Dispelling the EPA’s deadly air pollution myth

My commentary in today’s Washington Times.

“The only deadly aspect of particulate matter is how effectively the EPA has wielded the “particulate matter kills” fantasy against the fossil fuel industry, especially coal. Yet the industry has largely been AWOL in challenging the agency. The Supreme Court’s remand of the mercury rule is a good opportunity to force an end to the EPA’s particulate matter science fiction.”

Read the entire article.

7 thoughts on “Dispelling the EPA’s deadly air pollution myth”

  1. How is a “premature death” defined and counted?
    If someone dies one year “prematurely” is the $10 million “value” prorated relative to someone who dies 20 years prematurely?
    Who decides what is “premature?”
    How much healthcare cost is saved (not spent) by premature deaths (no more healthcare needed)?

  2. What would you like it to be? Before average life expectancy? Or, if you really want some gobblydegook try this http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001773.htm
    Those who don’t go quietly into that good night would probably consider their deaths premature. A Google search on “mature death definition” doesn’t return the definition.

    I suspect the EPA will use whatever definition best suits them.

  3. @Bob–
    Shades of Ernest Curtis’ revelation that cause of death on certificates is wrong nearly 50% of the time.

    If someone lives too long, does that throw off the average?

  4. EPA defines premature death as dying before you otherwise would. In EPA-think, preventing a 99-year old from dying Tuesday because of air pollution, so he could die Wednesday as he otherwise would, is worth $10 million. Healthcare and social security saving are not included in the calculation.

  5. Does EPA provide that definition, or just use the term “premature death” as if “everybody knows” what they mean?
    How does EPA determine how many premature deaths occur each year, and how many are attributable to PM2.5?
    (Rhetorical questions. I know EPA is exempt from logic and science.)

  6. EPA, same as Australian CSIRO are against building new dams, to improve the climate – then in dry season -> sprinkler restrictions. In reality: when humidity in the air -> dust settles; no humidity, dust goes in your lungs and turns into mud, and stays there – CO2 if inhaled, is exhaled together with your own CO2, no harm done, Nobody talks about it, EPA will not admit guilt, when they don’t have to

Comments are closed.