Republican War on Science: Particulate Matter Pollution Edition

Frank O'Donnell, writing at TomPaine.com,
has an article about the RWOS
as applied to clean air regulation.  It turns out that the EPA
has developed new air quality standards for the control of particulate
matter pollution.  But the new rules are not based upon the
advice of their scientists and the scientists they involved in the
process.  The new standards are weaker than what was
recommended.


href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/21/tainted_science.php">Tainted
Science

Frank O'Donnell

September 21, 2006



...The issue at hand is the Bush administration’s decision on
particle soot, the most lethal of common air pollutants. As predicted
in this space, the EPA has chosen to disregard the advice of the
American Medical Association and dozens of other medical groups as well
as that of its own independent science advisers, all of whom said
existing standards needed to be made much tighter. Instead, the agency
has backed a do-little plan more likely to curry favor with industry
groups that are generous campaign contributors...



...The bottom line is that this was a decision based on political
science, not real science. It is particularly egregious because the
Bush administration likes to tout the fact that EPA’s current
head, Steve Johnson, is a career scientist. Unfortunately Johnson has
shown here that he is little more than a political hack in a
scientist’s suit.



This story may not make the same sort of headlines that we’ve
seen with tainted spinach. (For those keeping score, one death has been
blamed on the spinach; EPA itself projected that its new soot standard
would be so weak that it would permit 3,700 premature soot-caused
deaths every year in nine cities alone.)...



I'd like to point out that the death toll he mentions is greater than
that sustained in the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.  Senior
citizens are href="http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Health/6-03-08-SCinDangerFromSmall.htm">particularly
vulnerable to the href="http://stanley.niehs.nih.gov/query.html?col=main&ht=0&qt=particulate&search.x=0&search.y=0&qs=&qc=main+ehp+ntp&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=&qm=0&st=1&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=1">risks
of fine particle soot.  [Specifically, particulate matter that
is 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5)]
 


href="http://epa.gov/pm/basic.html">i-1afbe1f6b73e5134bc40567503a212ee-humanhair4.jpg



The risk is increased by diabetes, preexisting heart or lung disease,
and by a high-fat diet.  The risk is href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/520275">lowered
by fish oil supplements.  



Curiously, I was able to find a href="http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2006/09/22/#1">reference
to an EPA report that indicates:


Stronger soot rule could avert 30,000
premature deaths -- EPA report




A new U.S. EPA report shows as many as 30,000 premature deaths could
have been averted every year if the Bush administration had set
stronger limits yesterday for microscopic soot pollution. The
peer-reviewed analysis released yesterday summarizes the views of 12
scientists with expertise in the link between air pollution and human
health. An EPA contractor interviewed each of the scientists earlier
this year on the risks to adults from the complex mixture of tiny soot
particles.



The thing is, you need a password to get more than the abstract.
 So I went to the EPA site, figuring that such an important
report would be prominently displayed.  But I could not find
it there.  They do have a page for "supporting documents"
related to particulate matter research, but the most recent document
there is from 2004.  



The top item on their home page is an href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/92771013f7dda087852571f00067873d%21OpenDocument">news
release about the new regulations.  They mention
that the new particulate matter regulations are the toughest ever, and
that the health impact of these regulations will save from 9 to 75
billion dollars per year.  But they do not point out that
their own scientists wanted the regulations to be even more stringent
that what they turned out to be.  


More like this

This is a follow-up to yesterday's post.  Yesterday, I pointed out that the EPA ignored the advice of its own scientists in developing new rules for fine particulate matter pollution.  Now, we hear what some of those experts have to say.  Furthermore, they point out that the EPA not only ignored…
The Bush US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done just what we have come to expect them to do: wimped out on keeping Americans truly safe. Oh, you expected them to protect your health? Yes, they will. In partnership with the Easter Bunny. The Tooth Fairy had enough and decamped to the…
Each year, the U.S. spends $26.2 billion on costs associated with preterm birth — that’s birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond the costs, babies born too early experience immediate and long-term problems, from developmental disabilities to asthma to hearing loss. For years, scientists have…
I'm sure it will be years before we have cleaned up all the garbage -- literally and figuratively -- from the Bush administration's Environmental "Protection" Agency. The notoriously conservative DC Appeals Court, in a unanimous decision, did its part recently when it declared the Bush EPA's…

She turned me into a newt!