
EPA Science Panel Considering Guidelines That Upend Basic Air Pollution Science - Ultramanoid
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/707166015/epa-science-panel-considering-guidelines-that-upend-basic-air-pollution-science
======
alexandercrohde
Just a reminder example on why air pollution matters -- "Air pollution causes
huge reduction in intelligence"
\--[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-
poll...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-
causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals)

Here's a google-scholar search if you really want to dive deep-
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air+pollution+iq+china&btnG=)

Read some of THOSE articles and you'll encounter interesting tidbits like "The
evidence was also sufficient for the association between pre- or postnatal
exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and autism spectrum disorder, and
limited evidence was encountered between nitrogen oxides and autism spectrum
disorder."

------
Johnny555
Seems like the simple solution would be to fill the homes and offices of the 7
advisory members with the level of particulate contamination they feel is
safe. Let them eat their own dog food.

It's easy to declare something safe that _others_ are exposed to when your own
wealth and position means you and your family won't face it.

------
userbinator
_At a public meeting Thursday that ran nearly two hours long, multiple members
of that committee, including Chair Tony Cox and Steven Packham of the Utah
Division of Air Quality, said they do not agree that breathing air polluted
with soot can lead to an early death._

I wonder if they smoke, and overall how healthy they are...

~~~
hanniabu
I wonder who's lining their pockets

~~~
maxxxxx
It may not even be money. There are a lot of ideologues out there who will do
the job for free.

~~~
basementcat
I think it is important to remember that elected representatives are analogous
to legal counsel—- they are duty bound to do everything they can to advocate
for the wishes of their clients or constituents. The constituents who elect
public servants do not make their decisions lightly (perhaps the economy of a
certain district would benefit from more liberalized industrial emission
regulations). It doesn’t matter if the public servants believe what they say,
they know they have to advocate these policies to best serve their
constituents.

~~~
maxxxxx
The question is who they view as their constituents. Often it's not the voters
but only a very small subset. In modern Washington politics they will also put
the priorities of their party above the voters.

~~~
basementcat
Public servants (in the USA, regardless of party) who do not have the support
of a majority their (voting) constituents seldom keep their jobs past the next
election.

~~~
maxxxxx
You still can misinform the majority of the constituents to stay in line with
the interests of the small number of the people you really listen to. I would
argue this is happening with health care, tax cuts and a lot of subsidies.

~~~
bradknowles
That's pretty much all politics, for the history of mankind.

Nothing new there.

------
itchyjunk
On the one hand, I want strong air pollution control policies. Death or no, I
don't like to see smog in this SLC valley.

On the other hand, I don't want an distorted views on evidence. We know what
we know and if we aren't sure, we should say so. It's not good to misinterpret
data no matter how righteous your goals are.

~~~
hedora
Particulate inhalation is currently one of the leading causes of death of
women in third world countries (due to smoke from cooking).

Also, there was this thing called black lung disease the UK had a problem with
during the industrial revolution...

There has been scientific consensus on this for centuries, if not millenia.

------
cybervegan
Who's paying Cox? I can almost taste the tinge of corporate interest.

~~~
jupp0r
Isn’t the federal government paying him enough these days?

~~~
torpfactory
Step 1: Be a shill for large corporate interests. Step 2: Be appointed to a
powerful government oversight board and spew FUD intended limit oversight of
large corporate interests. Step 3: (Profit) Return to industry after your
stint in government to an even larger payday for services rendered.

------
oli5679
I find this a bit surprising.

Is anyone familiar with the literature on this, and able to point to a
relevant review article?

Also, am I right in thinking that some of the diesel car emission concerns
related to Nox, rather than particulate emissions?

~~~
et2o
They are raising FUD about the research. One of the guys has a PhD in medical
psychology and appears to be a right wing nut. There is a nice quote in the
article:

"It's kind of like the same issues that came up with tobacco denial of health
effects or denial of climate change health effects," Frey says. "There's a
very small community that have scientific credentials but are moving outside
their area of expertise to try to raise doubt after doubt after doubt on
issues where they really don't have the strongest competence."

------
ams6110
A lot of the fake research recently uncovered at Duke University was related
to studies of the effects of pollution, ozone, and particulates.

------
Nasrudith
It is clear that they don't want to know the inconvenient truth. Even a
pendantic spinned "technically gains from reducing soot are overestimated
because other unrelated causes would kill most before the other problems would
even develop".

It would be far more promising and interesting if say throughly trained
athleted or the right rare gene combinations could autorepair lungs without
medical intervention to ensure no lasting damage or significant cancer risk.
Humans have lived in deserts for millenia so that would be a niche adaptive
trait too even if not reproductively overwhelmingly relevant. Of course that
would imvolve actual science.

