Source: EPA Website.  Click to expand.

By Steve Haner

“Everything is a poison, nothing is a poison. It is the dose that makes the poison” – Paracelsus (1493-1541 AD)

A micron is a tiny thing. A grain of beach sand is about 90 microns, and a human hair 50 to 70 microns in diameter. In the coming session of the General Assembly, you are about to hear that micron-sized particles are sickening and killing you. Do not believe it.   

The focus will be on particulate matter (dust) of 2.5 microns or less, known as PM 2.5. On a recent web presentation by the Virginia League for Conservation Voters, a Northern Virginia cardiologist claimed it was proven “rock solid” to cause heart attacks, asthma, atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure and even diabetes.

This particular December 8 presentation was in support of planned legislation to require auto dealers and manufacturers to comply here in Virginia with the California mandates on low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. The same effort to blame health issues on PM 2.5 will be at the heart of the argument over the proposed Transportation and Climate Initiative carbon tax.

This debate was just concluded before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which declined earlier this month to lower the national air quality standard for PM 2.5, a standard that Virginia already exceeds comfortably. Lest you blame this on Trump Administration leniency, the current standard was set in 2012 and parts of it are even older.

Unwilling to argue with a physician, I went and found my own expert, my colleague in the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, David W. Schnare.  Schnare is a doctorate-holding career environmental regulator, and he promptly sent me a quick paper which I can share.

“PM2.5 does not threaten the health of Virginia citizens. It does not cause excess death, it does not cause asthma, it does not cause more death from COVID. PM2.5 levels in Virginia are very low and are well below national standards,” Schnare summarized.

The EPA standard that every part of Virginia meets is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. When you breathe in an entire cubic meter of air, fewer than 12 micrograms of PM 2.5 enter your lungs (usually far fewer).  In comparison, one cigarette deposits from 10,000 to 40,000 micrograms of PM 2.5 into your body.

In other parts of the world, and the physician on the webinar was quite honest about this, far higher levels of PM 2.5 are common. The World Health Organization has a safety standard of 10 micrograms per cubic meter, slightly tighter than EPA but still a standard that Virginia localities meet easily.

Reducing particulate matter in the U.S. has been one of many goals and accomplishments of decades of clean air regulations. The claim that zero PM 2.5 is either possible or even of any value is hotly contested, with published results to dispute it. Schnare has 25 citations on his report.

Only a small portion of the PM 2.5 still in Virginia air even comes from automobile or truck engines, something else the VLCV physician admitted. Construction activities, industrial processes, agricultural activities, dust from dirt roads, fires and just life in general produce a background level of particles. If TCI passes, basically all existing PM 2.5 will remain.

The famed Renaissance physician I quoted at the start, Paracelsus, set the scientific bar when he demanded that claims about poisons be supported by evidence, a dose-response relationship. Over 20 years asthma prevalence in the U.S. has risen while PM 2.5 measurements have steadily declined. The conclusion is there is no dose-response relationship. PM 2.5 at current levels does not cause asthma.

Schnare highlights peer-reviewed work reviewed by EPA that found no relationship between either ozone or PM 2.5 at the current accepted levels and deaths from any cause. He also cites a recent study (something not getting much attention) that cigarette smokers with their particle-soaked lungs are doing better with COVID-19 than non-smokers.

Advocates for both of the two anti-gasoline approaches which will be pushed in January – either the zero emission vehicle mandates or the carbon tax and rationing approach of TCI – build on the shaky foundation of claimed PM 2.5 (and ozone) dangers. The levels are higher in some Virginia urban areas, if still below the national standards. Therefore, the worst impacts must be assumed among lower-income urban residents. This brings in claims of racial unfairness.

They follow with claims that reducing the use of fossil fuels by X percent will save a specific number of lives, prevent a specific number of non-fatal illnesses, and in general save society a specific number of billions of dollars. This is fruit of a poisoned scientific tree because it all rests on assumptions that the combustion byproducts involved are directly at fault.

The health argument is a distraction. What advocates for both are really after, of course, is to push people out of fossil fuel vehicles and into electric vehicles or mass transit, also preferably with electric motors. They would be more honest  just talking about that goal, which is based on their firm belief that rising carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change.

Advocates for the TCI carbon tax approach are also after the revenue, estimated to be up to $9 billion within the region over ten years. At least the LEV and ZEV approach produces no tax bonanza for politicians to spend.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

157 responses to “EPA: PM 2.5 At Current Levels is No Threat”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Is this article about the same issue? :

    “Trump administration rejects tougher standards on soot, a deadly air pollutant

    The Environmental Protection Agency retained the current thresholds for fine-particle pollution for another five years, despite mounting evidence linking air pollution to lethal outcomes in respiratory illnesses, including covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Documents obtained by The Washington Post show that the EPA has disregarded concerns raised by some administration officials that several of its air policy rollbacks would disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities.

    In its decision announced Monday, the EPA maintained that the Obama-era levels, set in 2012, are adequately protective of human health. Agency scientists had recommended lowering the annual particulate matter standard to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic meter in a draft report last year, citing estimates that reducing the limit to 9 could save between 9,050 and 34,600 lives a year.

    The current national standards limit annual concentrations of soot and other chemicals to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Emissions on specific days are allowed to be as high as 35 per cubic meter, a standard set 14 years ago. These fine particles — which measure less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the width of a human hair — can enter the lungs and bloodstream, causing inflammation that can lead to asthma, heart attacks and other illnesses.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/07/trump-air-pollution/

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Classic Fake News. Printing the claims of the alarmists as if they were established fact, and ignoring counter-claims from qualified sources. Where else have we seen that…..?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I can find other reports. The question was – is this the same issue?

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    Is this article about the same issue? :

    “Trump administration rejects tougher standards on soot, a deadly air pollutant

    The Environmental Protection Agency retained the current thresholds for fine-particle pollution for another five years, despite mounting evidence linking air pollution to lethal outcomes in respiratory illnesses, including covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Documents obtained by The Washington Post show that the EPA has disregarded concerns raised by some administration officials that several of its air policy rollbacks would disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities.

    In its decision announced Monday, the EPA maintained that the Obama-era levels, set in 2012, are adequately protective of human health. Agency scientists had recommended lowering the annual particulate matter standard to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic meter in a draft report last year, citing estimates that reducing the limit to 9 could save between 9,050 and 34,600 lives a year.

    The current national standards limit annual concentrations of soot and other chemicals to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Emissions on specific days are allowed to be as high as 35 per cubic meter, a standard set 14 years ago. These fine particles — which measure less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the width of a human hair — can enter the lungs and bloodstream, causing inflammation that can lead to asthma, heart attacks and other illnesses.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/07/trump-air-pollution/

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Classic Fake News. Printing the claims of the alarmists as if they were established fact, and ignoring counter-claims from qualified sources. Where else have we seen that…..?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I can find other reports. The question was – is this the same issue?

  3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Doctorate-holding? MD? JD? Ph.D? History? English? Maybe something less relevant, like biology?

    Hmmm, non-harmful particulate matter? Asbestos? Plutonium? Silicates?

    How’s the kidneys, Doc? Denying science whenever it presents evidence.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=particulate+matter+2.5&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      He said it wasn’t an issue at levels of 12… never said it wasn’t an issue left unchecked. The journals you cited had studies done in China for f_cks sake.
      And I found Mr Schnare’s bio on the Googlebot… he is MORE than qualified to speak on the issue. Senior Attorney in Compliance and Enforcement at EPA… managed the EPA office of Groundwater and Drinking Water… Phd and JD.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          “50 µg/mL for 24 h ….100 µg/mL for 7 days”: That would not be a level anybody gets in the ambient air anywhere in the Commonwealth. And it was applied directly on skin.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Yeah, well, that’s one. And really, who uses 30 packets of saccharine daily? You’re right, dose matters.

            Why, look at Rasputin, not to be confused with just Putin, and what one can accomplished with judicious applications of arsenic.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Here, “-China”
        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&as_vis=1&q=particulate+matter+2.5+-China&btnG=
        Better?

        You can look at just this year’s stuff if you want by clicking “since 2020”

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      See below: Don’t want to insert his bio in the flow….

  4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Doctorate-holding? MD? JD? Ph.D? History? English? Maybe something less relevant, like biology?

    Hmmm, non-harmful particulate matter? Asbestos? Plutonium? Silicates?

    How’s the kidneys, Doc? Denying science whenever it presents evidence.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=particulate+matter+2.5&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      He said it wasn’t an issue at levels of 12… never said it wasn’t an issue left unchecked. The journals you cited had studies done in China for f_cks sake.
      And I found Mr Schnare’s bio on the Googlebot… he is MORE than qualified to speak on the issue. Senior Attorney in Compliance and Enforcement at EPA… managed the EPA office of Groundwater and Drinking Water… Phd and JD.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          “50 µg/mL for 24 h ….100 µg/mL for 7 days”: That would not be a level anybody gets in the ambient air anywhere in the Commonwealth. And it was applied directly on skin.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Yeah, well, that’s one. And really, who uses 30 packets of saccharine daily? You’re right, dose matters.

            Why, look at Rasputin, not to be confused with just Putin, and what one can accomplished with judicious applications of arsenic.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Here, “-China”
        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&as_vis=1&q=particulate+matter+2.5+-China&btnG=
        Better?

        You can look at just this year’s stuff if you want by clicking “since 2020”

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      See below: Don’t want to insert his bio in the flow….

  5. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    So everyone remember something here…
    If regs like this pass that means these become the new standards frm which permit limits are determined.
    My point is this: this will become an Environmental Justice so a racism issue with the GA. The EJ community beats a war drum about BIPOCs having higher rates of asthma due to proximity to manufacturing. This may very mean that some companies will not locate to Virginia due to the cost to meet emission limits based on what may well be a standard that in reality is just moving the bar a millionth of a percent in total air quality. That is all well and good, but don’t complain or ask for a variance when a new company won’t locate a facility in an area with real ew conomic need.
    My first example will be the proposed wind turbine yard in Portsmouth…. Wind turbines produce green energy but building them is far far from green….

  6. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    So everyone remember something here…
    If regs like this pass that means these become the new standards frm which permit limits are determined.
    My point is this: this will become an Environmental Justice so a racism issue with the GA. The EJ community beats a war drum about BIPOCs having higher rates of asthma due to proximity to manufacturing. This may very mean that some companies will not locate to Virginia due to the cost to meet emission limits based on what may well be a standard that in reality is just moving the bar a millionth of a percent in total air quality. That is all well and good, but don’t complain or ask for a variance when a new company won’t locate a facility in an area with real ew conomic need.
    My first example will be the proposed wind turbine yard in Portsmouth…. Wind turbines produce green energy but building them is far far from green….

  7. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Dr. David Schnare — Dr. David Schnare, Esq., Ph.D. is an attorney and scientist with 40 years of federal and private sector experience consulting on and litigating local, state, federal and international environmental legislative, regulatory, risk management and free-market environmentalism issues.

    He received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina (1979) and Juris Doctor Cum Laude from the George Mason University School of Law (1999).

    Formerly the nation’s Chief Regulatory Analyst for Small Business in (Office of Small Business Advocacy), Dr. Schnare has experience on Congressional staff, as a trial lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, as senior enforcement counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and as an appellate attorney for private clients. He is a member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second and Fourth Circuits, and the Supreme Court of Virginia.

    Dr. Schnare is an administrative law specialist and has served on the ABA’s Administrative Law Council and as Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section’s Continuing Education Committee. His practice has included a federal, state and local caseload. He maintains an active program of academic research supporting local and state legislative initiatives and has federal regulatory experience with EPA, OSHA, IRS, NMFS, NOAA, FDA, HRSA, ATSDR, CDC, FAA, Bu.Rec., BLM, MMS, FWS, and the Corps of Engineers. In addition to his position as a Senior Attorney in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Dr. Schnare is Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (pro bono). He has served as a Director of the George Mason University School of Law Alumni Association Board, and serves as Director of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition and as Chairman of the Coalition’s Environment and Land Use Committee.

    In addition to legal responsibilities, Dr. Schnare has managed EPA’s Office of Ground-Water and Drinking Water Economic, Legislative and Policy Analysis Branch and has made contributions on a variety of environmental and policy issues, as reflected in his published works. He is the author and editor of 60 books, chapters, and major articles on environmental management, policy and law.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I was being polite to the VLCV’s medical witness in the column. He was pulling classic bait and switch tactics, citing the horror of PM based on exposure to massive amounts (like the Post), and then slipping in the caveat that of course we don’t face those levels in Virginia….He mentioned 6-9 being the level in VA, but Schnare found recent examples (see his paper) more like 4-6. If I could have found the MD’s PPT posted somewhere I’d have dug into that, but all I have are my notes.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Small business, small particulate, same difference. How many publications does he have on the physiological effects of PM2.5? Substituting one science-denyer for another is not scientific.

      BTW, FYI, water and air are two different things. Water, for example is safely carried in asbestos-concrete pipes in many locales, Chesapeake for example. Wouldn’t want my breathing air delivered so.

      Smoking is certainly an issue, but as Groucho once quipped famously, “Good God lady, even I take my cigar out once in awhile,” or words to that effect.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        You are free to look up any of the 25 papers he cites. Mainly he pointed me to the EPA decision itself, and I assume plenty of air issue experts were all over that on both sides. He is more of a water expert, as I recall. You are slipping into ad hominem here….a sign of weakness. 🙂

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I know it’s another ad hominem, but Trump’s EPA?
          👺

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            Versus Obama’s EPA that often went beyond the boundaries of the controlling statutes.

        2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          Steve,

          NN, former college professor at a Virginia, is not a serous person. You are. NN is playing you like a mouth harp. Why play along with her?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Steve is a serious person? Why insult him so? Life is far too important to be taken seriously. Your problem is clear.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I sorta took it as advice to Steve that he was incapable of debating a non-serious person. GAWD.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            To Larry
            I had the opportunity to attend a talk by some guy who was part of the Paris Accords troop of presenters and whatever. I wasn’t really interested, just attending.

            He was miffed that of the three big contributors discussed as climate changers, C, CO, and CO2, everyone glommed onto CO2, what he called the hardest of the Golden Apples to reach.

            He was all about soot. It changes the Earth’s albedo, poses a health risk, and in his opinion, was the low hanging fruit. It was easily within our technology reach to reduce airborne carbon significantly.

            Of course, that’s all I remember.

            And who says I ain’t serious. Aside from me.

  8. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Dr. David Schnare — Dr. David Schnare, Esq., Ph.D. is an attorney and scientist with 40 years of federal and private sector experience consulting on and litigating local, state, federal and international environmental legislative, regulatory, risk management and free-market environmentalism issues.

    He received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina (1979) and Juris Doctor Cum Laude from the George Mason University School of Law (1999).

    Formerly the nation’s Chief Regulatory Analyst for Small Business in (Office of Small Business Advocacy), Dr. Schnare has experience on Congressional staff, as a trial lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, as senior enforcement counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and as an appellate attorney for private clients. He is a member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second and Fourth Circuits, and the Supreme Court of Virginia.

    Dr. Schnare is an administrative law specialist and has served on the ABA’s Administrative Law Council and as Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section’s Continuing Education Committee. His practice has included a federal, state and local caseload. He maintains an active program of academic research supporting local and state legislative initiatives and has federal regulatory experience with EPA, OSHA, IRS, NMFS, NOAA, FDA, HRSA, ATSDR, CDC, FAA, Bu.Rec., BLM, MMS, FWS, and the Corps of Engineers. In addition to his position as a Senior Attorney in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Dr. Schnare is Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (pro bono). He has served as a Director of the George Mason University School of Law Alumni Association Board, and serves as Director of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition and as Chairman of the Coalition’s Environment and Land Use Committee.

    In addition to legal responsibilities, Dr. Schnare has managed EPA’s Office of Ground-Water and Drinking Water Economic, Legislative and Policy Analysis Branch and has made contributions on a variety of environmental and policy issues, as reflected in his published works. He is the author and editor of 60 books, chapters, and major articles on environmental management, policy and law.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I was being polite to the VLCV’s medical witness in the column. He was pulling classic bait and switch tactics, citing the horror of PM based on exposure to massive amounts (like the Post), and then slipping in the caveat that of course we don’t face those levels in Virginia….He mentioned 6-9 being the level in VA, but Schnare found recent examples (see his paper) more like 4-6. If I could have found the MD’s PPT posted somewhere I’d have dug into that, but all I have are my notes.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Small business, small particulate, same difference. How many publications does he have on the physiological effects of PM2.5? Substituting one science-denyer for another is not scientific.

      BTW, FYI, water and air are two different things. Water, for example is safely carried in asbestos-concrete pipes in many locales, Chesapeake for example. Wouldn’t want my breathing air delivered so.

      Smoking is certainly an issue, but as Groucho once quipped famously, “Good God lady, even I take my cigar out once in awhile,” or words to that effect.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        You are free to look up any of the 25 papers he cites. Mainly he pointed me to the EPA decision itself, and I assume plenty of air issue experts were all over that on both sides. He is more of a water expert, as I recall. You are slipping into ad hominem here….a sign of weakness. 🙂

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I know it’s another ad hominem, but Trump’s EPA?
          👺

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            Versus Obama’s EPA that often went beyond the boundaries of the controlling statutes.

        2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          Steve,

          NN, former college professor at a Virginia, is not a serous person. You are. NN is playing you like a mouth harp. Why play along with her?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            To Larry
            I had the opportunity to attend a talk by some guy who was part of the Paris Accords troop of presenters and whatever. I wasn’t really interested, just attending.

            He was miffed that of the three big contributors discussed as climate changers, C, CO, and CO2, everyone glommed onto CO2, what he called the hardest of the Golden Apples to reach.

            He was all about soot. It changes the Earth’s albedo, poses a health risk, and in his opinion, was the low hanging fruit. It was easily within our technology reach to reduce airborne carbon significantly.

            Of course, that’s all I remember.

            And who says I ain’t serious. Aside from me.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Steve is a serious person? Why insult him so? Life is far too important to be taken seriously. Your problem is clear.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            I sorta took it as advice to Steve that he was incapable of debating a non-serious person. GAWD.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    One of the reasons the EPA came into existence is because of the issue of pollution standards varying between states.

    It did no good for one state to have cleaner standards if the adjacent states did not and in fact, used it as an economic incentive.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s called “Acceptable Losses” in military parlance.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    One of the reasons the EPA came into existence is because of the issue of pollution standards varying between states.

    It did no good for one state to have cleaner standards if the adjacent states did not and in fact, used it as an economic incentive.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s called “Acceptable Losses” in military parlance.

  11. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    It is, of course, reasonable to conclude that at certain levels PM2.5 poses insignificant issues to human health. And, it’s good that there are studies, ad nauseam, that would document this, and that lawyers and economists determine “acceptable amounts” that balance the needs of the economy versus the risks of the population.

    But it’s still myopic to consider just ourselves. What of our fellow travelers? Can soot do what DDT could have done? A Silent Sping is still an issue.

  12. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    It is, of course, reasonable to conclude that at certain levels PM2.5 poses insignificant issues to human health. And, it’s good that there are studies, ad nauseam, that would document this, and that lawyers and economists determine “acceptable amounts” that balance the needs of the economy versus the risks of the population.

    But it’s still myopic to consider just ourselves. What of our fellow travelers? Can soot do what DDT could have done? A Silent Sping is still an issue.

  13. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    If you are truly concerned about PM 2.5 push for a ban on wood burning stoves, burning leaves, backyard firepits (wildly popular with my liberal friends), and camp fires….

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Are they really significant sources of PM2.5 over, say, industrial sources?

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      No kidding about the wood stoves. A blue haze all across Blue Mountain in Warren County yesterday. All from woodstoves used by over 4,000 households on Blue Mountain. The parts per million must have triggered an alarm somewhere. Say, the parts per million at the port a potty on top of Blue Mountain will certainly kill.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        Wait until the Green Push occurs and the Northeast won’t have fracked gas or oil to heat their homes…. The electicity will be so expensive you will see a huge increase in homes heated with wood burning stoves….. which, drumroll please, aren’t regulated!
        So yes homes in the winter are a large source of PM 2.5 in certain localities!
        And will be an increasing source in, drumroll please, low income areas (EJ Communities) in the future because they won’t be able to afford to convert their homes to electic heat…

        1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
          Baconator with extra cheese

          So we’ll have another EQUITY issue…

  14. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    If you are truly concerned about PM 2.5 push for a ban on wood burning stoves, burning leaves, backyard firepits (wildly popular with my liberal friends), and camp fires….

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Are they really significant sources of PM2.5 over, say, industrial sources?

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      No kidding about the wood stoves. A blue haze all across Blue Mountain in Warren County yesterday. All from woodstoves used by over 4,000 households on Blue Mountain. The parts per million must have triggered an alarm somewhere. Say, the parts per million at the port a potty on top of Blue Mountain will certainly kill.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        Wait until the Green Push occurs and the Northeast won’t have fracked gas or oil to heat their homes…. The electicity will be so expensive you will see a huge increase in homes heated with wood burning stoves….. which, drumroll please, aren’t regulated!
        So yes homes in the winter are a large source of PM 2.5 in certain localities!
        And will be an increasing source in, drumroll please, low income areas (EJ Communities) in the future because they won’t be able to afford to convert their homes to electic heat…

        1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
          Baconator with extra cheese

          So we’ll have another EQUITY issue…

  15. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    There is a raging debate on this issue. Many of the studies cited by Schnare were authored or co-authored by S.S. Young. His opinion is not shared by all. A recent peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded: “This study involving an open cohort of all persons receiving Medicare, including those from small cities and rural areas, showed that long-term exposures to PM2.5 and ozone were associated with an increased risk of death, even at levels below the current annual NAAQS for PM2.5.” https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    Furthermore, the CDC does not agree with Steve’s assessment that PM2.5 includes particles from construction, dusty roads, etc. According to that organization:
    “Smoke from fires and emissions (releases) from power plants, industrial facilities, and cars and trucks contain PM2.5.
    Coarse (bigger) particles, called PM10, can irritate your eyes, nose, and throat. Dust from roads, farms, dry riverbeds, construction sites, and mines are types of PM10.
    Fine (smaller) particles, called PM2.5, are more dangerous because they can get into the deep parts of your lungs — or even into your blood.”
    https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The only non-attainment area in the US (see Schnare’s EPA map) is LA and the Central Valley of California. Outside of LA, that would be agriculture….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Beyond the enviroment. Nothing out there. No environment.

  16. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    There is a raging debate on this issue. Many of the studies cited by Schnare were authored or co-authored by S.S. Young. His opinion is not shared by all. A recent peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded: “This study involving an open cohort of all persons receiving Medicare, including those from small cities and rural areas, showed that long-term exposures to PM2.5 and ozone were associated with an increased risk of death, even at levels below the current annual NAAQS for PM2.5.” https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    Furthermore, the CDC does not agree with Steve’s assessment that PM2.5 includes particles from construction, dusty roads, etc. According to that organization:
    “Smoke from fires and emissions (releases) from power plants, industrial facilities, and cars and trucks contain PM2.5.
    Coarse (bigger) particles, called PM10, can irritate your eyes, nose, and throat. Dust from roads, farms, dry riverbeds, construction sites, and mines are types of PM10.
    Fine (smaller) particles, called PM2.5, are more dangerous because they can get into the deep parts of your lungs — or even into your blood.”
    https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The only non-attainment area in the US (see Schnare’s EPA map) is LA and the Central Valley of California. Outside of LA, that would be agriculture….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Beyond the enviroment. Nothing out there. No environment.

  17. The environmentalists pushing ever-stricter regulations base their demands on the logic that if a whole lot of something is really bad for you, less of something will be bad for you, too. If we followed their logic, should should ban zinc. Symptoms of zinc poisoning cause aches, pains, vomiting, shock, seizures, fevers, chills, and a host of other maladies. But as it turns out zinc in minute quantities is also essential for human health. Zinc supports cell function as a component of some 100 different enzymes, boosts immune function, promotes wound healing, and maintains the sense of smell and taste. Deficiency can delay sexual maturity, cause diarrhea, and cause skin legions, hair loss, lethargy, weight loss and poor wound healing.

    As Steve quotes Paracelsus: “Everything is a poison, nothing is a poison. It is the dose that makes the poison.”

    Environmentalists seek purity, something akin to an untainted state of nature. (Of course, nature is full of toxins and poisons, too.) This isn’t about science any more. This is environmentalism as religion. Close analogies can be made with ancient religions, in which certain substances were thought to be impure or defiling, and that failure to maintain the taboos will offend the ancestral spirits or the gods.

    Obviously, some substances at certain concentrations do damage human health. We need to control them. But as those concentrations diminish, the risks to human health become infinitesimal, and society’s finite resources are more fruitfully applied elsewhere.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Again, I wish I had the MD’s slides. I recall him saying transportation fuels might be 10% of total PM 2.5. TCI doesn’t impact all motor fuels and only reduces them 25%. Negligible. PM 2.5 is a red herring. The levels wont change. Hell, the levels of CO2 won’t change!

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      And, Jim, that is the question. How much risk, or deaths, are we willing to tolerate? At what point is it no longer reasonable to try to reduce the concentration of the toxic material even further? Increases in scientific knowledge and technology are factors in this equation. That is as much a political question as it is a scientific one.

  18. The environmentalists pushing ever-stricter regulations base their demands on the logic that if a whole lot of something is really bad for you, less of something will be bad for you, too. If we followed their logic, should should ban zinc. Symptoms of zinc poisoning cause aches, pains, vomiting, shock, seizures, fevers, chills, and a host of other maladies. But as it turns out zinc in minute quantities is also essential for human health. Zinc supports cell function as a component of some 100 different enzymes, boosts immune function, promotes wound healing, and maintains the sense of smell and taste. Deficiency can delay sexual maturity, cause diarrhea, and cause skin legions, hair loss, lethargy, weight loss and poor wound healing.

    As Steve quotes Paracelsus: “Everything is a poison, nothing is a poison. It is the dose that makes the poison.”

    Environmentalists seek purity, something akin to an untainted state of nature. (Of course, nature is full of toxins and poisons, too.) This isn’t about science any more. This is environmentalism as religion. Close analogies can be made with ancient religions, in which certain substances were thought to be impure or defiling, and that failure to maintain the taboos will offend the ancestral spirits or the gods.

    Obviously, some substances at certain concentrations do damage human health. We need to control them. But as those concentrations diminish, the risks to human health become infinitesimal, and society’s finite resources are more fruitfully applied elsewhere.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      And, Jim, that is the question. How much risk, or deaths, are we willing to tolerate? At what point is it no longer reasonable to try to reduce the concentration of the toxic material even further? Increases in scientific knowledge and technology are factors in this equation. That is as much a political question as it is a scientific one.

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Again, I wish I had the MD’s slides. I recall him saying transportation fuels might be 10% of total PM 2.5. TCI doesn’t impact all motor fuels and only reduces them 25%. Negligible. PM 2.5 is a red herring. The levels wont change. Hell, the levels of CO2 won’t change!

  19. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    The hand wringing by environmental zealots ignores the fact that air quality has been improving while cases of asthma keep rising, primarily as a result of indoor air pollutants. The estimated premature deaths is a hypothetical calculation based on epidemiological studies that attempt to isolate one cause among many or lump other co-morbidities to get the desired result. These model calculations are not credible. And, the advocates never look at the costs of their desired outcome.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      As a cardiac patient myself, I was so encouraged to find out that it wasn’t the 30 years of pipe smoking or the 50 years of cheeseburgers that caused the blockages, and if I just got an electric car I could take up with both again….Some MDs are actually morons..

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      OTOH, taking an axe to the head was a real issue then…
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25065944/

  20. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    The hand wringing by environmental zealots ignores the fact that air quality has been improving while cases of asthma keep rising, primarily as a result of indoor air pollutants. The estimated premature deaths is a hypothetical calculation based on epidemiological studies that attempt to isolate one cause among many or lump other co-morbidities to get the desired result. These model calculations are not credible. And, the advocates never look at the costs of their desired outcome.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      As a cardiac patient myself, I was so encouraged to find out that it wasn’t the 30 years of pipe smoking or the 50 years of cheeseburgers that caused the blockages, and if I just got an electric car I could take up with both again….Some MDs are actually morons..

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      OTOH, taking an axe to the head was a real issue then…
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25065944/

  21. Is banning pollen next? Grass pollens range from 20-100; pine pollen is 60-100 microns and ragweed at 19-20 microns.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Let’s ban sunshine, too. That will save our forests and fields from the devastation of vast farms of steel and blanked out Chinese glass solar panels that will otherwise shade the earth for over vast portions of the United States. Here, underneath these panels, our growing army of homeless people can find shelter, killing two birds with one stone.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Reduce skin cancer!

  22. Is banning pollen next? Grass pollens range from 20-100; pine pollen is 60-100 microns and ragweed at 19-20 microns.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Let’s ban sunshine, too. That will save our forests and fields from the devastation of vast farms of steel and blanked out Chinese glass solar panels that will otherwise shade the earth for over vast portions of the United States. Here, underneath these panels, our growing army of homeless people can find shelter, killing two birds with one stone.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Reduce skin cancer!

  23. Why the focus on vehicles? If PM is really a concern, wouldn’t getting rid of our coal plants be more beneficial overall since that also contributes to acid rain?

    “Particulate matter (PM), also known as particle pollution, includes the tiny particles of fly ash and dust that are expelled from coal-burning power plants. Particulate pollution is a mixture of soot, smoke, and tiny particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3). Fine particles are a mixture of a variety of different compounds and pollutants that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, but also diesel trucks and buses, cars, etc.”

    https://www.gem.wiki/Particulates_and_coal#:~:text=Particulate%20matter%20%28PM%29%2C%20also%20known%20as%20particle%20pollution%2C,dioxide%20%28SO2%29%2C%20nitrogen%20oxides%20%28NOx%29%20and%20ammonia%20%28NH3%29.

    I still don’t understand why environmentalists are so against natural gas and nuclear for power production. Nuclear power in particular.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Because the solar and wind industries own them lock, stock and Tesla….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Seriously, shielding a nuclear reactor on a Telsa would kill the MPR. Miles per Roentgen.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I am with you on being puzzled at the lack of support of nuclear power. There is the long-term issue of storage of the nuclear waste, but I have faith in our engineers and entrepreneurs being able to figure that out. Yucca Mountain used to be a candidate, but that would be even more politically impossible, now.

  24. Why the focus on vehicles? If PM is really a concern, wouldn’t getting rid of our coal plants be more beneficial overall since that also contributes to acid rain?

    “Particulate matter (PM), also known as particle pollution, includes the tiny particles of fly ash and dust that are expelled from coal-burning power plants. Particulate pollution is a mixture of soot, smoke, and tiny particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH3). Fine particles are a mixture of a variety of different compounds and pollutants that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, but also diesel trucks and buses, cars, etc.”

    https://www.gem.wiki/Particulates_and_coal#:~:text=Particulate%20matter%20%28PM%29%2C%20also%20known%20as%20particle%20pollution%2C,dioxide%20%28SO2%29%2C%20nitrogen%20oxides%20%28NOx%29%20and%20ammonia%20%28NH3%29.

    I still don’t understand why environmentalists are so against natural gas and nuclear for power production. Nuclear power in particular.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Because the solar and wind industries own them lock, stock and Tesla….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Seriously, shielding a nuclear reactor on a Telsa would kill the MPR. Miles per Roentgen.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I am with you on being puzzled at the lack of support of nuclear power. There is the long-term issue of storage of the nuclear waste, but I have faith in our engineers and entrepreneurs being able to figure that out. Yucca Mountain used to be a candidate, but that would be even more politically impossible, now.

  25. Paul Sweet Avatar

    I read somewhere that diesel exhaust contributes more PM2.5 than spark engines (gasoline or natural gas) do. You don’t see as many semis belching black smoke as you once did, but there are still a few that do.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      The newer diesel engines have DPFs, “diesel particulate filters”.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        Which utilizes DEF which is pretty much urea…. so a water quality issue there with ammonia.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          That’s SCR, selective catalytic reduction, which reduces NOx. DEF isn’t required for DPFs, but is required for SCR.

        2. I turns out cat piss IS good for something…

      2. I might support retrofitting older diesel engines with them if it would be practical and cost effective. I’m thinking primarily of the large commercial vehicles.

        We might also want to retrofit the diesel engines used for emergency power generation. If go forward with the 100% green crap, the reliability of our power grid will surely suffer in the years to come. The emergency generators will get a workout.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The Common Rail FI diesel engines are amazing. Absolutely no smoke. Well, none that can be seen, and no smell either. Quieter, and with the Ultra Low Sulfur diesel oil, way less polution. And, something like 1000 times less CO2 than with a gasoline engine.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        1000 times less CO2? Carbon dioxide? How?

      2. No way Jose…your snub of gasoline as 1000x worse than diesel for CO2 is ridiculous. As far as cars, hybrid gasoline cars are often more fuel efficient than diesel and way cleaner.

  26. Paul Sweet Avatar

    I read somewhere that diesel exhaust contributes more PM2.5 than spark engines (gasoline or natural gas) do. You don’t see as many semis belching black smoke as you once did, but there are still a few that do.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The Common Rail FI diesel engines are amazing. Absolutely no smoke. Well, none that can be seen, and no smell either. Quieter, and with the Ultra Low Sulfur diesel oil, way less polution. And, something like 1000 times less CO2 than with a gasoline engine.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        1000 times less CO2? Carbon dioxide? How?

      2. No way Jose…your snub of gasoline as 1000x worse than diesel for CO2 is ridiculous. As far as cars, hybrid gasoline cars are often more fuel efficient than diesel and way cleaner.

    2. idiocracy Avatar

      The newer diesel engines have DPFs, “diesel particulate filters”.

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        Which utilizes DEF which is pretty much urea…. so a water quality issue there with ammonia.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          That’s SCR, selective catalytic reduction, which reduces NOx. DEF isn’t required for DPFs, but is required for SCR.

        2. I turns out cat piss IS good for something…

      2. I might support retrofitting older diesel engines with them if it would be practical and cost effective. I’m thinking primarily of the large commercial vehicles.

        We might also want to retrofit the diesel engines used for emergency power generation. If go forward with the 100% green crap, the reliability of our power grid will surely suffer in the years to come. The emergency generators will get a workout.

  27. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Y’all should Google the Naval Yard air permit story for an EJ take in Virginia.
    Very much related to this thread.

  28. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Y’all should Google the Naval Yard air permit story for an EJ take in Virginia.
    Very much related to this thread.

  29. LarrytheG Avatar

    It’s easy to characterize “all environmentalists” but it’s incorrect and wrong.

    Inside the environmental community itself – there is disagreement about nuclear – as well as acknowledgement that it’s not possible to have an “all-renewables” energy world.

    ” Why We Still Need America’s Nuclear Power Plants — At Least for Now”

    http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/04/17/why-we-still-need-americas-nuclear-power-plants-at-least-for-now/

    The argument has always been – can we advance, can we pollute less, what would we have to do with the worst case climate scenario is true?

    When we point to the whackadoo left, and yes, it does exist – it’s about as intelligent as pointing to the whacadoo right.

    The truth is more in the middle but some folks can’t abide it so they have to invoke “whackadoo”.

  30. LarrytheG Avatar

    It’s easy to characterize “all environmentalists” but it’s incorrect and wrong.

    Inside the environmental community itself – there is disagreement about nuclear – as well as acknowledgement that it’s not possible to have an “all-renewables” energy world.

    ” Why We Still Need America’s Nuclear Power Plants — At Least for Now”

    http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/04/17/why-we-still-need-americas-nuclear-power-plants-at-least-for-now/

    The argument has always been – can we advance, can we pollute less, what would we have to do with the worst case climate scenario is true?

    When we point to the whackadoo left, and yes, it does exist – it’s about as intelligent as pointing to the whacadoo right.

    The truth is more in the middle but some folks can’t abide it so they have to invoke “whackadoo”.

  31. One thing the liberals ignore telling people is, the enormous progress towards clean fuels the USA has made.

    Over the past 10-years, EPA regs have required the removal of all sulfur from gasoline and diesel. Sulfur easily used to easily be 5000+ ppm, now less than about 10 ppm Sulfur in gasoline and diesel. This effort required a multi-billion$ revamping of US/EU refineries with humongous modern catalytic reactors to get ALL of the sulfur out.

    The purpose of getting of the sulfur out, had nothing to do with SOx (coal would be the main source of SOx). The reason is Sulfur is a catalyst poison for platinum, and we as a Country needed to enable automotive platinum catalytic converters to completely knock out tailpipe emissions including particulates.

    This gigantic joint gov/industry effort has turned out to be extremely successful for reducing new car gasoline emissions to near zero; diesel has proved to be a fundamentally harder eco-problem to solve, but is much better today than 10-15 years ago.

    The liberal message is that automobiles are extremely toxic, killing millions, and this extreme toxicity should scare the bejesus out of everyone, and justifies liberal mandates for electric cars.

    The truth is liberals/utilities/etc. do want to mandate electric cars, but their rationale is over-the-top and inaccurate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Don’t you think it was the liberals who pushed for cleaner fuels to start with?

      1. No Larry if you go back to 1990, smog was really bad in many cities and getting worse, but also cat converters were just starting to become most of the auto population as lead (Pb) was phased out. That’s when we got the Reformulated Gasoline we use today following joint industry lab studies (which may be a little out-dated now). Congress rebelled and mandated E10 ethanol even though the joint lab studies showed worse emissions with E10 in cars with catalytic converters.

        From 1990 til now, there has been tremendous progress. Yes we have an adversarial society, and there were fights, as exemplified by the E10 mandate fight (which was big news at the time). But bottom line: if you have a real measured problem and real data how to solve the problem, industry will get on board to help solve it. They have to.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          My impression was that Conservatives almost never supported regulations and restrictions for the environment.

          It goes ways back and things like catalytic converters on cars was fought tooth and nail by Conservatives…

          Name one environmental regualtion that was CHAMPIONED by Conservatives… even one’s the Heritage folks supported, maintstream Conservatives opposed.!

        2. idiocracy Avatar

          I think fuel injection had a lot to do with the smog improvement since the late 80s.

          I think the long-term reliability of those electronic feedback carburetors they used on catalyst equipped vehicles prior to fuel injection was not good. Sure, they met the emissions limits when the vehicle left the factory, but a few years later? And many of those carburetors are very complex, a Rube Goldberg arrangement. GM’s Quadra-Jet is one example. That one seemed to be prone to a failure where it would run the engine rich, obviously exceeding emissions limits, and resulting in a catalytic converter melt-down in the worst case (the low-buck fix for which is to punch out the cats and keep on driving).

  32. One thing the liberals ignore telling people is, the enormous progress towards clean fuels the USA has made.

    Over the past 10-years, EPA regs have required the removal of all sulfur from gasoline and diesel. Sulfur easily used to easily be 5000+ ppm, now less than about 10 ppm Sulfur in gasoline and diesel. This effort required a multi-billion$ revamping of US/EU refineries with humongous modern catalytic reactors to get ALL of the sulfur out.

    The purpose of getting of the sulfur out, had nothing to do with SOx (coal would be the main source of SOx). The reason is Sulfur is a catalyst poison for platinum, and we as a Country needed to enable automotive platinum catalytic converters to completely knock out tailpipe emissions including particulates.

    This gigantic joint gov/industry effort has turned out to be extremely successful for reducing new car gasoline emissions to near zero; diesel has proved to be a fundamentally harder eco-problem to solve, but is much better today than 10-15 years ago.

    The liberal message is that automobiles are extremely toxic, killing millions, and this extreme toxicity should scare the bejesus out of everyone, and justifies liberal mandates for electric cars.

    The truth is liberals/utilities/etc. do want to mandate electric cars, but their rationale is over-the-top and inaccurate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Don’t you think it was the liberals who pushed for cleaner fuels to start with?

      1. No Larry if you go back to 1990, smog was really bad in many cities and getting worse, but also cat converters were just starting to become most of the auto population as lead (Pb) was phased out. That’s when we got the Reformulated Gasoline we use today following joint industry lab studies (which may be a little out-dated now). Congress rebelled and mandated E10 ethanol even though the joint lab studies showed worse emissions with E10 in cars with catalytic converters.

        From 1990 til now, there has been tremendous progress. Yes we have an adversarial society, and there were fights, as exemplified by the E10 mandate fight (which was big news at the time). But bottom line: if you have a real measured problem and real data how to solve the problem, industry will get on board to help solve it. They have to.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          My impression was that Conservatives almost never supported regulations and restrictions for the environment.

          It goes ways back and things like catalytic converters on cars was fought tooth and nail by Conservatives…

          Name one environmental regualtion that was CHAMPIONED by Conservatives… even one’s the Heritage folks supported, maintstream Conservatives opposed.!

        2. idiocracy Avatar

          I think fuel injection had a lot to do with the smog improvement since the late 80s.

          I think the long-term reliability of those electronic feedback carburetors they used on catalyst equipped vehicles prior to fuel injection was not good. Sure, they met the emissions limits when the vehicle left the factory, but a few years later? And many of those carburetors are very complex, a Rube Goldberg arrangement. GM’s Quadra-Jet is one example. That one seemed to be prone to a failure where it would run the engine rich, obviously exceeding emissions limits, and resulting in a catalytic converter melt-down in the worst case (the low-buck fix for which is to punch out the cats and keep on driving).

  33. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    In addition to carbon, natural gas emits methane, a far more lethal greenhouse gas in the comparatively short run. Obama had us on the verge of finally measuring it. Trump deleted it. Because we don’t have enough regularly collected data, many assume there’s no risk. Yet, the damage is real.

    Also, if you look at the damage in communities where gas is fracked, the home water systems destroyed, the homes that are no longer habitable due to frack pads, it’s substantial. Then there’s the damage of the pipelines themselves and other infrastructure related to harvesting and transporting natural gas. I don’t think any of you live close to areas where they are trying to build 42 inch pipelines over the mountains and across the waterways. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if you did live with this stuff every day.

    Because we have very limited safety oversight and base prevention of risk on the potential company losses – and they are substantially lower in less populated areas – we essentially sacrifice rural areas. Forcing people to live with danger and then limiting the safety oversight and the potential liability of the owners, doesn’t do much to make people feel good about living next to such infrastructure. This holds for nuclear as well as natural gas.

    For nukes, there’s the added issue of dealing with radioactive waste. So far, we’ve not been able to solve that problem because the people in the selected area weren’t willing to have their land sacrificed or be sacrificed themselves. Currently, the waste is piling up in multiple sites with no long term solution. I am not holding my breath on resolving the problem.

    The way we currently measure pollution neatly separates each source and allows folks to limit total counted pollution to keep owner costs low. Citizens are becoming aware of these strategies that expose us to more pollution and are speaking against it. Many of you call this extremism and other negative terms.

    As a society, we want to take property needed for such infrastructure as cheaply as possible, to not guarantee and back up promises of safety, and we don’t require that builders/owners of these things share the ongoing benefits. The people sacrificed shoulder unfair burden of risk for no reward. We’ve reached a point where US citizens/landowners are no longer willing to accept the deal. Those not living with the loss and risk do not understand it and put down the concerns of those who do.

    We need a new framework that respects all parties and doesn’t sacrifice some so others get rich. It’s easy to sit in a secure subdivision and opine about those in whose shoes you’ve not walked. Today everyone judges and assumes others are the opposite of them. We’ll not resolve this until we first stop that and approach issues with all expecting to give up some and none to be forced to give up everything for few dollars compensation.

  34. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    In addition to carbon, natural gas emits methane, a far more lethal greenhouse gas in the comparatively short run. Obama had us on the verge of finally measuring it. Trump deleted it. Because we don’t have enough regularly collected data, many assume there’s no risk. Yet, the damage is real.

    Also, if you look at the damage in communities where gas is fracked, the home water systems destroyed, the homes that are no longer habitable due to frack pads, it’s substantial. Then there’s the damage of the pipelines themselves and other infrastructure related to harvesting and transporting natural gas. I don’t think any of you live close to areas where they are trying to build 42 inch pipelines over the mountains and across the waterways. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if you did live with this stuff every day.

    Because we have very limited safety oversight and base prevention of risk on the potential company losses – and they are substantially lower in less populated areas – we essentially sacrifice rural areas. Forcing people to live with danger and then limiting the safety oversight and the potential liability of the owners, doesn’t do much to make people feel good about living next to such infrastructure. This holds for nuclear as well as natural gas.

    For nukes, there’s the added issue of dealing with radioactive waste. So far, we’ve not been able to solve that problem because the people in the selected area weren’t willing to have their land sacrificed or be sacrificed themselves. Currently, the waste is piling up in multiple sites with no long term solution. I am not holding my breath on resolving the problem.

    The way we currently measure pollution neatly separates each source and allows folks to limit total counted pollution to keep owner costs low. Citizens are becoming aware of these strategies that expose us to more pollution and are speaking against it. Many of you call this extremism and other negative terms.

    As a society, we want to take property needed for such infrastructure as cheaply as possible, to not guarantee and back up promises of safety, and we don’t require that builders/owners of these things share the ongoing benefits. The people sacrificed shoulder unfair burden of risk for no reward. We’ve reached a point where US citizens/landowners are no longer willing to accept the deal. Those not living with the loss and risk do not understand it and put down the concerns of those who do.

    We need a new framework that respects all parties and doesn’t sacrifice some so others get rich. It’s easy to sit in a secure subdivision and opine about those in whose shoes you’ve not walked. Today everyone judges and assumes others are the opposite of them. We’ll not resolve this until we first stop that and approach issues with all expecting to give up some and none to be forced to give up everything for few dollars compensation.

  35. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “we sacrifice rural”.

    Look at the major urban areas and whether or not they have coal or gas power plants or Nukes…. they don’t.

    Can anyone imagine a “new” Nuke being located in Fairfax or Henrico?

    Not on your life!

  36. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: “we sacrifice rural”.

    Look at the major urban areas and whether or not they have coal or gas power plants or Nukes…. they don’t.

    Can anyone imagine a “new” Nuke being located in Fairfax or Henrico?

    Not on your life!

  37. I’ve been trying to to sneak this quote in somewhere:

    Last week, 60 Minutes said 50% of US and EU children born today are expected to live to 103-104!!

    Hard to believe, but consistent with my belief the environment in the USA is far cleaner than ever before. I know we have some gaps, but just saying the recent pollution outrage is, well outrage to protest something other than actual pollution.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Virtually every step to regulation on the environment has been opposed tooth and nail since the EPA became the EPA.

      Now that we have those regulations that they fought against – they now claim ” It’s clean enough” and they supported the original regulations all along. Nope.

  38. I’ve been trying to to sneak this quote in somewhere:

    Last week, 60 Minutes said 50% of US and EU children born today are expected to live to 103-104!!

    Hard to believe, but consistent with my belief the environment in the USA is far cleaner than ever before. I know we have some gaps, but just saying the recent pollution outrage is, well outrage to protest something other than actual pollution.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Virtually every step to regulation on the environment has been opposed tooth and nail since the EPA became the EPA.

      Now that we have those regulations that they fought against – they now claim ” It’s clean enough” and they supported the original regulations all along. Nope.

  39. LarrytheG Avatar

    Bill, you choose to “believe” a guy at InsideSources who has a long history as a lobbyist and opponent of regulations and disbelieve the EPA which has a long history of providing data on it’s regs – until now with Trump refusing to release data that they normall would release in support of their proposed regulations.

    Even the EPA and Harvard are not the only players involved in particulate particles… there are others but if you choose to only reference those that you agree with – even though they are known opponents – it’s not likely you’d every believe other studies if they don’t agree with your own views.

    The EPA has a long history and pattern of supporting it’s regulations – decades worth. The only thing different now is that they are being throttled on doing what they normally do in releasing studies and info that support their proposals.

    Here’s yet another study – released:

    The impact of PM2.5 on the human respiratory system

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      This the last response I intend to give to you because you use my response to make a point that I didn’t make. I am sure that your comments pertain to something just not the point that I made. THE HARVARD DATA WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE PM2.5 STANDARD HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC. Without access to data real peer review is impossible.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        You’re citing a source for that claim that is biased and has a long history of bieng an opponent to such regulation.

        I asked that you provide an objective source to confirm that claim. Provide an authorotative source that confirm the claim that the 2.5 issue has not been peer reviewed. Can you provide a source that
        confirms what you are claiming that they refuse to release the study. I’ve searched for it and cannot find any that say this.

        There ARE numerous other studies on the 2.5 issue and you just ignore all of them to focus on this one questionable claim because it agrees with your own biases.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          He can’t answer you. It’s the source that backs his position. Whether he established his position based on the source or selected his source based on his position is immaterial. The source creds are better than his, and that’s good enough.

          Harvard’s data is his hat hook. Nevermind that there’s rows upon rows of hat hooks in the foyer.

          Take Steve, again, one source whose creds, while not sufficient to perform his own analyses is happy with citing 25 other sources all, as Dick points out, from the same set of rsearchers.

          Then, if all else fails, one can always drop back to “All models are wrong.”

          Me? I’m a flamethrower. I really don’t care on most of this since, in truth, I no longer have a dog in the hunt. It’s either too long term or too cheap to argue about. PM2.5, climate change, solar and wind. It’s all moot. The expense of the regs and investments amounts to less than a monthly energy bill. It’s spec. You gotta spend money to make (or save) money. So, I’ll just pull tails. You should too.

  40. […] EPA: PM 2.5 At Current Levels is No Threat  Bacon’s Rebellion […]

  41. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    For those interested in the history. The fact that the data are not available undermines the credibility of all of the studies.
    Trump EPA Ditches Secret Science
    Posted to Politics December 10, 2020 by Steve Milloy
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just issued a final rule leaving in place existing national outdoor air standards for fine particulate matter — i.e., soot and dust called “PM2.5.”

    It’s an incredible accomplishment for the Trump EPA and those of us who have worked on the issue for more than 20 years.

    Here’s the condensed story.

    By 1990, U.S. outdoor air quality had dramatically improved from the 1960s and the EPA bureaucracy had basically run out of ways to further regulate it, especially with respect to larger (coarse) particulate matter.

    But then in the early 1990s, Harvard researchers came up with the idea the EPA was overlooking the health threat posed by much smaller (fine) particulate matter (PM2.5).

    The Harvard researchers estimated that PM2.5 in outdoor air was causing tens of thousands of people to die prematurely every year. Eventually during the Obama administration, the EPA would claim that PM2.5 in outdoor air was killing about 570,000 people per year.

    Skeptical of the claim that PM2.5 killed people, the EPA’s panel of outside scientific experts, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), asked the agency in 1994 to provide the scientific data used by the Harvard researchers so they could be reviewed. After all, the Harvard research had been funded by the EPA — i.e., with taxpayer money.

    The EPA refused.

    Then in 1996, the Clinton EPA proposed for the first time to regulate PM2.5 on the basis that the regulation would prevent 20,000 premature deaths per year. Valuing each life saved at $5 million, the EPA estimated that PM2.5 would provide $100 billion in monetized health benefits to the US economy.

    These “benefits” were used to offset the costs of a companion regulation that would have tightened the outdoor air quality standard for ozone (smog).

    On the heels of CASAC determining that the EPA offered no evidence that PM2.5 killed anyone, Congress asked EPA for the underlying data.

    Then-Clinton EPA official (and now potential Biden appointee for EPA chief) Mary Nichols told Congress that she could see no useful purpose in providing the data for independent review. Ignoring Congress, the EPA proceeded to finalize its PM2.5 and ozone regulations imposing compliance costs of at least $100 billion per year on the U.S. economy.

    When the Obama administration came to power in 2009, the EPA began using PM2.5 even more aggressively as a regulatory weapon in its war on the coal industry.

    By 2012, the EPA had announced rules to regulate PM2.5 emissions from coal-fired power plant smokestacks that were so stringent, they virtually destroyed the coal industry, eventually wiping out 95 percent of its market value, killing 50,000 high paying coal jobs and sending the largest coal companies into bankruptcy.

    The EPA dubiously claimed these rules would save as many as 38,000 lives per year and provide as much as $380 billion in monetized health benefits to the economy every year.

    Of course, these claims and regulatory actions were all based on scientific data that neither the EPA nor the Harvard researchers would allow anyone to see. It was, in effect, secret science.

    During the Obama administration, three sessions of Congress passed bills to force the EPA to release the secret data. Congress even subpoenaed the EPA to no avail. Not only did the EPA ignore the subpoena, but EPA staff also doubled down and indicated that it would continue to tighten PM2.5 regulation.

    This madness ceased when the Trump administration took over.

    Based on the work of a small group of researchers including myself, doing novel scientific research and exposing embarrassing EPA information via the Freedom of Information Act, we were able to persuade the EPA’s CASAC board in December 2019 that the agency’s previous conclusions regarding PM2.5 killing people were all junk science.

    And now relying on CASAC’s dismissal as junk science of the EPA’s claims regarding PM2.5, the Trump EPA has ignored EPA staff (which is still hiding the Harvard data) and opted not to further tighten the PM2.5 standard.

    Unfortunately, this has all come too late for most of the coal industry. Worse, with the prospect of Biden EPA looming, we can expect the EPA to return to its agenda of a secret- and junk science-driven and job-killing PM2.5 regulation.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Bill – do you consider this an objective article?

      ” Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, lobbyist, author and Fox News commentator. He describes himself as a libertarian[1] and his close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism, as Milloy has consistently disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and the health risks of second-hand smoke.[2][3]

      Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes are false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, second-hand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[4] Milloy runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Congressional Effect Fund (formerly the Free Enterprise Action Fund), a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli.”

      how about this one?

      Fine particulate matter and COVID-19 mortality in the United States
      A national study on long-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States

      https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/covid-pm

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Some still argue Darwin’s observations were flawed, hence any observations since are suspect too. 1994’s observations are moot in light of the results of studies since. But hey! We believe on Wednesday what we believed on Monday no watter what the Hell happened on Tuesday. In Microsoft parlance, “One good session between two BSoDs is a release.”

      2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        You miss the forest for the trees. The article is mainly the history and the most important “fact” is that the data have not been made available in spite of requests, Congressional actions, and the data quality act.
        Without the data all analyses are suspect.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Given the source of the claim – is there real proof that this is the case?

          Isn’t data usually provided by EPA on their proposed regulations?

          Given the Trump position on this, I can see them refusing to release data because it actually confirms the evidence.

          looks like some of it is available:
          https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/technical-data-and-reports-particulate-matter-pm-measurements-and-sip-status

          The bigger problem here is the pattern over years of some folks refusing to accept the evidence and opposing regulations in general.

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Anyone who has closely followed this issue and related ones knows that Harvard has repeatedly refused to release the data to EPA. And, no EPA does not or did not routinely release data from epidemiological studies. Instead of just writing about the source, check it out!

  42. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    For those interested in the history. The fact that the data are not available undermines the credibility of all of the studies.
    Trump EPA Ditches Secret Science
    Posted to Politics December 10, 2020 by Steve Milloy
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just issued a final rule leaving in place existing national outdoor air standards for fine particulate matter — i.e., soot and dust called “PM2.5.”

    It’s an incredible accomplishment for the Trump EPA and those of us who have worked on the issue for more than 20 years.

    Here’s the condensed story.

    By 1990, U.S. outdoor air quality had dramatically improved from the 1960s and the EPA bureaucracy had basically run out of ways to further regulate it, especially with respect to larger (coarse) particulate matter.

    But then in the early 1990s, Harvard researchers came up with the idea the EPA was overlooking the health threat posed by much smaller (fine) particulate matter (PM2.5).

    The Harvard researchers estimated that PM2.5 in outdoor air was causing tens of thousands of people to die prematurely every year. Eventually during the Obama administration, the EPA would claim that PM2.5 in outdoor air was killing about 570,000 people per year.

    Skeptical of the claim that PM2.5 killed people, the EPA’s panel of outside scientific experts, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), asked the agency in 1994 to provide the scientific data used by the Harvard researchers so they could be reviewed. After all, the Harvard research had been funded by the EPA — i.e., with taxpayer money.

    The EPA refused.

    Then in 1996, the Clinton EPA proposed for the first time to regulate PM2.5 on the basis that the regulation would prevent 20,000 premature deaths per year. Valuing each life saved at $5 million, the EPA estimated that PM2.5 would provide $100 billion in monetized health benefits to the US economy.

    These “benefits” were used to offset the costs of a companion regulation that would have tightened the outdoor air quality standard for ozone (smog).

    On the heels of CASAC determining that the EPA offered no evidence that PM2.5 killed anyone, Congress asked EPA for the underlying data.

    Then-Clinton EPA official (and now potential Biden appointee for EPA chief) Mary Nichols told Congress that she could see no useful purpose in providing the data for independent review. Ignoring Congress, the EPA proceeded to finalize its PM2.5 and ozone regulations imposing compliance costs of at least $100 billion per year on the U.S. economy.

    When the Obama administration came to power in 2009, the EPA began using PM2.5 even more aggressively as a regulatory weapon in its war on the coal industry.

    By 2012, the EPA had announced rules to regulate PM2.5 emissions from coal-fired power plant smokestacks that were so stringent, they virtually destroyed the coal industry, eventually wiping out 95 percent of its market value, killing 50,000 high paying coal jobs and sending the largest coal companies into bankruptcy.

    The EPA dubiously claimed these rules would save as many as 38,000 lives per year and provide as much as $380 billion in monetized health benefits to the economy every year.

    Of course, these claims and regulatory actions were all based on scientific data that neither the EPA nor the Harvard researchers would allow anyone to see. It was, in effect, secret science.

    During the Obama administration, three sessions of Congress passed bills to force the EPA to release the secret data. Congress even subpoenaed the EPA to no avail. Not only did the EPA ignore the subpoena, but EPA staff also doubled down and indicated that it would continue to tighten PM2.5 regulation.

    This madness ceased when the Trump administration took over.

    Based on the work of a small group of researchers including myself, doing novel scientific research and exposing embarrassing EPA information via the Freedom of Information Act, we were able to persuade the EPA’s CASAC board in December 2019 that the agency’s previous conclusions regarding PM2.5 killing people were all junk science.

    And now relying on CASAC’s dismissal as junk science of the EPA’s claims regarding PM2.5, the Trump EPA has ignored EPA staff (which is still hiding the Harvard data) and opted not to further tighten the PM2.5 standard.

    Unfortunately, this has all come too late for most of the coal industry. Worse, with the prospect of Biden EPA looming, we can expect the EPA to return to its agenda of a secret- and junk science-driven and job-killing PM2.5 regulation.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Bill – do you consider this an objective article?

      ” Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, lobbyist, author and Fox News commentator. He describes himself as a libertarian[1] and his close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism, as Milloy has consistently disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and the health risks of second-hand smoke.[2][3]

      Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes are false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, second-hand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[4] Milloy runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Congressional Effect Fund (formerly the Free Enterprise Action Fund), a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli.”

      how about this one?

      Fine particulate matter and COVID-19 mortality in the United States
      A national study on long-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States

      https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/covid-pm

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Some still argue Darwin’s observations were flawed, hence any observations since are suspect too. 1994’s observations are moot in light of the results of studies since. But hey! We believe on Wednesday what we believed on Monday no watter what the Hell happened on Tuesday. In Microsoft parlance, “One good session between two BSoDs is a release.”

      2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        You miss the forest for the trees. The article is mainly the history and the most important “fact” is that the data have not been made available in spite of requests, Congressional actions, and the data quality act.
        Without the data all analyses are suspect.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Given the source of the claim – is there real proof that this is the case?

          Isn’t data usually provided by EPA on their proposed regulations?

          Given the Trump position on this, I can see them refusing to release data because it actually confirms the evidence.

          looks like some of it is available:
          https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/technical-data-and-reports-particulate-matter-pm-measurements-and-sip-status

          The bigger problem here is the pattern over years of some folks refusing to accept the evidence and opposing regulations in general.

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Anyone who has closely followed this issue and related ones knows that Harvard has repeatedly refused to release the data to EPA. And, no EPA does not or did not routinely release data from epidemiological studies. Instead of just writing about the source, check it out!

  43. LarrytheG Avatar

    Bill, you choose to “believe” a guy at InsideSources who has a long history as a lobbyist and opponent of regulations and disbelieve the EPA which has a long history of providing data on it’s regs – until now with Trump refusing to release data that they normall would release in support of their proposed regulations.

    Even the EPA and Harvard are not the only players involved in particulate particles… there are others but if you choose to only reference those that you agree with – even though they are known opponents – it’s not likely you’d every believe other studies if they don’t agree with your own views.

    The EPA has a long history and pattern of supporting it’s regulations – decades worth. The only thing different now is that they are being throttled on doing what they normally do in releasing studies and info that support their proposals.

    Here’s yet another study – released:

    The impact of PM2.5 on the human respiratory system

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      This the last response I intend to give to you because you use my response to make a point that I didn’t make. I am sure that your comments pertain to something just not the point that I made. THE HARVARD DATA WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE PM2.5 STANDARD HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC. Without access to data real peer review is impossible.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        You’re citing a source for that claim that is biased and has a long history of bieng an opponent to such regulation.

        I asked that you provide an objective source to confirm that claim. Provide an authorotative source that confirm the claim that the 2.5 issue has not been peer reviewed. Can you provide a source that
        confirms what you are claiming that they refuse to release the study. I’ve searched for it and cannot find any that say this.

        There ARE numerous other studies on the 2.5 issue and you just ignore all of them to focus on this one questionable claim because it agrees with your own biases.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          He can’t answer you. It’s the source that backs his position. Whether he established his position based on the source or selected his source based on his position is immaterial. The source creds are better than his, and that’s good enough.

          Harvard’s data is his hat hook. Nevermind that there’s rows upon rows of hat hooks in the foyer.

          Take Steve, again, one source whose creds, while not sufficient to perform his own analyses is happy with citing 25 other sources all, as Dick points out, from the same set of rsearchers.

          Then, if all else fails, one can always drop back to “All models are wrong.”

          Me? I’m a flamethrower. I really don’t care on most of this since, in truth, I no longer have a dog in the hunt. It’s either too long term or too cheap to argue about. PM2.5, climate change, solar and wind. It’s all moot. The expense of the regs and investments amounts to less than a monthly energy bill. It’s spec. You gotta spend money to make (or save) money. So, I’ll just pull tails. You should too.

  44. Bill O’K that was excellent history lesson on particulates. That was a very valuable background post for me.

    What I would add is, my understanding Obama EPA also said, not only are particulates are extremely deadly, it is also valid for regulators to consider this extreme toxicity as additive to other contaminants, for example, CO2 which is completely non-toxic.

    So if you go to speak out at a Virginia public hearing, which I have done so (Clean Power Plan), you will find pseudo-experts like American Lung Assoc advising the public and Virginia regulators that even lower levels of CO2 emissions are highly toxic short-term and killing tens of thousands of Virginians.

    So I then had to make comments to DEQ in writing that CO2 is completely non-toxic.

    1. PS- California’s Mary Nichols is interesting EPA Chief suggestion:

      …on the good side, she has an H2 FCV car, despite extreme criticism from the BEV electric vehicle crowd who (like the ethanol lobby) want to mandate USA favortism to electric plug-ins only,

      …on the questionable side, she will stop at nothing to ban gaso cars in Ca. She will do “whatever it takes” to mandate ZEVs (at least she includes H2 FCV).

      One interesting thing to watch would be ethanol lobby. Mary would know ethanol does not improve car emissions, makes them worse, but following initial fights years ago, Ca. decided to compromise and go along with ethanol.

  45. Bill O’K that was excellent history lesson on particulates. That was a very valuable background post for me.

    What I would add is, my understanding Obama EPA also said, not only are particulates are extremely deadly, it is also valid for regulators to consider this extreme toxicity as additive to other contaminants, for example, CO2 which is completely non-toxic.

    So if you go to speak out at a Virginia public hearing, which I have done so (Clean Power Plan), you will find pseudo-experts like American Lung Assoc advising the public and Virginia regulators that even lower levels of CO2 emissions are highly toxic short-term and killing tens of thousands of Virginians.

    So I then had to make comments to DEQ in writing that CO2 is completely non-toxic.

    1. PS- California’s Mary Nichols is interesting EPA Chief suggestion:

      …on the good side, she has an H2 FCV car, despite extreme criticism from the BEV electric vehicle crowd who (like the ethanol lobby) want to mandate USA favortism to electric plug-ins only,

      …on the questionable side, she will stop at nothing to ban gaso cars in Ca. She will do “whatever it takes” to mandate ZEVs (at least she includes H2 FCV).

      One interesting thing to watch would be ethanol lobby. Mary would know ethanol does not improve car emissions, makes them worse, but following initial fights years ago, Ca. decided to compromise and go along with ethanol.

Leave a Reply