Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[Wild Cobra]

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

It would be a guess, but that is more reasonable to me than the people demanding higher standards not understanding the costs involved and harm it would do to our economy.

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

That is my demand upon the authors! They are not providing adaquate information that is trustworthy. I need to see that first myself.

A test that you have, thus far, failed.

Failing by asking the same question in other words, indirectly?

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"?

Context...

We know that past levels of smog we had in the 60's and 70's were harmful. Today, there is no way to show the same connection reliable. I simply do not believe what is being said. The current administrations political motive could be the balance of cost vs. decreased risks.

[Wild Cobra]

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

Well, I related "likely" to the wrong number. Likely normally means 66% or more. "Most" is the term normally meant 50% or more.

I didn't see it quantified in the press release. Is it there?

Your confirmation bias is showing.

Yes, I am biased. As a skeptic, I need proof or reasonable assessments to change my mind. My experience shows me most these alarming things we read are someone's agenda rather than truth. Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I will point out areas that I understand that will effected. If you wish you call that confirmation bias, then so be it. I disagree, but you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences. I guess it could appear that way. I could claim the same thing for you. You believe the article as dogma without reasonable discourse affecting your view. At least I show some relevance in my arguments. My bias is on the side of economics when I see no justifiable fear of ozone at current levels.

I have pointed out the low levels of N2O. The article claims this is the cause of O3. When NO2 is so much lower than O3, and it returns to N2O as it establishes an equilibrium:

NO2 + O2 → NO + O3

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2

Then it also clears out by forming NO3 and N2O5:

NO2 + O3 → NO3 + O2
NO2 + NO3 → N2O5

How can such low levels of NO2 pose a problem?

The anthropogenic cause of O3 is static electricity and electrical arcing. Electric motors, and electrical generating devices are a leading contributor. There are other causes like arc welding. Subways and electrical generation probably contribute to the highest man-mad ozone, so tell me. How do we significantly decrease levels without harming our economy?

How do we decreases ozone? How can we mandate lowering levels without identifying the source and a solution? The NO2 they cite doesn't fix the problem even if we eliminated NO2 completely. Wouldn't we have to shut down electrical generation plants until we place 'ozone capture devises' on them? Wouldn't we have to ban subways and hybrid cars until such devices are incorporated into their designs? What type of costs would be involved with the capture, and inter-cooling required?

Tell me... Do you have any viable solutions? Maybe the EPA and Bush administration is smart enough to say "It costs too much to mandate lower levels!"

Very high population dense areas are where you find high ozone. The solution is simple. Stop building cities so dense!

[Wild Cobra]

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.

I don't have the background to assign a maximum level. I don't know. Your example here is unrealistic. The body maintains a specific range for proper operation. To artificially alter it is not quite the same.

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

Absolutely, so is chlorine. The level is important. We can die from drinking too much water as well.

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

I am comfortable with the current levels the EPA allows. The EPA generally does a good job in my opinion. Unless I see some more credible work than someone who confuses smog and ozone, I will stick to my assessment that ozone is not an issue. Interchanging the two automatically discredit the work in my eyes.

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

I really don't know. Again, I need better proof than someone's synopsis of real work.

Besides, the fact that the EPA standards aren't met in some areas, and isn't addressed, what good does it do to tighten them farther?

[RandomGuy]

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"?

The current administrations political motive could be the balance of cost vs. decreased risks.

That is not a "political motive".

I am beginning to lose my patience with your evasions.

I will ask nicely one final time for an honest answer.

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"?

5th time this question has been asked, with no honest attempt at answering it.

[RandomGuy]

As a skeptic,

I am beginning to have my doubts about that...

[boutons_]

dubya/Repug Admin has long, varied, and very clear pattern of culpability of protecting/promoting/right-wing business to the detriment of public health and the enviroment.

=========================

White House undermines EPA on cancer risks, GAO says

(AP) -- The Bush administration is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting nonscientists have a bigger - often secret - say, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The administration's decision to give the Defense Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program's credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At issue is the EPA's screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.

A new review process begun by the White House in 2004 is adding more speed bumps for EPA scientists, the GAO said in its report, which will be the subject of a Senate Environment Committee hearing Tuesday. A formal policy effectively doubling the number of steps was adopted two weeks ago.

Cancer risk assessments for nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue, the GAO said, blaming the new multiagency reviews for some of the delay. The EPA, for example, had promised to prepare assessments on 10 major toxic chemicals for external peer review by the end of 2007, but only two reached that stage.

GAO investigators said extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals.

The Pentagon, the Energy Department, NASA and other agencies - all of which could be severely affected by EPA risk findings - are being allowed to participate "at almost every step in the assessment process," said the GAO.

Those agencies, their private contractors and manufacturers of the chemicals face restrictions and major cleanup requirements, depending on the EPA's scientific determinations.

"By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the Senate committee's chairman. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

The EPA's risk assessment process "never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said.

The White House said the GAO is wrong in suggesting that the EPA has lost control in assessing the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.

"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin F. Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the GAO. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

One EPA scientist with extensive knowledge of the changes in the agency's risk assessment policies ridiculed the claim that the EPA still has the final say.

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

The GAO investigation focused on the EPA's computerized database, known as IRIS - the Integrated Risk Information System. It contains data on the human health effects of exposure to some 540 toxic chemicals in the environment. New chemicals are being proposed constantly for inclusion under a complicated assessment process that can take five years or more.

After years of stops and starts, the GAO said, the EPA has yet to determine carcinogen risks for a number of major chemicals such as:

-Naphthalene, a chemical used in rocket fuel as well as in manufacturing commercial products such as mothballs, dyes and insecticides.

-Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a widely used industrial degreasing agent.

-Perchloroethylene, or "perc," a chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and making chemical products.

-Formaldehyde, a colorless, flammable gas used to making building materials.

Environmentalists say these chemicals have been widely found at military bases and Superfund sites and in soil, lakes, streams and groundwater.

The findings, after an 18-month investigation by the congressional watchdog agency, come at a time of growing criticism from members of Congress and health and environmental advocates over alleged political interference in the government's science activities.

Last week, a confidential survey by an advocacy group of EPA scientists showed more than half of the 1,600 respondents worried about political pressure in their work.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


=========================

With dubya's Exec, presumption of guilt as accused is ALWAYS the starting point. The burden of proof of innocence is on the WH, not on the accusers. Willful ignorance, malicious incompetence, political interference deep into the Administration under a cloak of secrecy are the hallmarks of dubya's exec since 20 Jan 2001.

"change" from the above is what I'm hoping for with Obama. The politicization of science and govt by dubya must be stopped and reverssed. McCain is too stupid and neo- . I don't trust Hillary. Obama, who knows. We have to try.

[RandomGuy]

you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences.

If stroking your ego will help:

I acknowledge you base your opinions on a vast understanding of the sciences.

Now will you answer my question?

[RandomGuy]

My bias is on the side of economics...

Something else I doubt, based on what I see here. But hey, I will take you at your word.

Define "externality" in the sense of its usage in economics.

[RandomGuy]

You believe the article as dogma

Please show a quote from me that demonstrates that I blindly believe "the article" despite any proof given.

and

Please tell me what comment I offered on the article in the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

You know Random, you are the one that has the weak argument here. You quote a story, don't link it, when I find it, it has no links to reports for me to make any assessment with.

You really think you're being smart huh?

In post #6, you link a Google search. Not any story correlating supportive evidence. There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.

You ask what the political motivation would be? I told you, I can only guess. When I guess, you act as if I should have one that you consider valid. I don't really think they're playing politics with this one. I think they believe the science doesn't sufficiently warrant tightening the standards more than they are.

I am amazed at your lack of critical thinking. This is an AP story with no source links. Do you believe everything from the AP? Have you searched for a valid source to support the story?

You ask "Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?" but you go by what the AP story says. I cannot find that at the National Academy of Science's site. In my searches in the site, they say they don't know the effects. They say the cause is complex and not understood. They talk about the precursors to ozone and say they don't understand their effect.

I say the AP story is full of holes, yet you take it as dogma. I simply want some evidence the story is right. From the start, I said it was a bad story, the way the correlated smog and ozone.

I simply want some more evidence. When I finally read the summary from the link you provided, it supports my position.

FUTURE REGULATORY-IMPACT ANALYSES INVOLVING OZONE MORTALITY

Because short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths, future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone- control measures should include the benefits of reduced mortality risk. As in EPA’s RIA for the recently finalized ozone NAAQS, emphasis should be on using estimates from new systematic multicity analyses that used national databases of air pollution and mortality, such as in the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, without excluding consideration of meta-analysis of previously published studies. Future RIAs should give little or no weight to the assumption that there is no causal association between estimated reductions in premature mortality and reduced ozone exposure. Health-benefits estimates should be accompanied by a broad array of analyses of uncertainty.

Distributed-lag models over several days appear better than single-day models at capturing the acute and subacute mortality effects of ozone exposure and should be part of future benefits assessments to the extent that they are supported in the literature.

Future RIAs should incorporate research results on the mortality effects of chronic ozone exposure and research that addresses key uncertainties related to potential confounding factors, exposure measures, and susceptibility as appropriate.

Despite many concerns about the accuracy of any specific WTP value and a corresponding VSL that does not vary with population or risk characteristics, the committee recommends a single VSL as the most scientifically supportable approach at present for monetary valuation of ozone-related mortality. Before making a substantial change in its approach for valuation of mortality-risk reductions, EPA should have fairly conclusive empirical evidence to support the change. It is the committee’s judgment that the available evidence is not now sufficient to support such a change, but sensitivity analyses should explore alternative approaches and further research should be conducted to answer the questions raised about the validity of EPA’s current approach. Benefits-assessment methods may need to be revised as new information emerges on characteristics of populations susceptible to an ozone-mortality risk and on variations in WTP for mortality-risk reductions (or increases in life expectancy) based on different population characteristics.

EPA should consider placing greater emphasis on reporting changes in age-specific death rates and changes in life expectancy in the relevant populations than on reporting estimates of lives saved or premature deaths avoided.

In this report, the committee has identified major gaps in knowledge about methods for assessing benefits of ozone-related mortality risk reduction and has recommended research strategies to close those gaps. The committee recognizes that many of the recommended research activities are complex and will be difficult to undertake, and that sufficient resources may not be available to undertake them all in the near term. Therefore, EPA and other agencies that might carry out the recommended research will need to set priorities and develop a strategy for addressing the various information needs.

Now on page 32 of the report:

In and around urban areas in the United States, ambient ozone concentrations rise much further, to about 160 ppb in Houston and 180 ppb in Los Angeles. Although such concentrations may seem extreme, they are substantially reduced from the concentrations of more than 400 ppb experienced in the 1970s (e.g., NRC 1991). OZONE FORMATION AND TRANSPORT We must understand the formation and transport of tropospheric ozone if we are to be able to interpret health-benefits assessments of ozone and conduct new ones, inasmuch as the interpretation of epidemiologic analyses must consider ozone’s spatial and temporal patterns and their relationships with human exposure. Processes that affect ozone dynamics also affect other pollutants, such as components of particulate matter, and lead to what can be strong correlations between pollutant concentrations

Doesn't this support what I say about us already reducing levels?

How did we live in these cities at 400 ppb?

I downloaded the entire 150 + page report. I will go though it when I have time. I have not yet read anything that suggests what the AP article implies.

[RandomGuy]

You really think you're being smart huh?

(shrugs)
I am fairly smart by most measures. I don't see how that is relevant.

Since you have resorted to the same intellectual dishonesty as the people who advocate conspiracy theories about 9-11, I will now treat you like one.

I am done asking nicely.

[RandomGuy]

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"?

6th time this question has been asked.

[RandomGuy]

I am amazed at your lack of critical thinking.

The following are listed as critical thinking skills:

S-3 exercising fairmindedness
S-4 exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying thoughts
S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment
S-7 developing intellectual good faith or integrity

from this website

If I ask an honest, pertinent question in good faith, and you refuse to answer, is that indicative of the above qualities?

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

2nd time this question has been asked.

[RandomGuy]

There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.

There are indeed.

Is it logical to conclude they are all wrong when they claim something about the administration?

[RandomGuy]

Now on page 32 of the report:
In and around urban areas in the United States, ambient ozone concentrations rise much further, to about 160 ppb in Houston and 180 ppb in Los Angeles. Although such concentrations may seem extreme, they are substantially reduced from the concentrations of more than 400 ppb experienced in the 1970s (e.g., NRC 1991). OZONE FORMATION AND TRANSPORT We must understand the formation and transport of tropospheric ozone if we are to be able to interpret health-benefits assessments of ozone and conduct new ones, inasmuch as the interpretation of epidemiologic analyses must consider ozone’s spatial and temporal patterns and their relationships with human exposure. Processes that affect ozone dynamics also affect other pollutants, such as components of particulate matter, and lead to what can be strong correlations between pollutant concentrations


Doesn't this support what I say about us already reducing levels?

How did we live in these cities at 400 ppb?

I downloaded the entire 150 + page report. I will go though it when I have time. I have not yet read anything that suggests what the AP article implies.

I don't deny at all that we have reduced ozone levels in American cities. To answer your question: Yes the quote does support that thesis.

To answer your second, rather ambiguous, question:

We lived with higher levels.

I would also take issue with your bizzarre misconception about what the "article implies"

Here is the le of the article itself:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

Is the link between smog and premature death clear?

This is a simple yes or no question, so with all of your "vast knowledge of science" it should be a total slam-dunk.

[RandomGuy]

I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences

Another aspect of good critical thinking:

S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment

Does the phrase "I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences" exhibit "intellectual humility"?

[Don Quixote]

Let's calm down, people.

So, RandomDude, your point seems fairly obvious. You breathe dirty air, you get sick, you die sooner. I got it. Dirty air is bad.

So what's the solution?

[RandomGuy]

Let's calm down, people.

So, RandomDude, your point seems fairly obvious. You breathe dirty air, you get sick, you die sooner. I got it. Dirty air is bad.

So what's the solution?

Ever the bridgemaker. Props man.

The thing that bothers me most about people like Wild Cobra is that they give rabid anti-evironmentalists intellectual cover for their horribly irrational beliefs. In this, they function a lot like the sciency-sounding asshats in the conspiracy theory movement.

At their heart the arguments they make tend to have a lot of "gee whiz" bull that sounds great to the casual observer, but when you do a modi of reasonable and fair critical thinking about what they are saying, the irrationality of their starting assumptions and their confirmation bias becomes pretty clear.

To get to your question:

First thing we really need to do is pretty much what the AAS team said:

Gather more data.

We can't really come to decent, logical solutions without having a better grasp on the economic impacts. To do that, we need more research on the overall affects on human health of the various components of atmospheric pollution, such as ozone.

In this I fully agree with the report as I understand it (I have only read the press release from the academy regarding the report, but assume it is accurate) when it calls for such research. Good policy requires good data.

I don't think even WC can argue with that statement.

[Don Quixote]

Fine. Sounds reasonable enough. As a generally anti-environmentalist conservative, I would caution against the govt passing drastic regulations that would limit business and industry, and in turn cost jobs and lower overall prosperity, unless there is a GOOD reason for it. And by good, I mean something proven scientifically, and within the power of man to change. (I guess this is my general complaint against the global warming movement, and ethanol subsidies).

And I return the respect. Politics is the culmination of ethics, Aristotle said. This stuff, and religion, is not to be reduced to trash-talking or misrepresenting others' positions. I don't fling poo.

[RandomGuy]

Fine. Sounds reasonable enough. As a generally anti-environmentalist conservative, I would caution against the govt passing drastic regulations that would limit business and industry, and in turn cost jobs and lower overall prosperity, unless there is a GOOD reason for it. And by good, I mean something proven scientifically, and within the power of man to change. (I guess this is my general complaint against the global warming movement, and ethanol subsidies).

And I return the respect. Politics is the culmination of ethics, Aristotle said. This stuff, and religion, is not to be reduced to trash-talking or misrepresenting others' positions. I don't fling poo.

I am of the opinion that environmental laws tend to be very good bets in terms of cost-benefit.

To be sure, one can go overboard and stop badly needed economic development because of stupid things like an endangered butterfly species.

BUT

We continually see the dangers of little or no environmental oversight when it comes to pollution. Lead in gasoline, the hideous stripmines of a century ago that stil make areas today too toxic for people, the time where one of the Great Lakes actually caught fire, and a host of other similar things make me want to err on the side of caution.

When people like Xray rail against environmental laws in sweeping generalities, it makes me want to make him drink river water in China, or live there for a decade or so to see if his opinion about those silly laws stays the same.

As for global warming itself, I don't find it unreasonable to think that dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere might have some bad effects.

Did you ever get around to watching this bit?

[RandomGuy]

You know Random, you are the one that has the weak argument here.

If my argument is so weak, then answering some simple questions shouldn't hurt your case that much, should it.

[boutons_]

"a disproportionate goes to AIDS."

MRSA (for now, mostly "hospital-associated") kills more in USA than AIDS

Preventable medical deaths kills more in USA than AIDS.

There are plenty of problems to work but since most of the victims of these problems are the poor, there's not enough $$ spent on them.

Burning up $2T in Iraq is a big help to our domestic problems (if you aren't in the MIC, which doesn't have any problem except how to bloat the military budget more).

=============

Anyway, WC digs out his irrelevant "science" trivia to "prove" that air pollution is what? not a problem?

To prove that dubya Exec has not ed over every federal dept with ideological/religious/political bull and hacks way below seceretary level?

Tremendous progress has been made. Has air pollution been solved?

Then there's this little side show for all the poor people living next to and working in ports:

http://www.serconline.org/dieselPortPollution.html

NO = nitric oxide ( viagra increases it )

N2O = nitrous oxide

[RandomGuy]

Anyway, WC digs out his irrelevant "science" trivia to "prove" that air pollution is what? not a problem?

To prove that dubya Exec has not ed over every federal dept with ideological/religious/political bull and hacks way below seceretary level?

Tremendous progress has been made. Has air pollution been solved?

Pretty much.

The report cited simply advocates two things, neither of which WC can really argue against:

1) Specific studies on the wider health effects of ozone on large populations should be done to get solid data on how ozone affects entire populations.

and

2) We should consider the costs of decreased overall health of populations exposed to increased levels of ozone when determining cost/benefits of pollution control policies.

Because both of these are pretty reasonable, and WC is, at heart, a hack, he won't try to actually say they aren't, because he knows he can't win that.

What he does here is simply try to argue around this, and throw up what amounts to essentially (pardon the pun) a smoke screen about smog.

He doesn't want a more general debate about this as he knows that his position is pretty untenable, so he nit-picks, and tries the ol' "baffle 'em with bull " gambit in the hopes that it might fool the casual observer.



I ain't gonna let that happen.

[boutons_]

dubya forces out/neutralizes/guts/edits yet another EPA/NASA/AAAS/FDA/USDA person or report that would enforce regulations, or in some way be anti-business. Many cases over the past 7 years where dubya negates /weakens/removes regulations to favor politics/religion/iedology over science.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,4655733.story

Can't blame Congress with this one.