Posted on 01/14/2003 12:18:38 PM PST by cogitator
Smog Not Beneficial, EPA Concludes
WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2003 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected an argument that ground level ozone, or smog, provides protection from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and should therefore be considered beneficial to humans.
A final decision published by the EPA on Monday found a lack of scientific support for industry claims that ground level ozone is beneficial, and states that it would be inappropriate to weaken existing smog standards. The finding came in the EPA's response to a May 1999 court ordered remand in the lawsuit American Trucking v. USEPA, a case in which industry launched a multi-pronged challenge to the 1997 national air quality standards for ozone.
"Industry's efforts to equate smog with sun block is yet another dodge by polluters who don't want to clean up," said Howard Fox of Earthjustice, which represented the American Lung Association in the case. "Asthmatics, kids, and others who suffer the health impacts of smog need the improved protection offered by these standards."
According to EPA estimates, the 1997 standards, once implemented, will prevent tens of thousands of occurrences of respiratory symptoms such as painful breathing, reductions of lung function, and asthma attacks-as well as many hospital admissions and emergency room visits. During the EPA's deliberations on the 1997 standards, industry argued that controlling ground level ozone - also known as tropospheric ozone - could harm public health by allowing more ultraviolet B sunlight to reach earth.
In the 1999 American Trucking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit directed the EPA to consider the issue, although the court expressed no opinion on what conclusion the agency should reach.
"These industry claims are nonsense," said John Kirkwood, president and chief executive officer of the American Lung Association. "Ozone is a toxic gas that is like getting a sunburn on your lungs. How can this possibly be beneficial? We applaud EPA for rejecting this pseudo-science argument."
After considering public comments, EPA decided to reaffirm the 1997 standard, indicating that the allegations about ultraviolet sunlight are "too uncertain at this time to warrant any relaxation in the level of public health protection previously determined to be requisite to protect against demonstrated direct adverse respiratory effects of exposure to O3 [ozone] in the ambient air."
Moreover, the EPA expressed the view that the influence of ground level ozone on ultraviolet radiation is likely "very small from a public health perspective."
I don't feel like contributing today.
~~~ Wait until you see "Unable to locate server"I don't have money.
~~~Help with the fundraiser. Bump the threads, ping your FRiends.
There's plenty of time to donate.
~~~Bill collectors don't see it that way.
I don't know where to contribute.
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
I've got too many other things to do first.
~~~Don't we all?
I can't contribute much, what's five dollars?
~~~If everyone contributed one dollar a month, we'd never have a fundraiser again.
The dog ate my credit card.
~~~Shoot the dog.
Just let me finish freeping.
~~~BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It would have been bigger news if smog had been found to be beneficial.
Actually ozone is a naturally occuring gas that isn't harmful. People could breath concentrations of ozone 100 times as strong as they do now and wouldn't suffer any ill effects. The junk science is that proffered by the EPA and the American Lung Ass. and their environmentalist buddies.
The objective is not cleaner air, for these people, it is higher costs for "evil" industry. That "sheeple" like you go along with their ridiculous claims is the sad thing.
In the end it is consumers, people like you and I, who pay for their imiginary science, through higher costs of living.
PS smog is not ozone. Smog is a word the environmentalists use to scare "sheeple" as you call them, into believing them. For some reason most people always seem to prefer to believe that the sky is falling. Don't know why they do, but it costs society billions in wasted productivity.
DC electric motors create ozone. Your kid's remote control car pollutes. It is 80% poisonous heavy metals by weight (batteries with cadmium). Geez, poison gases and dangerous chemicals. What kinda parents are we?
Life is terminal. BOO!
Here we have a bit of misdirection. It isn't just the ozone that is the problem, it is a wide range of other pollutants in smog that are even more toxic. Ozone IS of course known to be toxic in high concentrations and can lead to health problems, and to say otherwise is simply wrong. Where are you getting your information from?
The junk science is that proffered by the EPA and the American Lung Ass. and their environmentalist buddies.
Whenever I see the term junk science, it is usually uttered in an attempt to ridicule information detrimental to industrial interests. What's ironic is that it is usually those same interests that truly utilize junk science in an effort to contradict valid concerns and factual scientific evidence.
As it is almost always the case where the only junk science is that used by industry to placate the ignorant in order to avoid their responsibility in safeguarding the environment we must all live in, I facetiously used the term myself. I was just waiting to see how long it would take for someone to utilize that term in the manner in which it is normally used, eg. industry never releases toxic substances into the environment where it can cause harm, everything that industry states is true, and anybody saying otherwise is guilty of using junk science.
So here, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with smog, right?
I know that PS (photochemical smog) is not only ozone. It is Nitrous Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Nitric acid vapor, Nitric Oxide, Aldehydes, Hyrdrocarbons , Peroxyacyl nitrates (PANs), and ozone.
Types and Sources of Air Pollution
Industrial smog on the other hand is a soup of noxious substances, such as sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, as well as all the other tasty substances that I linked in my previous post.
I suppose you find nothing wrong with breathing those substances?
The only thing making industry "evil" is the fact that they attempt to portray toxic substances as perfectly safe, and paint those that say otherwise as a wacko.
That "sheeple" like you go along with their ridiculous claims is the sad thing.
So if you question the position of corporate entities that attempt to portray noxious fumes as harmless, that makes one a "sheeple"? What is sad is that you appear to believe anything and everything coming from corporations that care less about health than they do about their own profit margins.
The article refered to a legal challenge to mandated ozone levels, not a legal challenge to "a wide range of other pollutants in smog" levels. Equating ozone and smog is simply an attempt to scare people.
"So here, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with smog, right? "
sheesh..... whats the point? I am saying the same thing as I did in my first post but it is clear by your question that you didn't read it or couldn't comprehend it the first time. I don't have much hope you will do any better the second time around. Good luck in life. I have a feeling you will need it.
Ozone in high enough concentrations is a health hazard. Additionally, ozone is a byproduct of photochemical smog, so there is a direct association between the two. Why would anyone want to "scare" people? It seems to me, government is more than happy to bend the rules and look the other way for the right campaign donors, and often give in to corporate concerns to the detriment of public health. So for them to come forward and make this statement, they must have realized that the health risks far outweigh whatever political pressure has been exerted upon them to ignore the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.