More About the EPA's Malfeasance

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 expert advice, it did not even
follow the Clean Air Act.



Medpage Today has a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/tb/4158">scathing
article about the response of the medical community to the
new EPA standards for PM2.5.  


NEW YORK, Sept. 22 -- The Environmental Protection
Agency's new emission standards for soot have drawn scorn from medical
societies and public health advocacy groups that predict dire
cardiovascular and pulmonary fallout.



They allege that the EPA's new emission standards for soot, also known
as fine particulate matter, will jeopardize patients with
cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases and other conditions.



"The science is clear," said John E. Heffner, M.D., president of the
American Thoracic Society, which is based here. "People develop
respiratory disorders and those with existing lung, heart, and other
chronic diseases die prematurely because they are exposed to these
microscopic pollutants at levels well below those set by the EPA."



"Unfortunately, EPA's standards fail to protect the health of the
public, despite the requirement in the Clean Air Act that they must,"
echoed John L. Kirkwood, president and CEO of the American Lung
Association. "Overwhelming evidence shows that millions of people
suffer unnecessarily, even face an earlier death, because they breathe
this pollution. EPA could have, should have done better."...



The article goes on to point out the the EPA actually did not change
the limit on the average concentration of PM2.5
particles (averaged over one year).  It merely lowered the
limit on peak concentration (averaged over a 24-hour period).
 That means that polluters can still release just as much
pollution; they simply have to limit the peak discharges.  


More like this

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…
A couple of weeks ago, EPA proposed a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone (0.07 â 0.075 ppb) that was lower than the current limit (0.08 ppb) but not as protective as the limit many experts suggested (0.06). The agency also announced that it would be taking comments on alternative…
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…
I was eight years old on the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970.  "Give a hoot, don't pollute!" was the slogan for us kids.   When we'd see a newscast with factory stacks spewing thick gray smoke we'd say "yuck."  We'd hold our noses when tailpipes of junker cars belched exhaust.   In our minds, air…

Disgusting. Remember when we were young, and idealistic, and were deluded enough to believe that government agencies actually wanted to protect the health of citizens, regardless of the cost to corporations? Ha.

Is the health hazard from the pollution a problem of total volume or rate of dispersion (and hence dillution) into the atmosphere?
If you want to affect the dispersion rate then you would want to limit peak discharge.
Perhaps there is something in the problem I am missing, but if the soot is allowed to disperse and settle then isn't the lung hazard reduced?
To be honest, I probably introduce multiple sources of tiny particular matter everytime I burn something on the stove. Buy something new and smell it outgass solvent. The people who have cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases are in more danger from the disease than the soot.
Maybe you could ask your "polluters" to help pay for environmentally clean bubbles for your patients. You know if you asked them nicely, I bet they would.