Monday, April 24, 2006
Air quality: Joel Schwartz comments on propsed changes to federal particulate ("PM2.5") standards
Words below are quoted from Joel's letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding Docket ID: EPA-HQ- OAR-2001-0017:
Randomized, controlled studies of PM and mortality could provide more definitive evidence of PM2.5 risks. Such studies can not, of course, be performed on humans. However, animal studies have failed to provide evidence that PM causes premature death, even at concentrations much higher than ever occur in ambient air. Studies of less adverse PM2.5 effects have been performed with human volunteers, but these studies have provided little or no evidence for harm at contemporary PM2.5 levels.
EPA and CASAC have ignored the evidence against the validity of observational epidemiology as a tool for assessing PM2.5 risks. And they have marshaled evidence selectively so as to create an appearance of greater and more certain risks from PM2.5 than is warranted by the weight of the evidence.
Given that current PM2.5 standards are sufficiently stringent to protect Americans with an adequate margin of safety, EPA should reject its proposed PM2.5 NAAQS rule and leave the current PM2.5 standards in place.
Read Joel's entire letter here. (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 80 KB)
Randomized, controlled studies of PM and mortality could provide more definitive evidence of PM2.5 risks. Such studies can not, of course, be performed on humans. However, animal studies have failed to provide evidence that PM causes premature death, even at concentrations much higher than ever occur in ambient air. Studies of less adverse PM2.5 effects have been performed with human volunteers, but these studies have provided little or no evidence for harm at contemporary PM2.5 levels.
EPA and CASAC have ignored the evidence against the validity of observational epidemiology as a tool for assessing PM2.5 risks. And they have marshaled evidence selectively so as to create an appearance of greater and more certain risks from PM2.5 than is warranted by the weight of the evidence.
Given that current PM2.5 standards are sufficiently stringent to protect Americans with an adequate margin of safety, EPA should reject its proposed PM2.5 NAAQS rule and leave the current PM2.5 standards in place.
Read Joel's entire letter here. (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 80 KB)
Comments:
Post a Comment
