessment.

5) Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years.

I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life. Again, the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone. We have almost no control over ozone levels. Then at least on the west coast where I live, we have more smog in many places from the jet stream carrying pollution from Asia that we create ourselves! How do you regulate that?

6) Please define "scare tactics".

The article by the way it's written.

Look at it. It says "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death." This is absolutely true. Then it goes to say "The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," which there is also true, but at 1960 era levels. We have dramatically cleaned up airborne pollutions since then, and I don't believe the report to be as accurate is presented.

Now consider this:

The Academy panel examined short-term exposure — up to 24 hours — to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death "may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone."

Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.

"Short term high level," and "nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels." Yes, we know ozone is deadly. More studies are not needed. Who is requesting unneeded grants? Have you ever looked at the levels of Nitrogen Oxide we produce from coal burning and auto emissions? Before placing scrubbers and other pollution controls on the power facilities and our modern emission systems on cars, we had problems here. I really doubt we do today. I want to see the numbers of these pollutants in the air today compared to the 60's though 80's before such things were mandatory.

My point is we already addressed the concerns. You can only address these concerns so far before it gets prohibitly expensive. You cannot make it 100% safe. Should we return to the pre-industrialization era?

Another:

While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.

Duh... another no brainer. However, where does one come in contact with such levels? No where except some jobs where you are thoroughly briefed on such usage, and safety practices are used. There is an occasional accident. This is likely what they refer to, then want to implicate the common environment.

Now the article also speaks of people with problems already, that smog increased their death rate. Well, these people are going to die prematurely anyway from something that aggravates their condition. Are we going to try to eliminate everything and place hardships on the many for the few?

Did you know the EPA did in fact reduce the standards from 80 ppb (1997 standard) to 75 ppm, earlier this month?

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in a statement that there was "no clear and substantial basis" for tightening the standards set more than a decade ago.

"This decision by the EPA to lower the ozone standard unnecessarily will impose significant new burdens on states and others even as they continue to try and comply with the 1997 standard," the ACC said.

The non-profit group Clean Air Watch assailed the announcement, accusing the government of "compromising public health to save industry money."

"Once again, the Bush administration has chosen to disregard the advice of the EPA's own independent science advisers," who had unanimously urged a standard tougher than that selected by the agency, said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

"Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science."

Clean Air Watch said EPA's science advisers had unanimously recommended that the smog standard be lowered to between 60 and 70 ppb.

Now consider atmospheric chemistry. Ozone is a natural part of it. NO and NO2 play a dance of equilibrium and ozone is not only created, but used up as it changes between the two forms. This normal atmospheric chemistry is present without smog. They don't say that though. Do they. They let the reader assume low level ozone is only cause by man. I'd like to see the nominal ranges without a man made influence. I would think it is likely in the 60 to 70 ppb range the CAW advisors want, or alt least close. Maybe 50 ppb.

Now rather than editing my above work, I just went to an online too, Spectral Calc. I looked at 10 meter, 100 meter, and 1 km atmospheric levels. They are very similar. Here is the 100 meter plot:



Notice the ozone levels are shown at about 12-13 ppb so my guess is wrong. Still, NO (130 ppt) and NO2 (12 ppt) are both in the parts per trillion! HCN are at similar levels to NO at about 110 ppt and it plays a non-exchange in ozone production. At least NO and NO2 play an equilibrium exchange with the third oxygen atom in O3.

Question... HCN is known to be deadly. It's used as a WMD as a blood agent. Why don't we regulate it's level to extinction?

Ozone is actually a very short lived molecule in anything past trace levels. Ozone actually helps clean the atmosphere of other pollutants: As the molecules get heavier, they from out of the atmosphere and get cleansed by the rain more rapidly than without ozone:

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2
NO2 + O3 → NO3 + O2
NO2 + NO3 → N2O5

Ozone reacts with carbon (soot) to form carbon dioxide:

C + 2 O3 → CO2 + 2 O2

Ozone reacts with sulfides to make sulfates:

PbS + 4 O3 → PbSO4 + 4 O2 (nice to help clean lead out of the atmosphere, right?)

Sulfuric acid can be produced from ozone, starting either from elemental sulfur or from sulfur dioxide:

S + H2O + O3 → H2SO4
3 SO2 + 3 H2O + O3 → 3 H2SO4

I wonder how fast these pollutants would be removed from the atmosphere without out increased levels of ozone. I would think if we reduced ozone, these other pollutants would ac ulate more. Ozone is a natural cleaner. I think one should consider the theory of what happens with reduced levels to the other pollutants we put up.

Ozone will also turn cyanides to the one thousand times less toxic cyanates:

CN- + O3 → CNO- + O2

CN (cyanide) is a natural product of N2 → CN in the atmosphere when the solar radiation changes nitrogen into carbon 14:

1n + 14N → 14C + 1H

Now I am one for cleaning the atmosphere, but really. How much is being considered. We probably have the cleanest environmental standards in the world, yet we have those who will always say it's not enough also.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with the point you make. I don't agree with the accuracy of the article... why do you trust the article?

So the article was incorrect when it said:
"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,"

or

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments " made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits."

I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

[RandomGuy]

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?

Again, I don't trust the article. What is the proper context of what they extrapolate this assessment from?

"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.

SECOND TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?

It is absolutely reasonable. However, the article doesn't give good sources or link references for factual assessment.

For you ease of reference, here is something that might help, the link to the report cited in the article.


Or the related press release(don't worry it is a regular web page, not a pdf)

WASHINGTON -- Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards. The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by EPA to set ozone standards, including the new public health standard set by the agency last month.

Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects. In addition, evidence of a relationship between short-term -- less than 24 hours -- exposure to ozone and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting EPA to request the Research Council report. In particular, the agency asked the committee to analyze the ozone-mortality link and assess methods for assigning a monetary value to lives saved for the health-benefits assessments.

[RandomGuy]

Look at it. It says "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death." This is absolutely true. Then it goes to say "The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," which there is also true, but at 1960 era levels. We have dramatically cleaned up airborne pollutions since then, and I don't believe the report to be as accurate is presented.

If you have contravening evidence, perhaps you should present it to the panel.

WASHINGTON -- Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards.

[RandomGuy]

When we exhale what kind of gas is it? And should we stop breathing,
Clam and Chump, I already know your answer.

I know the answer you have in mind, but you are mistaken.

When we exhale, the expelled gas is primarily nitrogen.

A better, and more accurate question should be:

What gases are produced by the burning of oxygen and sugars in the course of our normal metabolism.

Just trying to help. That would get you the answer you are looking for.

[RandomGuy]

Lunch is up. Back to work.

This is a good thread, and I will get back to it.

[Wild Cobra]

So the article was incorrect when it said:
"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,"

It depends on what they are referring to by 'ambient' and 'short term.' The article gives no levels. When what I understand as ambient levels are natural and the maximum allowable is about 5X that level, it is important that they define a level. After reading the below article you linked, it refers to the levels in some areas. I forget the number, was it 32 areas unable to meet the new standard?

or

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments " made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits."

Look, I agree smog is a bad thing. I believe it contributes to added health problems and death for those with existing conditions. However, I cannot ascertain any reasonable arguments out of the article. Ozone and Smog are not the same beast. They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.

I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

I'm not going to disagree with the study. Just the way the article is written. Scientific reports use specific words and phrases. The author changes these.

I know ozone is VERY DANGEROUS at levels in the ppm range! I know that short term exposure to these low levels can be serious. Since they give no levels, and the standard is already pretty strict, I don't trust the author.

"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.

First of all, what is the full context. I cannot believe it was placed as a blanket statement. There is statistical proof that certain levels do cause harm, and it makes sense. If you claim that any level of smog is hazardous, that statement is blatantly false. Without any assigned levels, this is pure bull . You want me to assign a political motivation for the administration when I don't see cause to believe it.

For you ease of reference, here is something that might help, the link to the report cited in the article.


Or the related press release(don't worry it is a regular web page, not a pdf)

I'm not taking the time for the PDF. There are only a small number of places that have such levels in the second link and there is no certainty:

Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths

Likely if I recall, statistically, is just greater than 50%. This is also applied to those on their death beads already, unless you can show me otherwise.

I have always believed smog is more damaging than things like second-hand smoke. We have many environmental pollutants. We have some a long was sinve before the EPA was formed and the environmental laws placed starting in the 70's. I suppose you ear to young to remember those times. We likely live in a safer air quality than before with firewood and coal being used to heat and cook before electricity. Both of these activities are going to contribute to greater health risks than we see today. What about the methane levels of nearly all the population loving on or near a farm also.

I'm sorry. To complain about ozone levels when they are less than 10x natural is just too much for me. I see it as going far overboard.

[RandomGuy]

"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.

First of all, what is the full context. I cannot believe it was placed as a blanket statement. There is statistical proof that certain levels do cause harm, and it makes sense. If you claim that any level of smog is hazardous, that statement is blatantly false. Without any assigned levels, this is pure bull . You want me to assign a political motivation for the administration when I don't see cause to believe it.

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking for a possible political motive.

Tangentally, I am also testing your commitment to intellectual honesty.

A test that you have, thus far, failed.

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

THIRD TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths

Likely if I recall, statistically, is just greater than 50%. This is also applied to those on their death beads already, unless you can show me otherwise.

(shrugs)

It is in the press release, if you had bothered to read it.

However, premature deaths are not limited to people who are already within a few days of dying.

In addition, the committee examined research based on large population groups to find how changes in ozone air concentration could affect mortality, specifically to determine the existence of a threshold -- a concentration of ozone below which exposure poses no risk of death. The committee concluded that if a threshold exists, it is probably at a concentration below the current public health standard. As people have individual susceptibilities to ozone exposure, not everyone may experience an altered risk of death if ozone air concentration also changes. Further research should explore how personal thresholds may vary and the extent to which they depend on a person's frailty, the committee said.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry. To complain about ozone levels when they are less than 10x natural is just too much for me. I see it as going far overboard.

If I increased the salt concentration in your blood by 9 times and left you that way for a decade, I wonder if you would think that being concerned about that is overboard.

You said it yourself: ozone is very damaging to organisms.

I asked you what ozone levels you would feel comfortable with being continually exposed to for decades, and you were less than forthcoming.

Is that because there is no data about what level is generally harmful, or you just don't know?