New Harvard Study - Stricter Air Quality Needed to Prevent Deaths

Lord of Planar · Jun 29, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
Co2 is considered one of the pollutants, or do you consider that a problem.

Fail...

Media_Truth · Jun 30, 2017

longview said:
Can you cite something that says the EPA is relaxing the regulations on particulates?

Yes, and attached is a link. The Clean Power Plan, which Trump recently signed an Executive Order to review and possibly eliminate, would also reduce particulate matter, in the form of soot and smog.

Cutting the "Clean Power Plan" could cost lives, experts say - CNNPolitics.com

President Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is intended to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, but it would also reduce harmful soot and smog, says Douglas Dockery, a department chairman at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that when implemented, the plan would prevent 3,600 premature deaths a year. In addition, the agency said, it would prevent 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks and 300,000 missed days of work or school a year.

Media_Truth · Jun 30, 2017

ocean515 said:
BS. California is excluded from EPA Clear Air regulations because those standards exceed the Federal Standards. They operate under a Clear Air Waiver granted by the Federal Government - the only State in the US to be given that grant.

The California Air Resources Board sets those standards and they are independent of what the EPA sets.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/ozone/ozone.htm

When an editorial has to depend on lies and misrepresentations, it has no credibility among objective and informed consumers.

They simply stated that Pruitt's one-year delay on the implementation of ozone reductions would allow California and other states to postpone the adoption of the emission cutting measures. Thats great that California will not abide by the delay, and are seeking cleaner air than the EPA guidelines. I don't see this as a lie or a misrepresentation. It merely states, from a Federal standpoint, that California has that option, which they do...

Tim the plumber · Jun 30, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
Co2 is considered one of the pollutants, or do you consider that a problem.

Given that CO2 has killed nobody why put effort into reducing that when the limited resources would be far better aimed at not producing the stuff that is killing people.

Media_Truth · Jun 30, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
Given that CO2 has killed nobody why put effort into reducing that when the limited resources would be far better aimed at not producing the stuff that is killing people.

1. If you've ever worked at a Brewery, you would know that this is a false statement. CO2 is a odorlous, colorlous gas, and before entry into confined spaces (tanks, etc), meters have to be used, to check levels. It displaces oxygen. Close your garage door, and start your car, if you don't believe me.
2. Granted, we're talking about confined spaces. However, how do you know that greenhouse-gas induced climate change has NOT caused a hurricane, or flood, or earthquake, or tsunami, wildfires, etc? You don't know that it hasn't, any more than I know that it has. Many of the 97% of science experts who advocate man-induced climate change believe we are creating conditions to make these catastrophic events more probable.
3. Since when is the definition of a pollutant, something which kills somebody? Many people don't die from particulate matter in the air, but they suffer severe asthmatic conditions. Certain water pollutants, affect the nervous system, and cause partial paralysis. I would go so far to say that, in most cases, the worst pollutants cause serious (or minor) health problems, and not actual death.

Lord of Planar · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
1. If you've ever worked at a Brewery, you would know that this is a false statement. CO2 is a odorlous, colorlous gas, and before entry into confined spaces (tanks, etc), meters have to be used, to check levels. It displaces oxygen. Close your garage door, and start your car, if you don't believe me.
2. Granted, we're talking about confined spaces. However, how do you know that greenhouse-gas induced climate change has NOT caused a hurricane, or flood, or earthquake, or tsunami, wildfires, etc? You don't know that it hasn't, any more than I know that it has. Many of the 97% of science experts who advocate man-induced climate change believe we are creating conditions to make these catastrophic events more probable.
3. Since when is the definition of a pollutant, something which kills somebody? Many people don't die from particulate matter in the air, but they suffer severe asthmatic conditions. Certain water pollutants, affect the nervous system, and cause partial paralysis. I would go so far to say that, in most cases, the worst pollutants cause serious (or minor) health problems, and not actual death.

Wow... that's thin...

You will never encounter such levels in open spaces caused by man, to kill. Now a natural CO2 disaster occured 31years ago:

he Lake Nyos disaster occurred on 21 August 1986, when a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos, in northwestern Cameroon, produced a large cloud of carbon dioxide (CO2), which descended onto nearby villages, killing 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

As for your confined spaces, asphyxiation can occur from other gasses that displace oxygen as well. There are specific OSHA guiding for confined spaces.

longview · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Yes, and attached is a link. The Clean Power Plan, which Trump recently signed an Executive Order to review and possibly eliminate, would also reduce particulate matter, in the form of soot and smog.

Cutting the "Clean Power Plan" could cost lives, experts say - CNNPolitics.com

President Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is intended to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, but it would also reduce harmful soot and smog, says Douglas Dockery, a department chairman at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that when implemented, the plan would prevent 3,600 premature deaths a year. In addition, the agency said, it would prevent 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks and 300,000 missed days of work or school a year.

So, in someones opinion, Obama's executive order to cut greenhouse gas emissions, might as a side effect also reduce particulate matter.
The idea is that Obama added regulations that would not have passed congress to the EPA by executive order,
and now Trump, is revoking that executive order.
I am sorry, quantitatively measuring secondary effects, is subjective at best in complex systems.

ocean515 · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
They simply stated that Pruitt's one-year delay on the implementation of ozone reductions would allow California and other states to postpone the adoption of the emission cutting measures. Thats great that California will not abide by the delay, and are seeking cleaner air than the EPA guidelines. I don't see this as a lie or a misrepresentation. It merely states, from a Federal standpoint, that California has that option, which they do...

No. It's a total misrepresentation of facts.

Why include California in a statement, when California won't be impacted at all?

What would the average reader take from that false claim?

California, where 1 in 8 people in the US live, will become a monolithic polluting cesspool because of Trump policies. It's BS propaganda.

If the author had any knowledge of the issue to pull from, it would be known that California has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the world.

This is nothing but the typical hysteria riddled hyperbole that infects the media.

Media_Truth · Jun 30, 2017

longview said:
So, in someones opinion, Obama's executive order to cut greenhouse gas emissions, might as a side effect also reduce particulate matter.
The idea is that Obama added regulations that would not have passed congress to the EPA by executive order,
and now Trump, is revoking that executive order.
I am sorry, quantitatively measuring secondary effects, is subjective at best in complex systems.

Douglas Dockery, and the folks at Harvard, have been at this a while. They say unequivocally, that lower particulate matter regulations will eliminate deaths and illnesses. Another paragraph from the study:

High levels of air pollution are linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic-obstructive-pulmonary disease, according to Dockery. He said there has also been evidence of problems with cognitive development in children, connections to autism and cognitive decline in adults.

Dockery coauthored a study in 1993 that was the first to show a clear link between air pollution and premature death. Researchers followed residents of six cities near coal-fired power plants for 15 years. Residents of Steubenville, Ohio — the city with the dirtiest air then — were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than were citizens of Portage, Wisconsin, the city with the cleanest air in the study. On average, people breathing dirtier air have their lives cut short by two to three years

But it's pretty common nowadays, for Republicans to deny any Environmental impact. On the occasions that I watch FOX News, or listen to Conservative radio, they indoctrinate their listeners to these denials.

Lord of Planar · Jun 30, 2017

ocean515 said:
What would the average reader take from that false claim?

That's easy.

People who do such things are not to be trusted. They have no integrity when they do such things

Lord of Planar · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Douglas Dockery, and the folks at Harvard, have been at this a while. They say unequivocally, that lower particulate matter regulations will eliminate deaths and illnesses. Another paragraph from the study:

High levels of air pollution are linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic-obstructive-pulmonary disease, according to Dockery. He said there has also been evidence of problems with cognitive development in children, connections to autism and cognitive decline in adults.

Dockery coauthored a study in 1993 that was the first to show a clear link between air pollution and premature death. Researchers followed residents of six cities near coal-fired power plants for 15 years. Residents of Steubenville, Ohio — the city with the dirtiest air then — were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than were citizens of Portage, Wisconsin, the city with the cleanest air in the study. On average, people breathing dirtier air have their lives cut short by two to three years

But it's pretty common nowadays, for Republicans to deny any Environmental impact. On the occasions that I watch FOX News, or listen to Conservative radio, they indoctrinate their listeners to these denials.

OMG...

Assuming only one variable. Do tou real;ize how idiotic that is? I have lived in both metropolitan areas and small towns the size of Portage. Residents of such small towns like the slower pace, and have a healthier lifestyle in many other ways other than the air they breath.

My God man... Wake up and smell reality!

Small towns vs. large cities is a lifestyle choice most the time.

longview · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Douglas Dockery, and the folks at Harvard, have been at this a while. They say unequivocally, that lower particulate matter regulations will eliminate deaths and illnesses. Another paragraph from the study:

High levels of air pollution are linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic-obstructive-pulmonary disease, according to Dockery. He said there has also been evidence of problems with cognitive development in children, connections to autism and cognitive decline in adults.

Dockery coauthored a study in 1993 that was the first to show a clear link between air pollution and premature death. Researchers followed residents of six cities near coal-fired power plants for 15 years. Residents of Steubenville, Ohio — the city with the dirtiest air then — were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than were citizens of Portage, Wisconsin, the city with the cleanest air in the study. On average, people breathing dirtier air have their lives cut short by two to three years

But it's pretty common nowadays, for Republicans to deny any Environmental impact. On the occasions that I watch FOX News, or listen to Conservative radio, they indoctrinate their listeners to these denials.

I am not saying anything about particulate matter and health.
They are attempting to link the regulation about greenhouse gas emissions,
to particulate emissions, which are already covered by separate unaffected regulations.

Tim the plumber · Jun 30, 2017

Media_Truth said:
1. If you've ever worked at a Brewery, you would know that this is a false statement. CO2 is a odorlous, colorlous gas, and before entry into confined spaces (tanks, etc), meters have to be used, to check levels. It displaces oxygen. Close your garage door, and start your car, if you don't believe me.

Nobody has died from the action of increased CO2 in the atmosphere influencing climate or any other situation outside confined spaces where very high levels of CO2 can be dangerous. Your desperate example prooves my point.

2. Granted, we're talking about confined spaces. However, how do you know that greenhouse-gas induced climate change has NOT caused a hurricane, or flood, or earthquake, or tsunami, wildfires, etc? You don't know that it hasn't, any more than I know that it has. Many of the 97% of science experts who advocate man-induced climate change believe we are creating conditions to make these catastrophic events more probable.

Just as you do not know if any hurricane has been caused by global warming you certainly do not know about 97% of anybody saying that there is likely to be any increase in extreme weather events. Outside the greenn movement that is. You will not be able to find any paper to support your claim.

3. Since when is the definition of a pollutant, something which kills somebody? Many people don't die from particulate matter in the air, but they suffer severe asthmatic conditions. Certain water pollutants, affect the nervous system, and cause partial paralysis. I would go so far to say that, in most cases, the worst pollutants cause serious (or minor) health problems, and not actual death.

Many people die from particulate pollution. The worste pollutants kill many many people. In the UK alone pollutants are linked to many thousands of deaths per year.

Given that why the hell are you focused on CO2?

Lord of Planar · Jun 30, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
Given that why the hell are you focused on CO2?

Must be a disciple of Al Gore.

Media_Truth · Jul 1, 2017

longview said:
I am not saying anything about particulate matter and health.
They are attempting to link the regulation about greenhouse gas emissions,
to particulate emissions, which are already covered by separate unaffected regulations.

The fact of the matter is that they are linked, as the link states.

Media_Truth · Jul 1, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
Nobody has died from the action of increased CO2 in the atmosphere influencing climate or any other situation outside confined spaces where very high levels of CO2 can be dangerous. Your desperate example prooves my point.

Just as you do not know if any hurricane has been caused by global warming you certainly do not know about 97% of anybody saying that there is likely to be any increase in extreme weather events. Outside the greenn movement that is. You will not be able to find any paper to support your claim.

Many people die from particulate pollution. The worste pollutants kill many many people. In the UK alone pollutants are linked to many thousands of deaths per year.

Given that why the hell are you focused on CO2?

Actually, this thread is not about CO2. Somebody mentioned falsehoods about CO2, so I set the record straight. This thread is about the need for stricter particulate matter Air Quality Standards, while this Administration is doing just the opposite.

longview · Jul 1, 2017

Media_Truth said:
The fact of the matter is that they are linked, as the link states.

Since they had successful particulate regulation decades before the greenhouse gas emission regulations,
the link is not as matter of fact as suggested.
If it is possible to have combustion of a hydrocarbon without any particulate emission.
Combustion

Tim the plumber · Jul 1, 2017

Media_Truth said:
The fact of the matter is that they are linked, as the link states.

No they are not. That is the point. Our point and fully explained. Even though you don't like that.

Tim the plumber · Jul 1, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Actually, this thread is not about CO2. Somebody mentioned falsehoods about CO2, so I set the record straight. This thread is about the need for stricter particulate matter Air Quality Standards, while this Administration is doing just the opposite.

In all other encounters in this section of the forum, Environment and climate, you are on the anti-CO2 side.

I ask why you are focused on CO2? I get an avoiding answer when I explain that thousands of people are dying each year from particulate pollution in the UK alone.

The divergence of reasonable concearn and effort against poisons in the air into anti-CO2 which is harmless is killing many many people.

Media_Truth · Jul 2, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
In all other encounters in this section of the forum, Environment and climate, you are on the anti-CO2 side.

I ask why you are focused on CO2? I get an avoiding answer when I explain that thousands of people are dying each year from particulate pollution in the UK alone.

The divergence of reasonable concearn and effort against poisons in the air into anti-CO2 which is harmless is killing many many people.

Fine and dandy, but I didn't post this link, with CO2 or climate change in mind. Although related in that CO2 is also a byproduct of the combustion process, this thread is about particulate pollutants. Here is the quote cited from the original reference - no reference of CO2. Do you have something to contribute to the topic of particulate pollutants?

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.

Tim the plumber · Jul 2, 2017

Media_Truth said:
Fine and dandy, but I didn't post this link, with CO2 or climate change in mind. Although related in that CO2 is also a byproduct of the combustion process, this thread is about particulate pollutants. Here is the quote cited from the original reference - no reference of CO2. Do you have something to contribute to the topic of particulate pollutants?

Harvard University scientists who conducted the study calculated that reducing fine particle pollution by 1 microgram per cubic meter nationwide would save about 12,000 lives each year. Another 1,900 lives would be saved annually by lowering ozone pollution by 1 part per billion, they found.

Yes, very much so. My point is that;

The diversion away from things that are bad for us to the anti-CO2 cult has resulted in a slow rate of progress against those things that kill us. It has also resulted in many millions of deaths as the bad science is applied to get food prices artifically raised.

Lord of Planar · Jul 2, 2017

Here's what they did:

Methods

We constructed an open cohort of all Medicare beneficiaries (60,925,443 persons) in the continental United States from the years 2000 through 2012, with 460,310,521 person-years of follow-up. Annual averages of fine particulate matter (particles with a mass median aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm [PM2.5]) and ozone were estimated according to the ZIP Code of residence for each enrollee with the use of previously validated prediction models. We estimated the risk of death associated with exposure to increases of 10 μg per cubic meter for PM2.5 and 10 parts per billion (ppb) for ozone using a two-pollutant Cox proportional-hazards model that controlled for demographic characteristics, Medicaid eligibility, and area-level covariates.

I wonder how representative of the nation the study is is when they only looked at medicare patients?

From their info:

Lord of Planar · Jul 2, 2017

Can anyone estimate how much particulates in the pm 2.5 category would be if we humans went to zero emissions from car engines, power plants, etc?

I'll bet most of this pollution level is from natural dust in the air and man-made aerosols from brakes, tires on the road, etc. Afterall, as tires and brakes wear, where does everyone thing this stuff goes?

If this is the major cause, why focus on power generation?

Media_Truth · Jul 3, 2017

Lord of Planar said:
Can anyone estimate how much particulates in the pm 2.5 category would be if we humans went to zero emissions from car engines, power plants, etc?

I'll bet most of this pollution level is from natural dust in the air and man-made aerosols from brakes, tires on the road, etc. Afterall, as tires and brakes wear, where does everyone thing this stuff goes?

If this is the major cause, why focus on power generation?

In sheer volume, road dust is probably the largest contributor to particulate pollution. However, the combustion byproducts, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are probably the worst pollutants, because of their chemical properties, but some people have different tolerances for different pollutants.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM

Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.

Lord of Planar · Jul 3, 2017

Media_Truth said:
In sheer volume, road dust is probably the largest contributor to particulate pollution. However, the combustion byproducts, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are probably the worst pollutants, because of their chemical properties, but some people have different tolerances for different pollutants.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM

Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.

It is a combination of several factors. I think its true that in first world nations, the particles are primarily from these frictional and natural causes rather than power production. Places like Asia are... wow... their pollutants are at ridiculous levels!