EPA air pollution scare debunked by best data set ever assembled on particulate matter and deaths

Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Short-Term Mortality: Exploring the California Experience,2007-2010.
Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates ambient airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on the basis that it is causally associated with short-term mortality — i.e., daily increases in PM2.5 cause increases in daily deaths. This is the first epidemiologic study to test that hypothesis on a systematic basis, i.e., using all the relevant and available data from a large contiguous geographic area. Based on a comparison of air quality data from the California Air Resources Board and death certificate data for 854,109 deaths from the California Department of Public Health for the years 2007-2010, no correlation was identified between changes in ambient PM2.5 and daily deaths, including when the analysis was limited to the deaths among the elderly, heart and/or lung deaths only, and heart and/or lung deaths among the elderly. Although this is only an epidemiologic or statistical study that cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that PM2.5 actually affects mortality in some small and as yet unknown way, these results also illustrate that it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate through epidemiologic study that such an effect actually exists. Notwithstanding the limits of the epidemiologic method, if a significant causal relationship between PM2.5 and mortality existed, that relationship should have been visible in this study. But it was not.

Read the study.

About these ads

10 responses to “EPA air pollution scare debunked by best data set ever assembled on particulate matter and deaths

  1. Nice job. Let’s see if anyone takes note of your conclusions.

  2. Like AGW data sets – past forecasts like Chernobyl are all forced numbers by GRANT SCIENCE – suddenly real Peer Review is being used and guess what the computer modeling software is based on a fallacious data set . .

    Now that the truth is out and the proofs all indicate they have gamed the data for many decades . .

    Check out this E=GREEN LIST OF SITES . .

    https://www.google.com/search?q=salsa.democracyinaction.org+condoms&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS431US431&oq=http%3A%2F%2Fsalsa.democracyinaction.org&aqs=chrome.3.69i58j69i57j0l2.2693j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

  3. This appears to cover the short term exposure effects very nicely. I don’t recall seeing any evidence or even models supporting the claim by Jackson and the EPA that there is no safe level of PM2.5 and exposure could result in death in a matter of days. The trouble with that claim was it was falsified by casual observation.
    What happens if the study is expanded to include longer term exposures? Do you start getting some correlation with deaths in the 65+ age group? And how would you separate deaths from PM2.5 from other causes?

    • What of the SILICA sand micro particles that circle the earth from the windstorms in the Gobi Deserts of China. A few years back we had beautiful RED SUNSETS in Texas due to the dust particles in the air from China.

      Silly humans think we can control the global air quality – they can not even do that in NYC.

  4. Congratulations to Steve Milloy for persevering on this topic and his making this definitive, data-based PM paper available. It will serve as a valuable reference for all of us in combating EPA claims and local governments basing environmental restrictions on such claims.

  5. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    EPA Gaming The Climate Data Exposed

  6. it won’t stop them you know. The EPA has outlived its usefulness as a massive bureaucracy as people became more aware of the environmental degradation and then passed laws and regulations to combat it.

    Now we really only need the ‘inspector’ role for them, but that would shrink the agency down to a sliver of itself and no bureaucrat would surrender turf and body count. Why they might have take a downgrade!! Quelle horreur!!

  7. Not a good study unless you can compare long term effects. Better to use a panel data set across time and region to study this.

  8. Is there a high PM2.5 output from crematoriums? That might explain why the PM2.5 count spikes after the death rate goes up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s