Hoss 350
My GSP, Dutch
To continue my rant from the CAT post, how many of you are aware that the 2007 emissions regulations, which are mostly designed to reduce PM, and will cost HUGE amounts of money on the sticker price of a diesel truck, were specifically designed off of a fatally flawed study that proved absolutely nothing to every epidemiologist that ever looked at it?
To summarize, the study looked at populations all over the country that were near (within 5 miles) of a PM sampling site. The study found a tendency for people in the higher PM areas to visit the hospital more often (something like 17%), and to (on average) die 9 months earlier than people in low PM areas. At face value, this all looks well and good. Until you dig into the study a little more. I will present a list of some of the more dubious claims/representations/outright lies that they presented.
1.) The statistics for increased hospital visits did not take into account the type of injury/illness that was the reason for the visit. Injuries resulting from drug overdoses, lacerations, car accidents, falls, bacterial infection, viral infection, cancer, and every other reason to go to the hospital (including, one must assume, pregnancy and childbirth) were included in the study. The study merely found an increase in hospital visits in high PM areas. So, one must conclude that PM caused the woman to get pregnant, the prostate cancer, the car accident, etc for this to actually mean something in the study. Since it is ludicrous to think that, it is also ludicrous to assume that the increased hospital visits mean anything in relation to PM.
2.) Even if the type of injury/illness were narrowed down to those that logically could occur as a result of PM (ie, pneumonia & lung infection, lung cancer, etc), and there was still an indication of increased hospital visits, it still means nothing. This is because NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has ever conducted a study that successfully shows that PM causes harm at the levels that we see, even in highly polluted areas. In fact, no one has proven PM to cause harm until the environment is so choked with PM that it is obviously a problem (ie black lung in coal miners). So, it is even dubious to assume that increased respiratory strain could be attributed to the PM. Take note that we, as a species, have been sucking down PM since the dawn of time in the form of wind blown dust, pollen, and smoke.
3.) There was no adjustment made for the fact that typically, high PM areas are also the more urban and depressed areas in our country. This means that violent crime, drug and alcohol use, automobile accidents (from urban traffic), quality of life (stress levels), and generally how well people take care of themselves, among other things, could easily be causing the slight increase in hospital stays and the premature death rates.
4.) There is no adjustment for the age of the populations, taken as an average. The average age of the populations differed by as much as a decade. It is then logical that the number of hospital stays would be quite different over populations that divergent in age.
5.) Populations that did not “tow the party line” were excluded. Several southerly populations, including New Orleans, were listed as high PM areas but did not show any increase in hospital visits or death rate. Therefore, these areas were excluded as “abhorrations” from the study. If these populations are added back in, any indications made by the study in its current form are negated. It then becomes obvious why they were excluded. Without a problem to solve, the EPA becomes obsolete, so they are now bending data to create non-existent problems to justify their existence.
6.) The percentages and trends displayed are so low as to be ignored in most epidemiological studies. Most epidemiologists will ignore trends showing increases less than 150%. This one shows a trend of 17%. It is almost laughable.
7.) The EPA assigned an arbitrary number of $5 million dollars to every life cut short by PM exposure, thereby coming up with an astronomical number to “prove” to the public that by spending this huge amount of money to clean up PM, they were actually saving money. It is somewhat beyond me how they made this claim, since the study shows a 9 month decrease in life span (again, a laughably small number that should be dismissed as a statistical anomaly, especially after the “abhorrations” were excluded) and I am at a loss as to how 9 months of someone’s life is worth 5 million dollars to the US GDP. Especially considering that 9 months at the end of someone’s life are typically non-productive months, where they are not contributing anything to GDP anyway.
I guess I should stop now. But I figured you guys might want to know some of this.
I am not pro-pollution. I am for making sure we do not waste countless millions cleaning up a non-issue when the money could be spent elsewhere, actually doing some good.
/rant
To summarize, the study looked at populations all over the country that were near (within 5 miles) of a PM sampling site. The study found a tendency for people in the higher PM areas to visit the hospital more often (something like 17%), and to (on average) die 9 months earlier than people in low PM areas. At face value, this all looks well and good. Until you dig into the study a little more. I will present a list of some of the more dubious claims/representations/outright lies that they presented.
1.) The statistics for increased hospital visits did not take into account the type of injury/illness that was the reason for the visit. Injuries resulting from drug overdoses, lacerations, car accidents, falls, bacterial infection, viral infection, cancer, and every other reason to go to the hospital (including, one must assume, pregnancy and childbirth) were included in the study. The study merely found an increase in hospital visits in high PM areas. So, one must conclude that PM caused the woman to get pregnant, the prostate cancer, the car accident, etc for this to actually mean something in the study. Since it is ludicrous to think that, it is also ludicrous to assume that the increased hospital visits mean anything in relation to PM.
2.) Even if the type of injury/illness were narrowed down to those that logically could occur as a result of PM (ie, pneumonia & lung infection, lung cancer, etc), and there was still an indication of increased hospital visits, it still means nothing. This is because NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has ever conducted a study that successfully shows that PM causes harm at the levels that we see, even in highly polluted areas. In fact, no one has proven PM to cause harm until the environment is so choked with PM that it is obviously a problem (ie black lung in coal miners). So, it is even dubious to assume that increased respiratory strain could be attributed to the PM. Take note that we, as a species, have been sucking down PM since the dawn of time in the form of wind blown dust, pollen, and smoke.
3.) There was no adjustment made for the fact that typically, high PM areas are also the more urban and depressed areas in our country. This means that violent crime, drug and alcohol use, automobile accidents (from urban traffic), quality of life (stress levels), and generally how well people take care of themselves, among other things, could easily be causing the slight increase in hospital stays and the premature death rates.
4.) There is no adjustment for the age of the populations, taken as an average. The average age of the populations differed by as much as a decade. It is then logical that the number of hospital stays would be quite different over populations that divergent in age.
5.) Populations that did not “tow the party line” were excluded. Several southerly populations, including New Orleans, were listed as high PM areas but did not show any increase in hospital visits or death rate. Therefore, these areas were excluded as “abhorrations” from the study. If these populations are added back in, any indications made by the study in its current form are negated. It then becomes obvious why they were excluded. Without a problem to solve, the EPA becomes obsolete, so they are now bending data to create non-existent problems to justify their existence.
6.) The percentages and trends displayed are so low as to be ignored in most epidemiological studies. Most epidemiologists will ignore trends showing increases less than 150%. This one shows a trend of 17%. It is almost laughable.
7.) The EPA assigned an arbitrary number of $5 million dollars to every life cut short by PM exposure, thereby coming up with an astronomical number to “prove” to the public that by spending this huge amount of money to clean up PM, they were actually saving money. It is somewhat beyond me how they made this claim, since the study shows a 9 month decrease in life span (again, a laughably small number that should be dismissed as a statistical anomaly, especially after the “abhorrations” were excluded) and I am at a loss as to how 9 months of someone’s life is worth 5 million dollars to the US GDP. Especially considering that 9 months at the end of someone’s life are typically non-productive months, where they are not contributing anything to GDP anyway.
I guess I should stop now. But I figured you guys might want to know some of this.
I am not pro-pollution. I am for making sure we do not waste countless millions cleaning up a non-issue when the money could be spent elsewhere, actually doing some good.
/rant
