Breathing any air is just too dangerous. So stop it. The EPA and auto/truck industry rentseeker-funded Health Effects Institute has a new study claiming that cleaner air increases the risk of death — see highlighted text below. Just shockingly dishonest and stupid. As always, all you need to know about the PM2.5 hoax is contained in Scare Pollution. The fraudulent study and related HEI links are here. We are still awaiting the decision in Young v. EPA which could prevent EPA from using this fraud to justify more PM2.5-based regulation.
Rog, the conclusion from your worked example is certainly correct. My gripe was that the slope in your example is 10^6, not infinity. I apologize for being pedantic. I also correct peoples’ pronunciations, another social fault. On the other hand (OTOH?) I’m 79 and if I feel anxious I just up my meds!
Appreciate your reply. Thanks! Keep up the dialog. According to some it’s the only thing that can save us.
Take care.
Bill Bornak
Hi Bill…………
Thanks for the pedantic math lesson…..
I’ll modify my worked example…. Let:
PM = [PM2.5] in ug.m^-3 and;
MR = Mortality Risk
Say MR =10^-13 when PM = 0.01* and
MR = 10^-7 when PM = 10.1
then increased MR per 10ug.m^-3 PM is 10^6 at this level..
Hoping my attempt at ‘Reductio ad absurdum’ is now clarified……
* PM in any outdoor atmosphere would probably never be as low as this of course………
Sorry, Rog, but your math is off. Slope of a line, say a linear regression, is (y1 – y0)/(x1 – x0). If line goes thru origin, then y0 and x0 are indeed zero and slope is y1/x1, which in the article was in risk per 10 mcg/m^3). The slope is not infinite because the line goes thru zero.
Besides, X/0 is not infinite. The LIMIT of X/z is infinite as z approaches 0. Actually, X/0 itself is not defined, only its limit.
Does anybody know what “causal inferences” as a new statistics tool means? I understand regular regression, but I’m worried this new tool might prove mischievous by producing INFERRED causal connections rather than real ones.
Bill Bornak.
Last night I smoked 1,500 µg/m3 of PM2.5.
And I died.
OH! Kool! so we can go back to polluting the air now. *facepalm* Whatever science courses these clowns took obviously need to refund the tuition.
Clearly, if mortality risk is 0 when [PM] = 0
And mortality risk is 0.000000001 when [PM] = 10ug per m^3
then the increased mortality per 10ug per m^3 is INFINITE
at this level………………………This fact cannot be refuted.
[But ridiculed / ignored, obviously……except by the HEI]