<?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: EPA officially proposes tighter PM2.5 standards	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2023/01/epa-official-proposes-tighter-pm2-5-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://junkscience.com/2023/01/epa-official-proposes-tighter-pm2-5-standards/</link>
	<description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2023 20:53:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: jleewest		</title>
		<link>https://junkscience.com/2023/01/epa-official-proposes-tighter-pm2-5-standards/#comment-8317976315264141606</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jleewest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2023 20:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=107658#comment-8317976315264141606</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Read and cite: McMurry, P.H., Shepherd, M.F. and Vickery, J.S. eds., 2004. Particulate matter science for policy makers: A NARSTO assessment. Cambridge University Press.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read and cite: McMurry, P.H., Shepherd, M.F. and Vickery, J.S. eds., 2004. Particulate matter science for policy makers: A NARSTO assessment. Cambridge University Press.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: jleewest		</title>
		<link>https://junkscience.com/2023/01/epa-official-proposes-tighter-pm2-5-standards/#comment-8317976315264141604</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jleewest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2023 21:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=107658#comment-8317976315264141604</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have many disagreements with this proposal. I have been working on it for over twenty years with the NARSTO organization and we produced several scientific documents with EPA support which are available. 
All PM 2.5 is not equal.  Speciation of the chemical composition is essential to determine the predicted health effects especially at the local level. 
The monitoring methods for such low concentrations really need to be figured out. There are no known methods of acceptable precision and accuracy to determine such low concentrations without data manipulation.  There are no acceptable calibration standards for the instrumentation. Moving instruments to &quot;hot spots&quot; just means it is a hot spot where the instrument is. Has nothing to do with exposure  or population exposure. Monitoring has always been designed to reduce exposure from everyone not just &quot; at risk population&#039;s that include: children,
lower socioeconomic status (SES) 162
populations, minority populations
(particularly Black populations), and
people with certain preexisting&#039;s diseases
(particularly cardiovascular disease and
asthma). Many problems with whole concept being put together by ex-EPA folks.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have many disagreements with this proposal. I have been working on it for over twenty years with the NARSTO organization and we produced several scientific documents with EPA support which are available.<br />
All PM 2.5 is not equal.  Speciation of the chemical composition is essential to determine the predicted health effects especially at the local level.<br />
The monitoring methods for such low concentrations really need to be figured out. There are no known methods of acceptable precision and accuracy to determine such low concentrations without data manipulation.  There are no acceptable calibration standards for the instrumentation. Moving instruments to &#8220;hot spots&#8221; just means it is a hot spot where the instrument is. Has nothing to do with exposure  or population exposure. Monitoring has always been designed to reduce exposure from everyone not just &#8221; at risk population&#8217;s that include: children,<br />
lower socioeconomic status (SES) 162<br />
populations, minority populations<br />
(particularly Black populations), and<br />
people with certain preexisting&#8217;s diseases<br />
(particularly cardiovascular disease and<br />
asthma). Many problems with whole concept being put together by ex-EPA folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>