It is unthinkable that bad air doesn’t cause everything, including zombies, vampires and certainly all sorts of medical problems , including premature death from whatever might come up in the mind of the air pollution fighter–consider heart disease and lung disease and general failure disease (is that a diagnosis) disease.
So let’s get back to reality and the toxicology principle that pertains–dose.
And let’s assume that a dose of nasty smelling air or eye irritating air (think LA, I love LA) might create a hazard.
Then add the precautionary principle–the idea that any risk, no matter what the measure of the risk, must be avoided.
Then certainly bad air kills, causes cancer and produces monster, zombies, vampires and such.
Or maybe not.
If the clowns who do the epidemiology that claims deaths or disease from air pollutio were paying attention to the rules, they would have to live with the rule that in population studies, to overcome uncertainties and confounders (that’s things that make the scientist screw up and form false positives or negtives) then the researchers are obligated to show a respectable magnitude of toxic effect. Note the word is respectable, but that means something othr than unrespectable.
How do we know what respectable is–well the relative risk of 2 or more, an effect on the exposed population of 100% increase in toxic effect is adequate for at least a tryyyyy.
Guess what, the epidemiology of the goofus fanatics in EPA research is invariably less than 1.5, hell, most of the time it’s less than 1.2, which means–it means–inadequate demonstration of toxic effect to assert proof of anything.
so what can an honest epidemiologist do with these assertions based on inadequate effect that are the basis for the claim–one must protest. My goodness. Protest? But, lacking adequate proof, those who hold to the argument that their assertions prove something are inevitably forced to admit, well maybe more studies or something will support our position? Maybe?
Here’s the way that the WHO and other’s back door the cancer claim.
Sub lethal exposures of rats and mice to the various components of air pollution are studies and the mice and rats are sacrificed to see if they show signs of an increase in tumors. The tumors are not necessarily cancer, just tumors and the strains of mice and rats are bred for a tendency to have tumors, but no matter, the issue is can an increased rate of “tumors” be detected. Now there is some science, projecting mice and rat studies of “tumors” to a human susceptability?? Gee. aren’t your just overwhelmed with the strength of that “proof.”