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.
enuff.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/health/geneva-air-pollution-carcinogenic-who/
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.”
I have to agree. Just look at cats, they are prone to lymphoma. I suspect that a lot of human deaths due to air pollution are by those right on the edge. You have a straw that broke the camel’s back type of thing going on. Look at the heat wave in Europe that killed their old people.
If wishes were horses the beggars would ride.
If turnips were (watches or bayonets) there would be one at my side.
If “if’s” and “but’s” were pots and pans
There would be no work for the tinkerer’s hands
Faith = Belief without evidence.
The researchers at EPA have faith that these things are bad for you.
Well, it’s an advance since the old days when all human ills were due to someone poisoning the wells and/or spells cast by witches. But not much of an advance.
Milloy always points out that the small particle load for inhaled cigarette smoke is more than 1000 Mics per cubid meter, and you don’t see any smokers dropping dead. Smokers get chronic complications of their habit, 10 percent lifetime risk of ca of the lung for example , increased risk of heart and lung disease.
The game that the epa and its well paid researchers play is to just scare people who don’t like the smell or look of air pollution, and then make that aesthetic reaction into outrageous unsubstantiated claims–thousands, hundreds of thousands of deaths annually in the US, millions in the world, all based on projections from small associations that are obtained by data dredge and torture and well tuned scientific “methods.”
If i train a computer to look for positive blips associated with monitor reports of increased pollution it might be i am only looking at the variability in death rates–that’s called noise.
Milloy says they just data dredge, but i say they look for noise and harvest as evidence of causation. Sometimes these epidemiologists say the association is a toxic effect, don’t they? I know many epidemiologists who, as Dirty Harry would say–don’t know their limitations or the limitations of their observational ecological studies.
The day to day variations are easily enough to create less than 10 % “associations” that then are projected to much larger populations and become hundreds of thousands of deaths nationally and millions on the planet. All the while no one is dying from small particle pollution.
i have never seen a person die of air pollution–but i have seen people die from asthma caused by allergens in the air and reactive airway disease, so air can kill you if you’re susceptible.
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Much like solar and wind, I doubt the energy content per sq meter is high enough to make any such technology economically viable. Ah, if wishes were fishes….
The Communists’ handle on the problem has always been to have their family residence out of town, in a secluded and well-guarded location.
My brother, who is a coroner in Toronto has told me that he has never signed a death certificate attesting to the fact that the cause of death was smog,or pollution. I was in Shanghai in March and I admit that from my hotel window I could see heavy smog or pollution hanging in the air.It appeared that none of the 23 million people there were dropping like flies.As a matter of fact ,the smog or pollution did not seem to affect neither my wife nor I, but then again that’s just us. I sincerely doubt that modern societies which are economically productive will ever be able to reduce the smog to zero. This is the price we pay for living.Even the Communists do not appear to have a successful handle on the problem!
Swamp gas is just methane with a few perfumes. The escaping methane of the tundra and the swamp might be an economic resource if we figure out how to harvest it effectively.
Let’s look at both sides of this.
Some people are more vulnerable to cariopulmonary problems than others. Air pollution, including soot and irritants, can’t possibly be good for the lungs of vulnerable people, nor for quality of life for anyone. I’ve lived in Orange County, in Tucson, and in Montana. I can’t quantify the connection between less soot and less pulmonary trouble over time, but it’s plausible rather than vaporous. And clean air is more pleasant air for all residents.
Good jobs are also important and a decent standard of living. If we produce goods and services, we also produce wastes and pollution. Good stewardship calls for reducing waste and mitigating or reducing pollution when feasible.
Of course that starts the great debate over “feasible”. But the debate is real. There is value in a clean environment and there’s value in a productive economy. More productive economies can choose to use resources to mitigate pollution or to reduce it. I’ll lean toward the economy when there seems to be a real conflict. But let’s recognize that the conflict is real and that reasonable people can draw their lines at different points on the pristine-productive continuum.
“Reasonable people” in recent decades seems to exclude Sierra Club, CSPI, NRDC and its offspring, the Democratic Party…
Voltaires electronic ignition was really a pop gun. Shot a cork with swamp gas.
They were on to something though – and not just voltaire inventing electronic ignition. The mosquitos near the swamp caused the disease. So they were right about the swamp, just wrong about just what in the swamp was causing the problem.
Remember when smelly swamp air was believed to cause disease?
Those people had kids, and their kids had kids…
Rats in the wild – if not eaten – will.die a natural death on about 2 years. Of those that died naturally 95% died of cancer.
Mice and rats are just prone to get cancer. And the one in the lab are specially bred to have week immune systems so it is more likely they will get cancer sooner.
Overwhelmed even without proof. “Scientists say” is proof enough.
“Scientists warn” — even better.