<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: BOOK REVIEW: ‘Scare Pollution’ a Pulitzer Prize-worthy Piece of Investigative Journalism </title> <atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2017/06/book-review-scare-pollution-a-pulitzer-prize-worthy-piece-of-investigative-journalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/06/book-review-scare-pollution-a-pulitzer-prize-worthy-piece-of-investigative-journalism/</link> <description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2017 07:18:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title> By: bulaoren </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/06/book-review-scare-pollution-a-pulitzer-prize-worthy-piece-of-investigative-journalism/#comment-8317976315264121867</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[bulaoren]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2017 07:18:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92018#comment-8317976315264121867</guid> <description><![CDATA[What about "2nd hand smoke"? How valid was that scare?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about “2nd hand smoke”? How valid was that scare?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dallas Weaver Ph.D. </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/06/book-review-scare-pollution-a-pulitzer-prize-worthy-piece-of-investigative-journalism/#comment-8317976315264121857</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dallas Weaver Ph.D.]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2017 23:20:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92018#comment-8317976315264121857</guid> <description><![CDATA[Steve, Just finished your book. Excellent. From what I have seen, it seems that PM2.5 definition and measurement methods are independent of the particle's chemical composition. From a toxicology viewpoint, how can a particle of NaCl or CaSO4 from the evaporating of a cooling tower mist particle or an ocean surf particle have the same health impact and toxicology as a pyrolyzed hydrocarbon particle containing reactive and highly toxic organic chemicals? The whole biological mechanism chemistry doesn't make sense. My PM2.5 at my surf city (Huntington Beach, Ca) home is not the same as diesel fumes or a flu virus particle (right size). I was talking with a scientist at the US park service who was going on about exceeding PM2.5 at Pt. Reyes National Seashore with a west wind off of the Pacific Ocean smelling like the ocean. As I believe rulers today, like yesterday, can be above the laws of man (they make them anyway, not the man in the street) so I am not surprised when bureaucrats make decisions in their favor. They are like any other institution, looking out for their self-interest (bureaucratic survival and growth). All their experiments that ignore the chemistry details of the particles are also meaningless. Exposing humans to concentrated, undefined PM2.5 of unknown chemistry, biology and surface properties will tell us nothing about mechanisms if we didn't know what the particles were. It just makes another layer of junk science that won't reproduce with another PM2.5 source. By the way, the high SO2 pollution causing mortality could possibly be explained by the fog and PM2.5 carrying the SO2 further into the lungs and depositing the dissolved sulfite H2SO3 (water added) in the liquid layer in the lungs where the sulfite reacts with O2 to become sulfate (H2SO4) that decreases the local alkalinity in that thin layer of liquid. Without carbonate alkalinity in that layer between the air and the blood, the mass transfer of CO2 drops dramatically and the people can die from CO2 toxicity. The level of 100 µg/M3 of SO2 could remove the carbonate alkalinity from a liter of body fluids coating the inside of your lungs an hour. With kidney problems, you couldn't correct the alkalinity as fast and maintain the correct CO2 partial pressure in your blood and you can die. PS: I see the same junk science issues in different agencies. For example, the USFW did a "biological opinion" on the delta smelt that is the basis of billions of dollars worth of water in California. This report did correlations between the crash of the delta smelt and the water extractions looking at dozens of things that eat smelt (striped bass, salmon, etc.) or help smelt or kill smelt (pumping plants) over a time period of the 1960's to present day. However, they left out of the analysis that fact that during this time period DDT was eliminated and the fish eating bird population went up by a factor of 10 (especially cormorants that feed on delta smelt size fish) while water extraction changed by about 20%. By leaving out the principal variable, they get the answer they wanted. How do you challenge a "missing variable" in a statistical analysis? I came across another one having to do with larval fish impacts from power plants where they (contractors who have build carriers and tenure on this stuff) built into the math model a known false assumption that could change the results by a factor of 10 to 100 or more in favor of larger calculated impacts. The regulators using that model, demand that model and it isn't subject to challenge (it is policy). They won't even publish it in the scientific literature where some peer reviewer may ask questions about a false assumption. I agree that a lot of peer review is friend review, but I don't think I am considered a "friend" by most of the authors of papers I review.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p> <p>Just finished your book. Excellent. </p> <p>From what I have seen, it seems that PM2.5 definition and measurement methods are independent of the particle’s chemical composition. From a toxicology viewpoint, how can a particle of NaCl or CaSO4 from the evaporating of a cooling tower mist particle or an ocean surf particle have the same health impact and toxicology as a pyrolyzed hydrocarbon particle containing reactive and highly toxic organic chemicals? </p> <p>The whole biological mechanism chemistry doesn’t make sense. My PM2.5 at my surf city (Huntington Beach, Ca) home is not the same as diesel fumes or a flu virus particle (right size). </p> <p>I was talking with a scientist at the US park service who was going on about exceeding PM2.5 at Pt. Reyes National Seashore with a west wind off of the Pacific Ocean smelling like the ocean. </p> <p>As I believe rulers today, like yesterday, can be above the laws of man (they make them anyway, not the man in the street) so I am not surprised when bureaucrats make decisions in their favor. They are like any other institution, looking out for their self-interest (bureaucratic survival and growth). </p> <p>All their experiments that ignore the chemistry details of the particles are also meaningless. Exposing humans to concentrated, undefined PM2.5 of unknown chemistry, biology and surface properties will tell us nothing about mechanisms if we didn’t know what the particles were. It just makes another layer of junk science that won’t reproduce with another PM2.5 source. </p> <p>By the way, the high SO2 pollution causing mortality could possibly be explained by the fog and PM2.5 carrying the SO2 further into the lungs and depositing the dissolved sulfite H2SO3 (water added) in the liquid layer in the lungs where the sulfite reacts with O2 to become sulfate (H2SO4) that decreases the local alkalinity in that thin layer of liquid. Without carbonate alkalinity in that layer between the air and the blood, the mass transfer of CO2 drops dramatically and the people can die from CO2 toxicity. The level of 100 µg/M3 of SO2 could remove the carbonate alkalinity from a liter of body fluids coating the inside of your lungs an hour. With kidney problems, you couldn’t correct the alkalinity as fast and maintain the correct CO2 partial pressure in your blood and you can die. </p> <p>PS: I see the same junk science issues in different agencies. For example, the USFW did a “biological opinion” on the delta smelt that is the basis of billions of dollars worth of water in California. This report did correlations between the crash of the delta smelt and the water extractions looking at dozens of things that eat smelt (striped bass, salmon, etc.) or help smelt or kill smelt (pumping plants) over a time period of the 1960’s to present day. However, they left out of the analysis that fact that during this time period DDT was eliminated and the fish eating bird population went up by a factor of 10 (especially cormorants that feed on delta smelt size fish) while water extraction changed by about 20%. By leaving out the principal variable, they get the answer they wanted. How do you challenge a “missing variable” in a statistical analysis? </p> <p>I came across another one having to do with larval fish impacts from power plants where they (contractors who have build carriers and tenure on this stuff) built into the math model a known false assumption that could change the results by a factor of 10 to 100 or more in favor of larger calculated impacts. The regulators using that model, demand that model and it isn’t subject to challenge (it is policy). They won’t even publish it in the scientific literature where some peer reviewer may ask questions about a false assumption. I agree that a lot of peer review is friend review, but I don’t think I am considered a “friend” by most of the authors of papers I review.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>