Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[RandomGuy]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 22, 11:57 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.

The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments.

"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths," the 13-member panel said.

It added that "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death."

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings "refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

The Academy panel examined short-term exposure — up to 24 hours — to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death "may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone."

Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.

While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.

The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.

Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.

But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.

Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.

"This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits," said Patton.

One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, you surprise me. Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

This article has very little merit in my eyes. Yes, Ozone is a very hazardous. That is a well known fact. Nitrogen Oxide is also rather unhealthy. NO has been nearly eliminated from auto exhausts. I see the article of mixing now and old facts with scare tactics. Ozone for example in the trace levels we see in the environment are harmless. It's like the levels of Chlorine you find in a swimming pool. Yes, some poeple are sensitive to it, but it's basically harmess. However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you? Same thing, just a higher concentration. Right?

I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels. Here is some data from a MSDS on Triatomic Oxygen (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/OZ/ozone.html) (O3, Oxone):



General

Synonyms: trioxygen
Comment: Ozone is found in the atmosphere in varying proportions as it is produced continuously in the outer layers of the atmosphere by the action of solar UV radiation on oxygen in the air. It is also formed locally in the air from lightning and from electrical sparks. In the upper atmosphere it inhibits penetration of UV radiation and so is beneficial to life. At ground level it is a harmful pollutant because of the damage it can cause to lungs and to a wide range of materials.
Molecular formula: O3
CAS No: 10028-15-6
EINECS No:

----

Toxicity data

IHL-HMN TCLO thought to be near 1 ppm/2h.
IHL-CAT LC50 34500 ppb/3h
IHL-GPG LC50 24800 ppb/3h
IHL-HAM LC50 10500 ppb/4h
IHL-HMN LCLO 50 ppm/30m

Abbreviations:

ihl inhalation
hmn human
TCLo lowest published toxic concentration
gpg guinea pig
LC50 lethal concentration 50 percent kill
LCLo lowest published lethal concentration
ham hamster

I didn't find CAT. I assume it means a cat! Since this is from a UK site, I assume they use cats for experimentations. I never seen this in a USA lab MSDS.

Now notice how it says it's formed from lightning strikes and electrical spark? I can garentee you that more is formed my the motors in hybrid cars than what the article points to. This is an alarmist article Random. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Here is another MSDS on Ozone:

OZONE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET (http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_msds.htm)

They tend to vary slightly from one source to another.

As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there. Still, there is very little we can do to reduce man made levels, and I see it as laughable when natural levels are far higher. You only come across notable levels in controlled environments. We used Ozone in two of the jobs I had. I think I know a thing or two about it.

One more thing. Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone.

[101A]

If Smog is such a big problem, why the hell are we focussed on CO2?

[xrayzebra]

When we exhale what kind of gas is it? And should we stop breathing,
Clam and Chump, I already know your answer.

[PixelPusher]

If Smog is such a big problem, why the hell are we focussed on CO2?

If diabetes is such a big problem, why the hell are we focussed on cancer?

[RandomGuy]

Random, you surprise me. Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

:wtf

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

1) This administration has repeatedly been shown to place ideology over good science (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+administration+plays+politics+with+science&btnG=Google+Search).

Given a pronounced tendency to use place ideology over all else, should you be more or less skeptical of what this administration says regarding scientific evidence?

[RandomGuy]

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?

FIRST TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

a National Academy of Sciences report

3) Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?

[RandomGuy]

This article has very little merit in my eyes. Yes, Ozone is a very hazardous.zone.

4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?

[RandomGuy]

I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels.

5) Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

scare tactics.

6) Please define "scare tactics".

[RandomGuy]

http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_basics.html

For what it is worth. Propaganda? Perhaps. Reasonable? Well, let's just say I won't be letting the Bush administration tell me what is reasonable or not.

[101A]

If diabetes is such a big problem, why the hell are we focussed on AIDS?

fixed it.

There's plenty of money in Diabetes AND Cancer research; however a disproportionate goes to AIDS.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.greenfacts.org/air-pollution/ozone-o3/level-2/02-health-effects.htm#1

The above link has a host of interesting links on ozone and pollution in general.

It uses a lot of World Health Organization reports, although the cited report is about 5 years old.

[Wild Cobra]

:wtf

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

1) This administration has repeatedly been shown to place ideology over good science (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+administration+plays+politics+with+science&btnG=Google+Search).

Given a pronounced tendency to use place ideology over all else, should you be more or less skeptical of what this administration says regarding scientific evidence?
I agree with the point you make. I don't agree with the accuracy of the article. It is very lacking and written is a very suspicious way to carry any trust to the critical thinker unless you trust everything printed. I know you are not that way, so why do you trust the article?


arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?
Again, I don't trust the article. What is the proper context of what they extrapolate this assessment from?


3) Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?
No. Again, it's the way the article is written and the authors conclusions I distrust.


4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?
It is absolutely reasonable. However, the article doesn't give good sources or link references for factual assessment.


5) Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years.
I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life. Again, the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone. We have almost no control over ozone levels. Then at least on the west coast where I live, we have more smog in many places from the jet stream carrying pollution from Asia that we create ourselves! How do you regulate that?


6) Please define "scare tactics".
The article by the way it's written.

Look at it. It says "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death." This is absolutely true. Then it goes to say "The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," which there is also true, but at 1960 era levels. We have dramatically cleaned up airborne pollutions since then, and I don't believe the report to be as accurate is presented.

Now consider this:


The Academy panel examined short-term exposure — up to 24 hours — to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death "may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone."

Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.

"Short term high level," and "nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels." Yes, we know ozone is deadly. More studies are not needed. Who is requesting unneeded grants? Have you ever looked at the levels of Nitrogen Oxide we produce from coal burning and auto emissions? Before placing scrubbers and other pollution controls on the power facilities and our modern emission systems on cars, we had problems here. I really doubt we do today. I want to see the numbers of these pollutants in the air today compared to the 60's though 80's before such things were mandatory.

My point is we already addressed the concerns. You can only address these concerns so far before it gets prohibitly expensive. You cannot make it 100% safe. Should we return to the pre-industrialization era?

Another:


While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.
Duh... another no brainer. However, where does one come in contact with such levels? No where except some jobs where you are thoroughly briefed on such usage, and safety practices are used. There is an occasional accident. This is likely what they refer to, then want to implicate the common environment.

Now the article also speaks of people with problems already, that smog increased their death rate. Well, these people are going to die prematurely anyway from something that aggravates their condition. Are we going to try to eliminate everything and place hardships on the many for the few?

Did you know the EPA did in fact reduce the standards from 80 ppb (1997 standard) to 75 ppm, earlier this month?


The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in a statement that there was "no clear and substantial basis" for tightening the standards set more than a decade ago.

"This decision by the EPA to lower the ozone standard unnecessarily will impose significant new burdens on states and others even as they continue to try and comply with the 1997 standard," the ACC said.

The non-profit group Clean Air Watch assailed the announcement, accusing the government of "compromising public health to save industry money."

"Once again, the Bush administration has chosen to disregard the advice of the EPA's own independent science advisers," who had unanimously urged a standard tougher than that selected by the agency, said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

"Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science."

Clean Air Watch said EPA's science advisers had unanimously recommended that the smog standard be lowered to between 60 and 70 ppb.

Now consider atmospheric chemistry. Ozone is a natural part of it. NO and NO2 play a dance of equilibrium and ozone is not only created, but used up as it changes between the two forms. This normal atmospheric chemistry is present without smog. They don't say that though. Do they. They let the reader assume low level ozone is only cause by man. I'd like to see the nominal ranges without a man made influence. I would think it is likely in the 60 to 70 ppb range the CAW advisors want, or alt least close. Maybe 50 ppb.

Now rather than editing my above work, I just went to an online too, Spectral Calc (http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php). I looked at 10 meter, 100 meter, and 1 km atmospheric levels. They are very similar. Here is the 100 meter plot:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/VMRsat100meters.png

Notice the ozone levels are shown at about 12-13 ppb so my guess is wrong. Still, NO (130 ppt) and NO2 (12 ppt) are both in the parts per trillion! HCN are at similar levels to NO at about 110 ppt and it plays a non-exchange in ozone production. At least NO and NO2 play an equilibrium exchange with the third oxygen atom in O3.

Question... HCN is known to be deadly. It's used as a WMD as a blood agent. Why don't we regulate it's level to extinction?

Ozone is actually a very short lived molecule in anything past trace levels. Ozone actually helps clean the atmosphere of other pollutants: As the molecules get heavier, they from out of the atmosphere and get cleansed by the rain more rapidly than without ozone:

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2
NO2 + O3 → NO3 + O2
NO2 + NO3 → N2O5

Ozone reacts with carbon (soot) to form carbon dioxide:

C + 2 O3 → CO2 + 2 O2

Ozone reacts with sulfides to make sulfates:

PbS + 4 O3 → PbSO4 + 4 O2 (nice to help clean lead out of the atmosphere, right?)

Sulfuric acid can be produced from ozone, starting either from elemental sulfur or from sulfur dioxide:

S + H2O + O3 → H2SO4
3 SO2 + 3 H2O + O3 → 3 H2SO4

I wonder how fast these pollutants would be removed from the atmosphere without out increased levels of ozone. I would think if we reduced ozone, these other pollutants would accumulate more. Ozone is a natural cleaner. I think one should consider the theory of what happens with reduced levels to the other pollutants we put up.

Ozone will also turn cyanides to the one thousand times less toxic cyanates:

CN- + O3 → CNO- + O2

CN (cyanide) is a natural product of N2 → CN in the atmosphere when the solar radiation changes nitrogen into carbon 14:

1n + 14N → 14C + 1H

Now I am one for cleaning the atmosphere, but really. How much is being considered. We probably have the cleanest environmental standards in the world, yet we have those who will always say it's not enough also.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with the point you make. I don't agree with the accuracy of the article... why do you trust the article?

So the article was incorrect when it said:
"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,"

or

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments " made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits."

I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

[RandomGuy]

arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits

2) What political motivation would the administration have to claim this?


Again, I don't trust the article. What is the proper context of what they extrapolate this assessment from?

"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.

SECOND TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

4) Is it reasonable to conclude that low-level exposure to toxic chemicals might be deleterious to the health of vulnerable individuals, even if that exposure does not rise to normally fatal levels?

It is absolutely reasonable. However, the article doesn't give good sources or link references for factual assessment.

For you ease of reference, here is something that might help, the link to the report cited in the article. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12198)


Or the related press release(don't worry it is a regular web page, not a pdf) (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198)

WASHINGTON -- Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards. The committee that wrote the report was not asked to consider how evidence has been used by EPA to set ozone standards, including the new public health standard set by the agency last month.

Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects. In addition, evidence of a relationship between short-term -- less than 24 hours -- exposure to ozone and mortality has been mounting, but interpretations of the evidence have differed, prompting EPA to request the Research Council report. In particular, the agency asked the committee to analyze the ozone-mortality link and assess methods for assigning a monetary value to lives saved for the health-benefits assessments.

[RandomGuy]

Look at it. It says "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death." This is absolutely true. Then it goes to say "The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," which there is also true, but at 1960 era levels. We have dramatically cleaned up airborne pollutions since then, and I don't believe the report to be as accurate is presented.

If you have contravening evidence, perhaps you should present it to the panel.


WASHINGTON -- Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198), says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards.

[RandomGuy]

When we exhale what kind of gas is it? And should we stop breathing,
Clam and Chump, I already know your answer.

I know the answer you have in mind, but you are mistaken.

When we exhale, the expelled gas is primarily nitrogen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere)

A better, and more accurate question should be:

What gases are produced by the burning of oxygen and sugars in the course of our normal metabolism.

Just trying to help. That would get you the answer you are looking for. :madrun

[RandomGuy]

Lunch is up. Back to work.

This is a good thread, and I will get back to it.

[Wild Cobra]

So the article was incorrect when it said:
"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,"

It depends on what they are referring to by 'ambient' and 'short term.' The article gives no levels. When what I understand as ambient levels are natural and the maximum allowable is about 5X that level, it is important that they define a level. After reading the below article you linked, it refers to the levels in some areas. I forget the number, was it 32 areas unable to meet the new standard?



or

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments " made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits."

Look, I agree smog is a bad thing. I believe it contributes to added health problems and death for those with existing conditions. However, I cannot ascertain any reasonable arguments out of the article. Ozone and Smog are not the same beast. They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.



I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

I'm not going to disagree with the study. Just the way the article is written. Scientific reports use specific words and phrases. The author changes these.

I know ozone is VERY DANGEROUS at levels in the ppm range! I know that short term exposure to these low levels can be serious. Since they give no levels, and the standard is already pretty strict, I don't trust the author.


"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.
First of all, what is the full context. I cannot believe it was placed as a blanket statement. There is statistical proof that certain levels do cause harm, and it makes sense. If you claim that any level of smog is hazardous, that statement is blatantly false. Without any assigned levels, this is pure bullshit. You want me to assign a political motivation for the administration when I don't see cause to believe it.


For you ease of reference, here is something that might help, the link to the report cited in the article. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12198)


Or the related press release(don't worry it is a regular web page, not a pdf) (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198)
I'm not taking the time for the PDF. There are only a small number of places that have such levels in the second link and there is no certainty:



Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths

Likely if I recall, statistically, is just greater than 50%. This is also applied to those on their death beads already, unless you can show me otherwise.

I have always believed smog is more damaging than things like second-hand smoke. We have many environmental pollutants. We have some a long was sinve before the EPA was formed and the environmental laws placed starting in the 70's. I suppose you ear to young to remember those times. We likely live in a safer air quality than before with firewood and coal being used to heat and cook before electricity. Both of these activities are going to contribute to greater health risks than we see today. What about the methane levels of nearly all the population loving on or near a farm also.

I'm sorry. To complain about ozone levels when they are less than 10x natural is just too much for me. I see it as going far overboard.

[RandomGuy]

"I don't trust the article" does not answer the question:

"What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Please answer the question as asked. It is a fair question.




First of all, what is the full context. I cannot believe it was placed as a blanket statement. There is statistical proof that certain levels do cause harm, and it makes sense. If you claim that any level of smog is hazardous, that statement is blatantly false. Without any assigned levels, this is pure bullshit. You want me to assign a political motivation for the administration when I don't see cause to believe it.

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking for a possible political motive.

Tangentally, I am also testing your commitment to intellectual honesty.

A test that you have, thus far, failed.

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

THIRD TIME THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED

[RandomGuy]

Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths




Likely if I recall, statistically, is just greater than 50%. This is also applied to those on their death beads already, unless you can show me otherwise.

(shrugs)

It is in the press release, if you had bothered to read it.


However, premature deaths are not limited to people who are already within a few days of dying.


In addition, the committee examined research based on large population groups to find how changes in ozone air concentration could affect mortality, specifically to determine the existence of a threshold -- a concentration of ozone below which exposure poses no risk of death. The committee concluded that if a threshold exists, it is probably at a concentration below the current public health standard. As people have individual susceptibilities to ozone exposure, not everyone may experience an altered risk of death if ozone air concentration also changes. Further research should explore how personal thresholds may vary and the extent to which they depend on a person's frailty, the committee said.

Your confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) is showing.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry. To complain about ozone levels when they are less than 10x natural is just too much for me. I see it as going far overboard.

If I increased the salt concentration in your blood by 9 times and left you that way for a decade, I wonder if you would think that being concerned about that is overboard.

You said it yourself: ozone is very damaging to organisms.

I asked you what ozone levels you would feel comfortable with being continually exposed to for decades, and you were less than forthcoming.

Is that because there is no data about what level is generally harmful, or you just don't know?

[Wild Cobra]

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking for a possible political motive.

It would be a guess, but that is more reasonable to me than the people demanding higher standards not understanding the costs involved and harm it would do to our economy.



Tangentally, I am also testing your commitment to intellectual honesty.

That is my demand upon the authors! They are not providing adaquate information that is trustworthy. I need to see that first myself.



A test that you have, thus far, failed.

Failing by asking the same question in other words, indirectly?



What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

Context...

We know that past levels of smog we had in the 60's and 70's were harmful. Today, there is no way to show the same connection reliable. I simply do not believe what is being said. The current administrations political motive could be the balance of cost vs. decreased risks.

[Wild Cobra]

(shrugs)
It is in the press release, if you had bothered to read it.

Well, I related "likely" to the wrong number. Likely normally means 66% or more. "Most" is the term normally meant 50% or more.

I didn't see it quantified in the press release. Is it there?



Your confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) is showing.
Yes, I am biased. As a skeptic, I need proof or reasonable assessments to change my mind. My experience shows me most these alarming things we read are someone's agenda rather than truth. Until I see something to convince me otherwise, I will point out areas that I understand that will effected. If you wish you call that confirmation bias, then so be it. I disagree, but you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences. I guess it could appear that way. I could claim the same thing for you. You believe the article as dogma without reasonable discourse affecting your view. At least I show some relevance in my arguments. My bias is on the side of economics when I see no justifiable fear of ozone at current levels.

I have pointed out the low levels of N2O. The article claims this is the cause of O3. When NO2 is so much lower than O3, and it returns to N2O as it establishes an equilibrium:

NO2 + O2 → NO + O3

NO + O3 → NO2 + O2

Then it also clears out by forming NO3 and N2O5:

NO2 + O3 → NO3 + O2
NO2 + NO3 → N2O5

How can such low levels of NO2 pose a problem?

The anthropogenic cause of O3 is static electricity and electrical arcing. Electric motors, and electrical generating devices are a leading contributor. There are other causes like arc welding. Subways and electrical generation probably contribute to the highest man-mad ozone, so tell me. How do we significantly decrease levels without harming our economy?

How do we decreases ozone? How can we mandate lowering levels without identifying the source and a solution? The NO2 they cite doesn't fix the problem even if we eliminated NO2 completely. Wouldn't we have to shut down electrical generation plants until we place 'ozone capture devises' on them? Wouldn't we have to ban subways and hybrid cars until such devices are incorporated into their designs? What type of costs would be involved with the capture, and inter-cooling required?

Tell me... Do you have any viable solutions? Maybe the EPA and Bush administration is smart enough to say "It costs too much to mandate lower levels!"

Very high population dense areas are where you find high ozone. The solution is simple. Stop building cities so dense!

[Wild Cobra]

If I increased the salt concentration in your blood by 9 times and left you that way for a decade, I wonder if you would think that being concerned about that is overboard.

I don't have the background to assign a maximum level. I don't know. Your example here is unrealistic. The body maintains a specific range for proper operation. To artificially alter it is not quite the same.



You said it yourself: ozone is very damaging to organisms.

Absolutely, so is chlorine. The level is important. We can die from drinking too much water as well.



I asked you what ozone levels you would feel comfortable with being continually exposed to for decades, and you were less than forthcoming.

I am comfortable with the current levels the EPA allows. The EPA generally does a good job in my opinion. Unless I see some more credible work than someone who confuses smog and ozone, I will stick to my assessment that ozone is not an issue. Interchanging the two automatically discredit the work in my eyes.



Is that because there is no data about what level is generally harmful, or you just don't know?

I really don't know. Again, I need better proof than someone's synopsis of real work.

Besides, the fact that the EPA standards aren't met in some areas, and isn't addressed, what good does it do to tighten them farther?

[RandomGuy]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?


The current administrations political motive could be the balance of cost vs. decreased risks.

That is not a "political motive".

I am beginning to lose my patience with your evasions.

I will ask nicely one final time for an honest answer.

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

5th time this question has been asked, with no honest attempt at answering it.

[RandomGuy]

As a skeptic,

I am beginning to have my doubts about that...

[boutons_]

dubya/Repug Admin has long, varied, and very clear pattern of culpability of protecting/promoting/right-wing business to the detriment of public health and the enviroment.

=========================

White House undermines EPA on cancer risks, GAO says

(AP) -- The Bush administration is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting nonscientists have a bigger - often secret - say, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The administration's decision to give the Defense Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program's credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At issue is the EPA's screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.

A new review process begun by the White House in 2004 is adding more speed bumps for EPA scientists, the GAO said in its report, which will be the subject of a Senate Environment Committee hearing Tuesday. A formal policy effectively doubling the number of steps was adopted two weeks ago.

Cancer risk assessments for nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue, the GAO said, blaming the new multiagency reviews for some of the delay. The EPA, for example, had promised to prepare assessments on 10 major toxic chemicals for external peer review by the end of 2007, but only two reached that stage.

GAO investigators said extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals.

The Pentagon, the Energy Department, NASA and other agencies - all of which could be severely affected by EPA risk findings - are being allowed to participate "at almost every step in the assessment process," said the GAO.

Those agencies, their private contractors and manufacturers of the chemicals face restrictions and major cleanup requirements, depending on the EPA's scientific determinations.

"By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the Senate committee's chairman. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

The EPA's risk assessment process "never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said.

The White House said the GAO is wrong in suggesting that the EPA has lost control in assessing the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.

"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin F. Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the GAO. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

One EPA scientist with extensive knowledge of the changes in the agency's risk assessment policies ridiculed the claim that the EPA still has the final say.

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

The GAO investigation focused on the EPA's computerized database, known as IRIS - the Integrated Risk Information System. It contains data on the human health effects of exposure to some 540 toxic chemicals in the environment. New chemicals are being proposed constantly for inclusion under a complicated assessment process that can take five years or more.

After years of stops and starts, the GAO said, the EPA has yet to determine carcinogen risks for a number of major chemicals such as:

-Naphthalene, a chemical used in rocket fuel as well as in manufacturing commercial products such as mothballs, dyes and insecticides.

-Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a widely used industrial degreasing agent.

-Perchloroethylene, or "perc," a chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and making chemical products.

-Formaldehyde, a colorless, flammable gas used to making building materials.

Environmentalists say these chemicals have been widely found at military bases and Superfund sites and in soil, lakes, streams and groundwater.

The findings, after an 18-month investigation by the congressional watchdog agency, come at a time of growing criticism from members of Congress and health and environmental advocates over alleged political interference in the government's science activities.

Last week, a confidential survey by an advocacy group of EPA scientists showed more than half of the 1,600 respondents worried about political pressure in their work.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


=========================

With dubya's Exec, presumption of guilt as accused is ALWAYS the starting point. The burden of proof of innocence is on the WH, not on the accusers. Willful ignorance, malicious incompetence, political interference deep into the Administration under a cloak of secrecy are the hallmarks of dubya's exec since 20 Jan 2001.

"change" from the above is what I'm hoping for with Obama. The politicization of science and govt by dubya must be stopped and reverssed. McCain is too stupid and neo-cunt. I don't trust Hillary. Obama, who knows. We have to try.

[RandomGuy]

you fail to acknowledge I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences.

:rolleyes

If stroking your ego will help:

I acknowledge you base your opinions on a vast understanding of the sciences.

Now will you answer my question?

[RandomGuy]

My bias is on the side of economics...

Something else I doubt, based on what I see here. But hey, I will take you at your word.

Define "externality" in the sense of its usage in economics.

[RandomGuy]

You believe the article as dogma

Please show a quote from me that demonstrates that I blindly believe "the article" despite any proof given.

and

Please tell me what comment I offered on the article in the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

You know Random, you are the one that has the weak argument here. You quote a story, don't link it, when I find it, it has no links to reports for me to make any assessment with.

You really think you're being smart huh?

In post #6, you link a Google search. Not any story correlating supportive evidence. There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.

You ask what the political motivation would be? I told you, I can only guess. When I guess, you act as if I should have one that you consider valid. I don't really think they're playing politics with this one. I think they believe the science doesn't sufficiently warrant tightening the standards more than they are.

I am amazed at your lack of critical thinking. This is an AP story with no source links. Do you believe everything from the AP? Have you searched for a valid source to support the story?

You ask "Is it reasonable to conclude that the National Academy of science would place propaganda over valid science?" but you go by what the AP story says. I cannot find that at the National Academy of Science's (http://search.nationalacademies.org) site. In my searches in the site, they say they don't know the effects. They say the cause is complex and not understood. They talk about the precursors to ozone and say they don't understand their effect.

I say the AP story is full of holes, yet you take it as dogma. I simply want some evidence the story is right. From the start, I said it was a bad story, the way the correlated smog and ozone.

I simply want some more evidence. When I finally read the summary from the link you provided, it supports my position.



FUTURE REGULATORY-IMPACT ANALYSES INVOLVING OZONE MORTALITY

Because short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths, future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone- control measures should include the benefits of reduced mortality risk. As in EPA’s RIA for the recently finalized ozone NAAQS, emphasis should be on using estimates from new systematic multicity analyses that used national databases of air pollution and mortality, such as in the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, without excluding consideration of meta-analysis of previously published studies. Future RIAs should give little or no weight to the assumption that there is no causal association between estimated reductions in premature mortality and reduced ozone exposure. Health-benefits estimates should be accompanied by a broad array of analyses of uncertainty.

Distributed-lag models over several days appear better than single-day models at capturing the acute and subacute mortality effects of ozone exposure and should be part of future benefits assessments to the extent that they are supported in the literature.

Future RIAs should incorporate research results on the mortality effects of chronic ozone exposure and research that addresses key uncertainties related to potential confounding factors, exposure measures, and susceptibility as appropriate.

Despite many concerns about the accuracy of any specific WTP value and a corresponding VSL that does not vary with population or risk characteristics, the committee recommends a single VSL as the most scientifically supportable approach at present for monetary valuation of ozone-related mortality. Before making a substantial change in its approach for valuation of mortality-risk reductions, EPA should have fairly conclusive empirical evidence to support the change. It is the committee’s judgment that the available evidence is not now sufficient to support such a change, but sensitivity analyses should explore alternative approaches and further research should be conducted to answer the questions raised about the validity of EPA’s current approach. Benefits-assessment methods may need to be revised as new information emerges on characteristics of populations susceptible to an ozone-mortality risk and on variations in WTP for mortality-risk reductions (or increases in life expectancy) based on different population characteristics.

EPA should consider placing greater emphasis on reporting changes in age-specific death rates and changes in life expectancy in the relevant populations than on reporting estimates of lives saved or premature deaths avoided.

In this report, the committee has identified major gaps in knowledge about methods for assessing benefits of ozone-related mortality risk reduction and has recommended research strategies to close those gaps. The committee recognizes that many of the recommended research activities are complex and will be difficult to undertake, and that sufficient resources may not be available to undertake them all in the near term. Therefore, EPA and other agencies that might carry out the recommended research will need to set priorities and develop a strategy for addressing the various information needs.


Now on page 32 of the report:



In and around urban areas in the United States, ambient ozone concentrations rise much further, to about 160 ppb in Houston and 180 ppb in Los Angeles. Although such concentrations may seem extreme, they are substantially reduced from the concentrations of more than 400 ppb experienced in the 1970s (e.g., NRC 1991). OZONE FORMATION AND TRANSPORT We must understand the formation and transport of tropospheric ozone if we are to be able to interpret health-benefits assessments of ozone and conduct new ones, inasmuch as the interpretation of epidemiologic analyses must consider ozone’s spatial and temporal patterns and their relationships with human exposure. Processes that affect ozone dynamics also affect other pollutants, such as components of particulate matter, and lead to what can be strong correlations between pollutant concentrations


Doesn't this support what I say about us already reducing levels?

How did we live in these cities at 400 ppb?

I downloaded the entire 150 + page report. I will go though it when I have time. I have not yet read anything that suggests what the AP article implies.

[RandomGuy]

You really think you're being smart huh?

(shrugs)
I am fairly smart by most measures. I don't see how that is relevant.

Since you have resorted to the same intellectual dishonesty as the people who advocate conspiracy theories about 9-11, I will now treat you like one.

I am done asking nicely.

[RandomGuy]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

6th time this question has been asked.

[RandomGuy]

I am amazed at your lack of critical thinking.

The following are listed as critical thinking skills:


S-3 exercising fairmindedness
S-4 exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying thoughts
S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment
S-7 developing intellectual good faith or integrity from this website (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm)

If I ask an honest, pertinent question in good faith, and you refuse to answer, is that indicative of the above qualities?

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

2nd time this question has been asked.

[RandomGuy]

There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.

There are indeed.

Is it logical to conclude they are all wrong when they claim something about the administration?

[RandomGuy]

Now on page 32 of the report:
In and around urban areas in the United States, ambient ozone concentrations rise much further, to about 160 ppb in Houston and 180 ppb in Los Angeles. Although such concentrations may seem extreme, they are substantially reduced from the concentrations of more than 400 ppb experienced in the 1970s (e.g., NRC 1991). OZONE FORMATION AND TRANSPORT We must understand the formation and transport of tropospheric ozone if we are to be able to interpret health-benefits assessments of ozone and conduct new ones, inasmuch as the interpretation of epidemiologic analyses must consider ozone’s spatial and temporal patterns and their relationships with human exposure. Processes that affect ozone dynamics also affect other pollutants, such as components of particulate matter, and lead to what can be strong correlations between pollutant concentrations


Doesn't this support what I say about us already reducing levels?

How did we live in these cities at 400 ppb?

I downloaded the entire 150 + page report. I will go though it when I have time. I have not yet read anything that suggests what the AP article implies.

I don't deny at all that we have reduced ozone levels in American cities. To answer your question: Yes the quote does support that thesis.

To answer your second, rather ambiguous, question:

We lived with higher levels.

I would also take issue with your bizzarre misconception about what the "article implies"

Here is the title of the article itself:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

Is the link between smog and premature death clear?

This is a simple yes or no question, so with all of your "vast knowledge of science" it should be a total slam-dunk.

[RandomGuy]

I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences

Another aspect of good critical thinking: (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm)


S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment

Does the phrase "I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences" exhibit "intellectual humility"?

[Don Quixote]

Let's calm down, people.

So, RandomDude, your point seems fairly obvious. You breathe dirty air, you get sick, you die sooner. I got it. Dirty air is bad.

So what's the solution?

[RandomGuy]

Let's calm down, people.

So, RandomDude, your point seems fairly obvious. You breathe dirty air, you get sick, you die sooner. I got it. Dirty air is bad.

So what's the solution?

Ever the bridgemaker. Props (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=props) man.

The thing that bothers me most about people like Wild Cobra is that they give rabid anti-evironmentalists intellectual cover for their horribly irrational beliefs. In this, they function a lot like the sciency-sounding asshats in the conspiracy theory movement.

At their heart the arguments they make tend to have a lot of "gee whiz" bullshit that sounds great to the casual observer, but when you do a modicum of reasonable and fair critical thinking about what they are saying, the irrationality of their starting assumptions and their confirmation bias becomes pretty clear.

To get to your question:

First thing we really need to do is pretty much what the AAS team said:

Gather more data.

We can't really come to decent, logical solutions without having a better grasp on the economic impacts. To do that, we need more research on the overall affects on human health of the various components of atmospheric pollution, such as ozone.

In this I fully agree with the report as I understand it (I have only read the press release from the academy regarding the report, but assume it is accurate) when it calls for such research. Good policy requires good data.

I don't think even WC can argue with that statement. ;)

[Don Quixote]

Fine. Sounds reasonable enough. As a generally anti-environmentalist conservative, I would caution against the govt passing drastic regulations that would limit business and industry, and in turn cost jobs and lower overall prosperity, unless there is a GOOD reason for it. And by good, I mean something proven scientifically, and within the power of man to change. (I guess this is my general complaint against the global warming movement, and ethanol subsidies).

And I return the respect. Politics is the culmination of ethics, Aristotle said. This stuff, and religion, is not to be reduced to trash-talking or misrepresenting others' positions. I don't fling poo.

[RandomGuy]

Fine. Sounds reasonable enough. As a generally anti-environmentalist conservative, I would caution against the govt passing drastic regulations that would limit business and industry, and in turn cost jobs and lower overall prosperity, unless there is a GOOD reason for it. And by good, I mean something proven scientifically, and within the power of man to change. (I guess this is my general complaint against the global warming movement, and ethanol subsidies).

And I return the respect. Politics is the culmination of ethics, Aristotle said. This stuff, and religion, is not to be reduced to trash-talking or misrepresenting others' positions. I don't fling poo.

I am of the opinion that environmental laws tend to be very good bets in terms of cost-benefit.

To be sure, one can go overboard and stop badly needed economic development because of stupid things like an endangered butterfly species.

BUT

We continually see the dangers of little or no environmental oversight when it comes to pollution. Lead in gasoline, the hideous stripmines of a century ago that stil make areas today too toxic for people, the time where one of the Great Lakes actually caught fire, and a host of other similar things make me want to err on the side of caution.

When people like Xray rail against environmental laws in sweeping generalities, it makes me want to make him drink river water in China (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=China+pollution&btnG=Google+Search), or hell live there for a decade or so to see if his opinion about those silly laws stays the same.

As for global warming itself, I don't find it unreasonable to think that dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere might have some bad effects.

Did you ever get around to watching this bit?

B1PPY6ElKZM

[RandomGuy]

You know Random, you are the one that has the weak argument here.

:rolleyes :jack

If my argument is so weak, then answering some simple questions shouldn't hurt your case that much, should it.

[boutons_]

"a disproportionate goes to AIDS."

MRSA (for now, mostly "hospital-associated") kills more in USA than AIDS

Preventable medical deaths kills more in USA than AIDS.

There are plenty of problems to work but since most of the victims of these problems are the poor, there's not enough $$ spent on them.

Burning up $2T in Iraq is a big help to our domestic problems (if you aren't in the MIC, which doesn't have any problem except how to bloat the military budget more).

=============

Anyway, WC digs out his irrelevant "science" trivia to "prove" that air pollution is what? not a problem?

To prove that dubya Exec has not fucked over every federal dept with ideological/religious/political bullshit and hacks way below seceretary level?

Tremendous progress has been made. Has air pollution been solved?

Then there's this little side show for all the poor people living next to and working in ports:

http://www.serconline.org/dieselPortPollution.html

NO = nitric oxide ( viagra increases it )

N2O = nitrous oxide

[RandomGuy]

Anyway, WC digs out his irrelevant "science" trivia to "prove" that air pollution is what? not a problem?

To prove that dubya Exec has not fucked over every federal dept with ideological/religious/political bullshit and hacks way below seceretary level?

Tremendous progress has been made. Has air pollution been solved?

Pretty much.

The report cited simply advocates two things, neither of which WC can really argue against:

1) Specific studies on the wider health effects of ozone on large populations should be done to get solid data on how ozone affects entire populations.

and

2) We should consider the costs of decreased overall health of populations exposed to increased levels of ozone when determining cost/benefits of pollution control policies.

Because both of these are pretty reasonable, and WC is, at heart, a hack, he won't try to actually say they aren't, because he knows he can't win that.

What he does here is simply try to argue around this, and throw up what amounts to essentially (pardon the pun) a smoke screen about smog.

He doesn't want a more general debate about this as he knows that his position is pretty untenable, so he nit-picks, and tries the ol' "baffle 'em with bullshit" gambit in the hopes that it might fool the casual observer.

:nope

I ain't gonna let that happen.

[boutons_]

dubya forces out/neutralizes/guts/edits yet another EPA/NASA/AAAS/FDA/USDA person or report that would enforce regulations, or in some way be anti-business. Many cases over the past 7 years where dubya negates /weakens/removes regulations to favor politics/religion/iedology over science.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-epa-official-resigns_webmay02,0,4655733.story

Can't blame Congress with this one.

[boutons_]

air study:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080501/ap_on_re_us/polluted_cities.html

[Wild Cobra]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

6th time this question has been asked.

I've answered that as good as I can. If you don't understand my response, I'm sorry.

Have a better question with numbers attached?

I said we know smog is a problem. I've said we know ozone is a problem.

What levels do you wish me to respond to?

You don't even know. Do you?

[Wild Cobra]

The following are listed as critical thinking skills:

from this website (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm)

If I ask an honest, pertinent question in good faith, and you refuse to answer, is that indicative of the above qualities?

I'm wasting my time with you. Aren't I?

You ask for honest and good faith answers, I give them. However, you are being underhanded since you loosely use the terms with no levels. Do you expect me to read their minds?

Are we talking of smog we can see, or just what we can measure.

Are we talking about any measurable smog?

Are you only going to be happy if I say only 0.000000% is acceptable?

I have responded with what I though was levels. I never say the administrations words in context. I see an article of an author that twists words, and you want more defined answers?

Again.... give me better defined questions.

I didn't read the 166 page report yet. Did you?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the title of the article itself:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

Is the link between smog and premature death clear?

This is a simple yes or no question, so with all of your "vast knowledge of science" it should be a total slam-dunk.

The link IS NOT CLEAR with only a "likely" statistical confidence level!

Besides, that's the title of this thread. I didn't see an article titled that. I have seen these titles:

"Link Between Ozone Air Pollution and Premature Death Confirmed"

"Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction
and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution"

Like I said from the start. You didn't provide a link. I did find it also, but it is a misrepresntation of the source material. Don't you understand that? Read the 166 page report yourself. OK? Maybe you'll stop listening to propagandist.

Anyway, at what levels? At what certainty? Did you read that part yet?

Again. Likely, i.e. 66% confidence. Is it so wrong to believe that others feel it is not likely?

To the blanket statement and nominal levels we have. I say that bullshit. To high levels that some places may experience, yes, it is is possible. Now what good does it do to tighten the standards even more if the current levels are being broken, and nothing happening?

Oh... One more thing...

You keep asking over and over the same question I answered over and over. How about going back and answering all of my questions please? Shouldn't one do what they ask of another?

[Wild Cobra]

The thing that bothers me most about people like Wild Cobra is that they give rabid anti-evironmentalists intellectual cover for their horribly irrational beliefs. In this, they function a lot like the sciency-sounding asshats in the conspiracy theory movement.

Bullshit. You simply do not comprehend what I am saying. I am using levels, you are not. You seem to think that my acceptance of a small quantity is horrible, yet you do not define any level at all, or discuss levels, solutions, etc.



At their heart the arguments they make tend to have a lot of "gee whiz" bullshit that sounds great to the casual observer, but when you do a modicum of reasonable and fair critical thinking about what they are saying, the irrationality of their starting assumptions and their confirmation bias becomes pretty clear.

What? I have seen you as absolutely unreasonable. I don't see you exercising any critical thinking. It's just Attack Attack Attack!

I start by questioning the lead article and gave valid arguments. I have actually revised some of my statements. I have found the report and have referenced it rather than like you, referencing other people propaganda.



To get to your question:

First thing we really need to do is pretty much what the AAS team said:

Gather more data.

So why haven't you gathered any information?



We can't really come to decent, logical solutions without having a better grasp on the economic impacts. To do that, we need more research on the overall affects on human health of the various components of atmospheric pollution, such as ozone.

That is the basis of the report!



In this I fully agree with the report as I understand it (I have only read the press release from the academy regarding the report, but assume it is accurate) when it calls for such research. Good policy requires good data.

Correct.



I don't think even WC can argue with that statement. ;)

I don't. I simply disagree with your portrayal of this thread.

It appears you are throwing me in with being completely opposed to environmental regulation. I am not. I just think we have to keep a proper balance in mind. We need to keep things as clean as possible, but within reasonable costs also.



The report cited simply advocates two things, neither of which WC can really argue against:

1) Specific studies on the wider health effects of ozone on large populations should be done to get solid data on how ozone affects entire populations.

and

2) We should consider the costs of decreased overall health of populations exposed to increased levels of ozone when determining cost/benefits of pollution control policies.

Because both of these are pretty reasonable, and WC is, at heart, a hack, he won't try to actually say they aren't, because he knows he can't win that.

Bullshit you ass. You have never asked me such a thing, and focused on questions that my answers were never good enough for you. You should be ashamed of yourself.



What he does here is simply try to argue around this, and throw up what amounts to essentially (pardon the pun) a smoke screen about smog.

My argument is that the standards are fine.



He doesn't want a more general debate about this as he knows that his position is pretty untenable, so he nit-picks, and tries the ol' "baffle 'em with bullshit" gambit in the hopes that it might fool the casual observer.

:nope

I ain't gonna let that happen.
You are the one nit-picking.

How about you using some honest debating here. At what levels does the report say are too high and where does the risk start?

[RandomGuy]

Is the link between smog and premature death clear.


The link IS NOT CLEAR with only a "likely" statistical confidence level!

Besides, that's the title of this thread. I didn't see an article titled that. I have seen these titles:

My apologies, I asked the wrong question.

You said that the article itself was inaccurate.

To claim that, you would have to prove that the article was inaccurate when it said that:


Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

The question that directly addresses your implication that the article was inaccurate:

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Yes or no will do.

By the way, I used the article title as the thread title. That seems to have confused you. Sorry about that.

[RandomGuy]

What political motivation would the administration have to claim "that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits"?

6th time this question has been asked.



I've answered that as good as I can. If you don't understand my response, I'm sorry.

Despite my strong suspicions that you damned well understood the question, but are choosing to be a dishonest hack, I will assume in good faith that you simply didn't understand the question as it was posed.

I will rephrase it to break it down into simpler terms, but we will need to agree on a starting assumption or two in order to proceed:

1) The Bush administration generally is against increasing pollution controls.

Agreed?

[RandomGuy]

You didn't provide a link.

My apologies. I didn't provide a link to the source article.

Since you seem to be unable to find an Associated Press article given the subject matter, author, and news organization, I took the liberty of doing the following.

I put the phrase "Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear" into google and hit "search".

The first thing that came up was an article whose title was, "Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear" at Yahoo.news.

Click here for a link to the source article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_he_me/smog_death)

I didn't think it would be difficult to find the original article. I will try to be a bit better about linking sources.

[RandomGuy]

Define "externality" in the sense of its usage in economics.


We need to agree on some definitions before we can have any meaningful discussions, so let's make sure we have some common understanding.

[RandomGuy]

I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences

Another aspect of good critical thinking: (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm)


S-5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment

Does the phrase "I base my opinions on a vast understanding on the sciences" exhibit "intellectual humility"?

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked.

You cannot claim that I hold this article as dogma without providing proof of this statement.

Either admit you are wrong, or provide the proof.

[RandomGuy]

How about going back and answering all of my questions please? Shouldn't one do what they ask of another?


Sure. I will lump them all into this post, as time permits with future edits.


Are you pulling a "propaganda Dan?"

I have, over the last seven years, been horrified that this administration plays politics with science at all levels. This article was illustrative of that, and my intent was to show yet another instance of it. In that it was information that reflects my views it is "propaganda", yes.


However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you?

No, I would not.


[Thinking about ozone levels is similar to thinking about swimming pools and chlorine, we are just dealing with higher or lower concentrations. Right?]

Correct.


why do you trust the article?

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.


What is the proper context of what they extrapolate [the assessment that "arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits]?

I don't know what the "proper context" would be. Either some White House officials argued that the the "connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits" is true, or it isn't.


we have more smog in many places from the jet stream carrying pollution from Asia that we create ourselves! How do you regulate that?

You don't. You have treaties, and help these countries develop in such a way as to put less smog into the air.


Who is requesting unneeded grants?

I don't know. That depends on defining "needed" and "unneeded".


Have you ever looked at the levels of Nitrogen Oxide we produce from coal burning and auto emissions?

Yes, I have.


Should we return to the pre-industrialization era?

Heavens, no.


However, where does one come in contact with [high] levels [of ozone]?

According to the EPA, anyone who is outside in cities on "Ozone action days".


Are we going to try to eliminate everything and place hardships on the many for the few?

No. I would argue from the basis of basic economics and considering externalities, that decreasing levels of ozone by definition, places hardships on the few for the benefit of the many.


Did you know the EPA did in fact reduce the standards from 80 ppb (1997 standard) to 75 ppm, earlier this month?

Yes.

--------------------------

Time's up for RG's answer-a-thon. I will continue later.

[boutons_]

apropos:

America's Most Polluted Cities Revealed

Pittsburgh Beats Out Los Angeles as U.S. City With Worst Air Pollution

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Weather/story?id=4758772&page=1

.

[RandomGuy]

I never say the administrations words in context. I see an article of an author that twists words, and you want more defined answers?

The debate listed in the OP, was probably about the Annual Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2007_cb/2007_draft_cb_report.pdf). (click link for pdf file)

In which the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) attempts to quantify the costs and benefits of federal regulations.

The administration, in attempting to paint itself in as positive a light as possible, will attempt to define "costs" as narrowly as possible, and "benefits" as broadly as possible.

So when the administration attempts to assert that the "science isn't there" to back up something that might add a cost to the OMB estimate, you should be just a *wee* bit skeptical of an administration that has consistantly played politics with science to further its own ideological agenda.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you insist on taking this administrations' word as dogma?

[Wild Cobra]

My apologies, I asked the wrong question.

You said that the article itself was inaccurate.

To claim that, you would have to prove that the article was inaccurate when it said that:

I pointed out the incorrect naming of ozone as smog. I pointed out the NO2 and NO differences as to why the article was wrong. I may have cited other facts as well. With such easily seen errors in the article, one must wonder, what else is wrong?



The question that directly addresses your implication that the article was inaccurate:

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Yes or no will do.

No!

Not by what I read in the report. Again, LIKELY is not the same as CLEAR! They correlate ozone, to 25 ppb with some indication of statistical reliability, but they don't call it premature death at those levels. We are talking about people ready to die anyway. Then I would like to know what types of possible controls they can have without resorting to human experiments. There are other pollutants in the air. The report gets very difficult for me to follow all I have so far. Now on page 2, they do say:


The committee concludes from its review of the health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths. Despite some continuing questions about the interpretation of the evidence, the committee concluded that the evidence is strong enough to be used in the estimation of the expected mortality-reduction benefits of a decrease in exposure to ozone.
Again, ozone. Not smog! Then you have to read the report to understand at what levels they speak of.

Again, did you read any of the 166 page PDF? You really should if you wish to defend a media account.

At least the report doesn't' improperly mix the terms smog with ozone or the different types of NOx forms.



By the way, I used the article title as the thread title. That seems to have confused you. Sorry about that.

I meant to change that part. So much going on, I forgot I did find that article. I like the USA Today version better. It links a couple more relevant articles.



Despite my strong suspicions that you damned well understood the question, but are choosing to be a dishonest hack, I will assume in good faith that you simply didn't understand the question as it was posed.

You expect me to come up with a political motivation when I don't see one. That is why may answer was the best I have. I believe they are in this case doing what they think is right, rather than political expedient. They are following the given guidelines of cost vs. regulation.



I will rephrase it to break it down into simpler terms, but we will need to agree on a starting assumption or two in order to proceed:

1) The Bush administration generally is against increasing pollution controls.

Agreed?

Yes, in general. So what? So do I. Each case is different.




yet you take [the story] as dogma.I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

2nd time this question has been asked..

As long as you take the article as fact, without acknowledging the errors I showed, or showing my alleged errors as wrong, then yes. Dogma suits the purpose. You take the media at face value of giving the truth. Faithful right? Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough. It appears you have a "code of belief" that this source (AP) is always right.




Wild Cobra:

There are millions of Bush Bashers out there that write propaganda and outright lies.
There are indeed.

Is it logical to conclude they are all wrong when they claim something about the administration?

Not at all. Some things president Bush does are wrong. However, when a story takes a competent report and twists what the meaning is, it does become just more Bush Bashing.

Wasn't this a response to the google search you linked? That link generated how many thousands? You could have at least liked something that was relevant rather than such numbers that are mostly Bush Bashing.


I have also asked you for proof of this.

Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked.

You cannot claim that I hold this article as dogma without providing proof of this statement.

Either admit you are wrong, or provide the proof.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when I haven't had a chance to respond yet?

No you believe smog and ozone are the same as indicated in the article? Ozone is the subject, yet the administration was asked about smog, so what am I suppose to think? Ozone is a component of smog. It ca be at relatively low levels in high smog, or at relatively high levels in low smog. It's a stupid question to correlate the administrations answer on smog, and relate it to ozone. The components of smog must be addressed individually in this regard.

Now I lost some of my response, and I am a bit lost after a computer crash. I had something leading to this diagram:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/ozonecycle.gif

Notice how O3 is primarily combining with something else, cleansing the air? Notice how there are also natural sources? Also notice how it completely ignores electrical causes... 3 O2 and electricity form 2 O3!:

O2 + uv energy → 2O
O + O2 → O3

This occurs around high voltage lines and anything that produces an electrical arc like electrical motors and generators too.

Now as wrong is I unlikely am, there is this natural ozone component that that contributes to the issue. I don't know at what levels, but it cannot be discounted.

Oh, maybe I should have linked this:

Ozone-oxygen cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle)

It just dawned on me to actually find a source for you. Notice how the action in the wiki link shows a cleansing of Nitrogen Oxide and the destruction of the ozone! Your precious article says NO contributes to ozone, right?

Now if you look up ozone in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone), it has thes:


Incidental production

Ozone may be formed from O2 by electrical discharges and by action of high energy electromagnetic radiation. Certain electrical equipment generate significant levels of ozone. This is especially true of devices using high voltages, such as ionic air purifiers, laser printers, photocopiers, and arc welders. Electric motors using brushes can generate ozone from repeated sparking inside the unit. Large motors that use brushes, such as those used by elevators or hydraulic pumps, will generate more ozone than smaller motors.

Anything that has a static electric or sparking component to it produces ozone. This includes air conditioning, subways, hybrids, etc. After we have such nice scrubbers on coal plants, and good catalytic systems on autos, what's next? Shutting down subways, elevators, power converter stations, etc?

How many high tension power lines are in the areas of high ozone? Also from wiki under ozone:


It can also be prepared by passing 10,000-20,000 volts DC through dry O2. This can be done with an apparatus consisting of two concentric glass tubes sealed together at the top, with in and out spigots at the top and bottom of the outer tube. The inner core should have a length of metal foil inserted into it connected to one side of the power source. The other side of the power source should be connected to another piece of foil wrapped around the outer tube. Dry O2 should be run through the tube in one spigot. As the O2 is run through one spigot into the apparatus and 10,000-20,000 volts DC are applied to the foil leads, electricity will discharge between the dry dioxygen in the middle and form O3 in O2 out the other spigot. The reaction can be summarized as follows:

3 O2 — electricity → 2 O3
The 10,000 volts or more does not have to pass through oxygen. This is for high volume production. It just happens any place that high tension lines exist.

I'm running out of time today. I will continue with your other posts.

Please avoid repeating the same questions I already answered, or haven't had a chance to respond to yet.

[Wild Cobra]

I have, over the last seven years, been horrified that this administration plays politics with science at all levels. This article was illustrative of that, and my intent was to show yet another instance of it. In that it was information that reflects my views it is "propaganda", yes.

I haven't seen that. I have seen how the media and leftist pundits lie about president Bush, but I have not seen him play politics like others do. He has some ideas that bother the hell out of me. But I have to defend him when others resort to lies rather than truth.





However, you wouldn't swim in Clorox, would you?

No, I would not.

I didn't even take that example to the proper level. I forgot to include tap water. I don't think anyone has problems with normal levels of chlorine put in the water to control unwanted bacteria and other possible health issues. Some people do have problems with the levels in swimming pools.





why do you trust the article?

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

Well they utterly failed on fact checking this one. They must lack several specialized technical editors. This one never was fact checked for scientific accuracy, or else they have a real idiot in charge of such fact checking.



I don't know what the "proper context" would be. Either some White House officials argued that the the "connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits" is true, or it isn't.

Wow... I'm sorry. That approach allows you to imaging any context you like.

I'm sorry, but context is very important. I'm sorry you feel like you can assume whatever you like.



You don't. You have treaties, and help these countries develop in such a way as to put less smog into the air.

LOL... Good luck. We have very clean air where I live until the jet streams decide to pollute our skies from Asia. We have no control what so ever on their pollution output.

I cannot wait until the 2008 Olympics are over, and a large pert of our population see just how bad it really is over there.



According to the EPA, anyone who is outside in cities on "Ozone action days".

And these are levels deemed at levels related to the 80 ppb (now 75 ppb) right?

I wonder. How many of those ozone monitors are placed in places where they may get inaccurate results for the whole area? They could be picking up localized sources in theory that do not reflect the whole region. I wonder at what level they call the alarm at?



No. I would argue from the basis of basic economics and considering externalities, that decreasing levels of ozone by definition, places hardships on the few for the benefit of the many.

How can such a statement be supported when the levels being debated only affect a very small segment of the population, and in statistical theory, with o hard evidence?



The administration, in attempting to paint itself in as positive a light as possible, will attempt to define "costs" as narrowly as possible, and "benefits" as broadly as possible.

Where did they say that in conjunction to the ozone/smog issue? I have yet to see any of that in a context to derive a proper thought upon.



So when the administration attempts to assert that the "science isn't there" to back up something that might add a cost to the OMB estimate, you should be just a *wee* bit skeptical of an administration that has consistently played politics with science to further its own ideological agenda.

Again, context. Without context, we can only place our biased guesses upon it. I prefer not to guess.


Why do you insist on taking this administrations' word as dogma?
Why are you so bigoted against me to assume that?

From the start, I pointed out holes in the article and asked for context. I'm sorry, but that it at best, a very ignorant assumption to make. I know you are better than that.

You... have been unable to provide any valid information. Just other links that I consider propaganda. The only good link that has the report in it does not support the articles lies!

[boutons_]

dubya/Repug/neo-cunts have politicized the career/professional staffing with ideological/coporate/lobbyist shill and emasculated scientific reports to protect businesses and DoD

================

Hundreds of Federal Scientists Ordered to Lie by Bush Administration

Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiG8PT3cEiOqXFkMJuutD97RCoeQD907NRL00) by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University, commissioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

One half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work (http://ucsusa.org/news/press_release/hundreds-of-epa-scientists-0112.html).

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing political interference in their work over the last five years. Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document. Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

The University sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemicals cancer risk for humans.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," UCS said.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as the agency's political appointees and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists.

EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate in the survey, but the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate in their private time.



White House Gives Industry More Influence over Science Process

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chastised (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3a7fff07-802a-23ad-4978-cac34a8985c4&Region_id=&Issue_id=) the Environmental Protection Agency for giving industry (http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200804281.html#4)the ability to directly input information into the EPA's influential database that catalogues chemical risk information, known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The new process lets "the White House and federal polluters derail EPA's scientific assessment of toxic chemicals," she charged. The new policy, announced April 10 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/1365469639099E6585257427005BB22A) on the agency's website, will allow industry to contribute its own biased information to the IRIS database, which was previously compiled solely by agency scientists. The new policy also allows for earlier and more extensive involvement by the White House and federal agencies that pollute the environment, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

According to the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1026), the changes mean that:


• Affected corporations will be intimately involved in each step of EPA's risk assessment and will be able to know what staff are assigned to which work, making the agency "research plan" vulnerable to political manipulation through the appropriations process;

• The Defense and Energy Departments, two of the world's largest polluters, will have a formal role on how pollutants, such as the chemical perchlorate, are evaluated. In addition, these agencies could declare a particular chemical to be "mission critical" that would allow them to control how "data gaps" are to be filled. All their alterations will be made in secret. All intra-and inter-agency communications on risk assessments are deemed "deliberative" and thus confidential.

The new policy gives polluters power to determine which chemicals get assessed and how those assessments are conducted. It also formalizes a new process to be run by the White House and polluters behind closed doors and exclude the public.

Federal, state and international agencies use these assessments to create public health protections, including drinking water standards, toxic waste cleanup levels, air pollution limits, controls on dangerous chemicals in food and consumer products, worker protections and other safeguards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/unearthed-news-of-the-wee_b_99981.html?view=print

[Wild Cobra]

dubya/Repug/neo-cunts have politicized the career/professional staffing with ideological/coporate/lobbyist shill and emasculated scientific reports to protect businesses and DoD

================

Hundreds of Federal Scientists Ordered to Lie by Bush Administration
<snip>
OK, let's assume the report is correct. Show me in it how Kennedy's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy_Jr.) portrayal of it is correct. He is a lying piece of slime who can be regularly heard on Air America. I listen to him from time to time. I wonder if he's on heroine again?

In the source site page, I didn't see any indication of where the interference comes from. If I had to assume the type of group, I would assume it comes from leftist groups through their congress members. I didn't see anything indicating the political source philosophy, or what the pressured changes entailed. Did you?

The title sets the viewpoint of the idiotic Huffington Post readers. Anyone reading that propaganda should verify the facts before repeating the work.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how the results look more reasonable to me when it asks a good pointed question rather than ones based on heresay:

Question 39. How many activities or situations like those listed above have you personally experienced during the past 5 years?

0, 581(39.5%)
1-5, 655(44.6%)
6-10, 175(11.9%)
11-20, 34 (2.3%)
more than 20, 25 (1.7%)

How many people in their jobs agree all the time that their management is correct? If for only one time during the five years a worker thought his data was altered in a way he disagreed with, pressured to change it, etc, then he becomes one of the 655!

To trust what Bouton's posted, one needs to be an idiot after reading the full questionaire. I'd say 39.5% responding with ZERO incidents is a pretty good sign for a five year period.

I could get into allot of things that bother me about both the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_concerned_scientists) and their report titled Interference at the EPA (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Interference-at-the-EPA.pdf). Let's just leave it as them being a left wing environmental group that... They themselves try to influence political decisions!

It's not even a requirement to be a scientist to be a member! Just send your $25 bux!

[RandomGuy]

yet you take [the story] as dogma.

I have also asked you for proof of this.
Please show a quote of mine that supports this thesis.

3rd time this question has been asked..

As long as you take the article as fact, without acknowledging the errors I showed, or showing my alleged errors as wrong, then yes. Dogma suits the purpose. You take the media at face value of giving the truth. Faithful right? Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough. It appears you have a "code of belief" that this source (AP) is always right.

I didn't ask for your opinion.

I asked for proof. Proof you have failed to provide when asked.

If you couldn't just admit this was probably not a valid claim, and that is regrettable.

If you aren't smart enough to tell the difference between proof and your opinion, then I will have to simply have to increase my level of skepticism when you start making claims based on your "vast knowledge of science".

Either way, your claims that I am somehow deficient at critical thinking are beginning to sound just a *wee* bit hypocritical.

[RandomGuy]

I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.

Here is what I actually said about the article.

[RandomGuy]

I pretty much already answered this one. I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

Also what I said about the article.

These are the only times I have commented on the validity of the article itself.

[RandomGuy]

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

----------------------------

dogma
Noun
a doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by authority as true

------------------------------
Noun 1. dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[RandomGuy]

Dogma isn't the best word, but it fits well enough.

Only if you don't know what the word means. You seem to be fairly bright, so in this instance it is more likely that you were being disingenuous than stupid.

Since I did your work for you and provided my actual words and thoughts regarding the article, I will stop asking the question. You "likely" would have continued your pattern of evasion, anyway.

I think we can safely assume that in this one instance you were not being honest. You were asked for proof of your claim, and not only failed to provide the proof of the claim, it can be reasonbly inferred that the claim was incorrect.

[RandomGuy]

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Not by what I read in the report. Again, LIKELY is not the same as CLEAR!

Oh really?

Perhaps my limited knowledge of science doesn't allow me to read well, either.

Let's try a simple non-sciencey comparison and see if my reading comprehension is up to speed.


Link between massive amounts of rain and floods confirmed.

Link between massive aomunts of rain and floods is clear.

Yes or no, are these two statements interchangible? Are they synonymous?

Quid pro quo. Answer this yes or no, and I will answer one of your questions.

[boutons_]

More lung problems from "minor" air pollution:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080505094136.htm

conservatives/Repugs financed by BigBusiness:

"The evidence is contradictory, we need more study (but we won't pay for it since we don't really give a fuck), so we DO NOTHING"


yawn, their tactics are perfectly well known and totally, self-servingly dishonest (and self-enriching).

[xrayzebra]

Okay, Obama and Hillary. Take deep breaths, hold it, now exhale.
One more time. Take deep breahts, hold it, now exhale. Repeat
as often as necessary. If you do this enough times it will solve all
our problems.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, I'm sorry. We obviously speek a differnet language.

I proved the article as wrong by citing that NO is not the same as NO2 and more, like smog and ozone not being the same thing.

Dogma fits the way I want to show my opinion of you because you have a faith in the AP article beyond comprehension to me.

I'm done with you. You sidestep my questions, yet demand answers from me different than what I give.

You are impossible.

[RandomGuy]

Random, I'm sorry. We obviously speek a differnet language.

I proved the article as wrong by citing that NO is not the same as NO2 and more, like smog and ozone not being the same thing.

Dogma fits the way I want to show my opinion of you because you have a faith in the AP article beyond comprehension to me.

I'm done with you. You sidestep my questions, yet demand answers from me different than what I give.

You are impossible.

Yeah, we "speek" a different language alright. Parlez vous bullshit?

You're just pissy because I have caught you pretty much lying in a couple of places. You either aren't as smart as you think you are, for all your "vast knowledge of science", or you aren't honest.

I haven't quite figured out which, but I am beginning to think it is a mixture of both.

[RandomGuy]

[The article is inaccurate.]


DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?
Yes or no will do.


No! Not by what I read in the report... [the] report gets very difficult for me to follow all I have so far.

Then I won't bother with the fancy details in the report.

Hell, let's try for something really, really, simple, so you can follow along.


Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear


Link Between Ozone Air Pollution and Premature Death Confirmed LINK (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198)

It certainly looks like the article was pretty accurate here, doesn't it?

The rest of your argument that the the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "smog" and "ozone air pollution". Hate to break it to ya sport, there isn't really that much difference between the two, and editors often look for ways to cut the length of headlines. In case you haven't noticed the word "smog" is a bit shorter than "ozone air pollution", and synonymous enough that it is fair to interchange them.

[RandomGuy]

Having really read the article and the available evidence, I don't see what ISN'T accurate in the article.

Let's repost it here for reference, and go through it paragraph by paragraph.


Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.

This is exactly what the report concluded.


The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.

The OMB is part of the white house, and that is what the article refers to, so this passes muster as well. The report contradicts what the OMB has argued.


The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments.

There is a direct quote there, presumedly from the report. I haven't checked to verify it, but it seems reasonable enough to conclude that they aren't outright lying.


"The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths," the 13-member panel said.

Again, a direct quote. Unless WC wants to outright accuse the reporter of lying, we should assume that the quote is correct. This quote must be considered correct even if the science editor is an "idiot", since he didn't write the quotation.


It added that "studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death."

Even WC acknowledges this bit, so I can only assume that when WC says that the article was inaccurate, he wasn't talking about this...

(times up gotta go)

[RandomGuy]

Lastly, WC, you have said I have "sidestepped" questions. I don't think this is the case, but it is easy to strip you of your ability to lie about this too.

I invite you to ask away. Give 5 questions, and I will fairly answer them in good faith, as I have done previously.

After which, I will ask for the same. I have little hope to get good faith answers in return, but maybe you will surprise me this time.

[xrayzebra]

RG your in a mood this morning. Maybe the Spurs will win the next
four and get you in a better mood. Sheeeesh!

[RandomGuy]

RG your in a mood this morning. Maybe the Spurs will win the next
four and get you in a better mood. Sheeeesh!

I gotta admit, I stayed up late to watch the game. Both the painful blowout, and missing a full night's sleep has made me a tad cranky.

I do have faith in Pop to adjust, and in the Spurs' home advantage for the next two games.

I heard that Duncan had the flu, and that is something that is temporary. Hopefully he wiped his nose on the ball before checking it to west or CP3... :lol

[RandomGuy]

That and maybe the refs won't allow NO to play as dirty as they have been. NO has gotten away with murder, IMHO. That's ok, all it does it make Tim mad, buwahahahaha!

[RandomGuy]

oops, a basketball discussion has broken out in a pissy politics thread, don't tell Kori...

[xrayzebra]

RG=I heard that Duncan had the flu, and that is something that is temporary. Hopefully he wiped his nose on the ball before checking it to west or CP3...
RandomGuy is offline Reply With Quote

:lol:flag::lobt2:

[Wild Cobra]

Random, I'll tell you what. Support the article with the facts of the report. Show me the page and words that support the article you cited in posting #1. Until then, I have no more to say to you on this subject.

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution (http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=12198)

[RandomGuy]

Random, I'll tell you what. Support the article with the facts of the report. Show me the page and words that support the article you cited in posting #1. Until then, I have no more to say to you on this subject.

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution (http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=12198)

Coming from a guy who puts more faith in Ann Coulter than he does AP or Reuters, I don't think it should be too hard to hand you your ass here. :lol

You're on, hack-boy.

[xrayzebra]

Coming from a guy who puts more faith in Ann Coulter than he does AP or Reuters, I don't think it should be too hard to hand you your ass here. :lol

You're on, hack-boy.

RG, come on, do you give that much credence to
AP and Reuters? I think I would go with Coluter as much
as those two. At least Coulter doesn't try to dress up her
stuff as a news story. You know her stuff is opinion, you can
never be sure with AP and Reuters.:downspin:

[RandomGuy]

[The article is inaccurate.]


DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?
Yes or no will do.


No! Not by what I read in the report... [the] report gets very difficult for me to follow all I have so far.

Then I won't bother with the fancy details in the report.

Hell, let's try for something really, really, simple, so you can follow along.


Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear


Link Between Ozone Air Pollution and Premature Death Confirmed LINK (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12198)

It certainly looks like the article was pretty accurate here, doesn't it?

The rest of your argument that the the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "smog" and "ozone air pollution". Hate to break it to ya sport, there isn't really that much difference between the two, and editors often look for ways to cut the length of headlines. In case you haven't noticed the word "smog" is a bit shorter than "ozone air pollution", and synonymous enough that it is fair to interchange them.

So WC's response to this? Did he admit that he might have gotten anything wrong? Did come anywhere close to saying that the article might have been telling the truth about anything?

No. He continued dodging and wants to make ME do all the work. Lazy and dishonest to the end.


Random, I'll tell you what. Support the article with the facts of the report. Show me the page and words that support the article you cited in posting #1. Until then, I have no more to say to you on this subject.

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution (http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=12198)

You are the one claiming the article is not accurate. The burden of proof is on you, just as it is on me to prove that Ann Coulter is less than committed to the truth when I say she is a liar.

Somehow I think my job is easier than yours.:lol

[RandomGuy]

RG, come on, do you give that much credence to
AP and Reuters? I think I would go with Coluter as much
as those two. At least Coulter doesn't try to dress up her
stuff as a news story. You know her stuff is opinion, you can
never be sure with AP and Reuters.:downspin:

Here is what I actually said about the article:



I generally trust it to tell me what the study said, because such news reports are generally fact checked, and I have no reason NOT to trust the articles factual content.


I generally trust AP and Reuters articles, as they have standards of journalism that require them to do fact-checking on articles. It is more reasonable to trust them than to not to, given no other data to the contrary. The fact that the press release supported the articles description of the report tends to confirm this assumption as a reasonable one.

Honestly: Does either of these statements sound like blind faith to you?

[xrayzebra]

Here is what I actually said about the article:





Honestly: Does either of these statements sound like blind faith to you?

Sorry, I missed those points. But sometimes even
those "fact checked" items are in fact skewed to their
way of "thinking" and made to fit the story at hand.
Much like Algore is now claiming Global Warming caused
the cyclone in Mymanar (sp) that killed all those folks.
Sadly a great many folks will believe that.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, I missed those points. But sometimes even
those "fact checked" items are in fact skewed to their
way of "thinking" and made to fit the story at hand.
Much like Algore is now claiming Global Warming caused
the cyclone in Mymanar (sp) that killed all those folks.
Sadly a great many folks will believe that.

That does indeed happen on occasion.

You didn't answer my question, though. Did either of those statements sound like blind faith?

Promise I won't dog ya on this one, I just wanted a semi-neutral opinion.

[boutons_]

Big Chem and politicians "inconvenienced" by attempts to cleanup a Dow site:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050708J.shtml

If BigBusiness' and Repugs' lips are moving, they are lying.

Will the DoD and it's $600B/year budget pay for cleaning up perchlorate?

http://www.ewg.org/reports/rocketwater

After 85 years of abuse, the AF has spent $500M+ cleaning up our own Kelly Field earth.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2001/0701kelly.asp

Now, what about the diseases caused by Kelly to employees and neighbors?

[boutons_]

Another indication of dubya/Repug political hatchet men throughout the Exec branch and their policies NOT enforcing the laws and regulations, politicizing non-political govt, and pissing of govt employess trying to do their jobs.


'what PEER has seen in the past seven years under Bush is an increase in the career level of federal employees who are calling for help. In the past, the typical request for assistance would come from a National Park biologist; today they field calls from National Park superintendents."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050708J.shtml

Conservatives enforce the laws only when it enriches them. Otherwise, laws are made to be broken and ignored.

[Wild Cobra]

It certainly looks like the article was pretty accurate here, doesn't it?

The rest of your argument that the the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "smog" and "ozone air pollution". Hate to break it to ya sport, there isn't really that much difference between the two, and editors often look for ways to cut the length of headlines. In case you haven't noticed the word "smog" is a bit shorter than "ozone air pollution", and synonymous enough that it is fair to interchange them.So WC's response to this? Did he admit that he might have gotten anything wrong? Did come anywhere close to saying that the article might have been telling the truth about anything?

I said I had a hard time following the report. That was when I first looked at it and before I spent more time reading it. As for the semantics, I don't agree. The meaning of words are important. Words that mean specific things cannot be freely interchanged. I said this early on. Ozone is a component of smog. Smog is not ozone. Smog normally contains ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and a few other component. What you are doing is the same as taking a mixed drink that contains orange juice, then any time you see orange juice, you call it an alcoholic drink!



No. He continued dodging and wants to make ME do all the work. Lazy and dishonest to the end.

I have not dodged your questions. You have dodged mine. I read the report. I provided information and explanations in my words. All you do is recite others work, then refuse to actually respond to what I say pertaining to the subject. If you don't understand my explanations, I'm sorry. That's not my problem, but your lack of comprehension.



You are the one claiming the article is not accurate. The burden of proof is on you, just as it is on me to prove that Ann Coulter is less than committed to the truth when I say she is a liar.

I have clearly said why the article is inaccurate, so I ask that you show me why it is accurate.

Why am I wrong? Because I disagree with an article?

Ann Coulter doesn't matter on this issue. How about we try to stick with the report.



Somehow I think my job is easier than yours.:lol

Then show me relevance. You still have not shown the article as being an accurate reflection of part of the report.

The report primarily talks about ozone and the statement in the press release says ozone. Consider this:

Report title:

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution

Press release title:

LINK BETWEEN OZONE AIR POLLUTION AND PREMATURE DEATH CONFIRMED

Article title:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

The word ozone appears in the report 1709 times. The word smog appears in the report three times! It appears six times if you include AHSMOG and two references listed that have smog in the title. The word smog appears in the press release only once, where it says "Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects."

The article uses the word smog six times not counting the title!

Now if you go back to the diagram I linked, ozone (O3) is only created by NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) which is created by the combination of NO (nitrogen oxide) and ozone, or NO and RO2. All the other places ozone is listed shows it being consumed in the process.

The article also says:


The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.
Names, position, and what did they say in context? The only indication I see to support this are the words quoted from the president of Clean Air Watch (http://www.cleanairwatch.org/) which I would say are very likely biased. The article also cites the Environmental Defense Fund (http://www.edf.org/home.cfm).

I have asked for evidence and specifically levels waged against the allegations. I have asked for the words in context to support the idea the administration is against what the article claims, and again, the levels are important.

You have not supplied any.

Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.

This is the second time I am asking this question, and at least the third time for the other two.

[xrayzebra]

That does indeed happen on occasion.

You didn't answer my question, though. Did either of those statements sound like blind faith?

Promise I won't dog ya on this one, I just wanted a semi-neutral opinion.

Nope it doesn't appear that you accept their reporting
on "blind faith". You take, as most do now days, all
reporting, verbal or print, with a grain of salt and some
skepticism. I know I do.

But what the heck, it is nice to stir things up with an
article that just makes the opposition unhappy....:lol

[RandomGuy]

The report primarily talks about ozone and the statement in the press release says ozone. Consider this:

Report title:

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution

Press release title:

LINK BETWEEN OZONE AIR POLLUTION AND PREMATURE DEATH CONFIRMED

Article title:

Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

The word ozone appears in the report 1709 times. The word smog appears in the report three times! It appears six times if you include AHSMOG and two references listed that have smog in the title. The word smog appears in the press release only once, where it says "Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects."

The article uses the word smog six times not counting the title!.

So your entire assertion that the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "ozone" and "smog" and counting how many times the word "smog" appears in the article?

That's your "A" game? The best you can do? :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.

Here are a few things that I won't find in the report that the article talks about:


The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Whether or not OMB returned a phone call won't be there.


"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings "refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

Oops here is one of the instances of "smog", but it wasn't the words of the author...

I won't find the words of Ms. Patton in that report.


Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.

But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.

Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.

"This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits," said Patton.

This entire passage regarding what environmentalists and health advocates say also won't be in the report. I think it is safe to assume that this is, indeed, what environmentalists and health advocates say.

Yet another bit where the usage of the word smog is not really the author's, but someone else entirely.


One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

Again, not items that will be in the report.

[RandomGuy]

Since somehow counting the number of times the word "smog" or "ozone" appears in the article is relevant:

"smog" 6 instances
"ozone" 16 instances

For what that is worth. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.

This is the second time I am asking this question


Fallacy: Burden of Proof

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

In this case I say it is reasonable to generally trust what the article says about the report.

WC says that the report is inaccurate, and then says it is up to me to prove that what the article says about the report is supported by the report.

This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (click here for a full list of logical fallacies from Nizkor.org, a website devoted to poking holes in the stupidity of holocaust deniers (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/))

All I have said is that I have no reason NOT to take the article as reasonably accurate.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't respond till now because I didn't have the time to waste on this stupidity. I simply cannot believe you continue to support the atricle.



So your entire assertion that the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "ozone" and "smog" and counting how many times the word "smog" appears in the article?

That's your "A" game? The best you can do? :lmao

No, it is not my "A" game. I am simply showing how the assessment that "SMOG" being the issue is not addressed in the report. I pointed out enough errors to show the author is not trustworthy.



Here are a few things that I won't find in the report that the article talks about:


The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Whether or not OMB returned a phone call won't be there.

No shit Sherlock. I addressed that, or did you not understand that part? The author is clearly a liar, or not competent to parse scientific material. This cannot be trusted as truth. From what truth is based upon, what is the context? I have asked for quotes and context, right?



Oops here is one of the instances of "smog", but it wasn't the words of the author...

My God... You are making me believe you are a stupid ignoramus. Didn't I say:


Names, position, and what did they say in context? The only indication I see to support this are the words quoted from the president of Clean Air Watch which I would say are very likely biased. The article also cites the Environmental Defense Fund.




I won't find the words of Ms. Patton in that report.

Duh... I sure would like to see them, but do you really trust pundits without verifying what they say?



This entire passage regarding what environmentalists and health advocates say also won't be in the report. I think it is safe to assume that this is, indeed, what environmentalists and health advocates say.

OK, That I agree with. But is their word gospel? I'd say no.



Yet another bit where the usage of the word smog is not really the author's, but someone else entirely.








One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

Again, not items that will be in the report.

Actuially, part of it is. On page 3:



INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS OF HEALTH STUDIES

The associations between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the recent health studies appear robust, but several factors create considerable uncertainty about them. Those factors can affect estimates of risk of ozone-related mortality in various ways. In some cases, the factors would cause an underestimation of risk; in other cases, an overestimation. On balance, the committee considers the evidence from the studies to be strong enough for use in deriving risk estimates, but the various factors and their potential effects on the estimates should be fully acknowledged.

I believe the rest is addressed in the report too. Remember, the role and stardards between these two departments are different.



In this case I say it is reasonable to generally trust what the article says about the report.

WC says that the report is inaccurate, and then says it is up to me to prove that what the article says about the report is supported by the report.

Bullshit you ass.

I say the article is not accurate.

The report is very comprehensive.

I took the time to read it and learn a few terms I didn't know before. You have not yet acknowledged anything from the report. The article is likely accurate to what other people said, but it is still a false presentation. It is clear if you read and understand the report.

I don't care. Remain ignorant.

Have you read the reprort yet? Afraid to?

As for the general claim the administration denies that smog is a problem. I say bullshit to the general statement because it doesn't give any quantification. Again, at what levels were they asked to respond to? Without levels, the statement only appeals to the really ignorant and the really stupid. With the general question with no levels or examples given, the assumption could be somplace nice, where smog is no problem at all. Under what situation was the question asked and answered. Without that knowledge, the question is absolutely pointless.



This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (click here for a full list of logical fallacies from Nizkor.org, a website devoted to poking holes in the stupidity of holocaust deniers (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/))

All I have said is that I have no reason NOT to take the article as reasonably accurate.
Then you are ignorant. I have shown several reasons to show the articles inaccuracies. I have fulfilled my burden of proof, unless you don't understand the things I have said.

[Wild Cobra]

Check this out too:

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 of February 26, 2002 and E.O. 13422 of January 18, 2007 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo12866_amended_01-2007.pdf)

It's addressed in the report.

[RandomGuy]

Check this out too:

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 of February 26, 2002 and E.O. 13422 of January 18, 2007 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo12866_amended_01-2007.pdf)

It's addressed in the report.

Yes it is. Your point?

[RandomGuy]

dubya/Repug Admin has long, varied, and very clear pattern of culpability of protecting/promoting/right-wing business to the detriment of public health and the enviroment.

=========================

White House undermines EPA on cancer risks, GAO says

(AP) -- The Bush administration is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting nonscientists have a bigger - often secret - say, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The administration's decision to give the Defense Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program's credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At issue is the EPA's screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.

A new review process begun by the White House in 2004 is adding more speed bumps for EPA scientists, the GAO said in its report, which will be the subject of a Senate Environment Committee hearing Tuesday. A formal policy effectively doubling the number of steps was adopted two weeks ago.

Cancer risk assessments for nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue, the GAO said, blaming the new multiagency reviews for some of the delay. The EPA, for example, had promised to prepare assessments on 10 major toxic chemicals for external peer review by the end of 2007, but only two reached that stage.

GAO investigators said extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals.

The Pentagon, the Energy Department, NASA and other agencies - all of which could be severely affected by EPA risk findings - are being allowed to participate "at almost every step in the assessment process," said the GAO.

Those agencies, their private contractors and manufacturers of the chemicals face restrictions and major cleanup requirements, depending on the EPA's scientific determinations.

"By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the Senate committee's chairman. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

The EPA's risk assessment process "never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said.

The White House said the GAO is wrong in suggesting that the EPA has lost control in assessing the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.

"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin F. Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the GAO. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

One EPA scientist with extensive knowledge of the changes in the agency's risk assessment policies ridiculed the claim that the EPA still has the final say.

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

The GAO investigation focused on the EPA's computerized database, known as IRIS - the Integrated Risk Information System. It contains data on the human health effects of exposure to some 540 toxic chemicals in the environment. New chemicals are being proposed constantly for inclusion under a complicated assessment process that can take five years or more.

After years of stops and starts, the GAO said, the EPA has yet to determine carcinogen risks for a number of major chemicals such as:

-Naphthalene, a chemical used in rocket fuel as well as in manufacturing commercial products such as mothballs, dyes and insecticides.

-Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a widely used industrial degreasing agent.

-Perchloroethylene, or "perc," a chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and making chemical products.

-Formaldehyde, a colorless, flammable gas used to making building materials.

Environmentalists say these chemicals have been widely found at military bases and Superfund sites and in soil, lakes, streams and groundwater.

The findings, after an 18-month investigation by the congressional watchdog agency, come at a time of growing criticism from members of Congress and health and environmental advocates over alleged political interference in the government's science activities.

Last week, a confidential survey by an advocacy group of EPA scientists showed more than half of the 1,600 respondents worried about political pressure in their work.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.





This is all part of a very clear pattern of a politically motivated administration doing everything it can to weaken environmental laws. Laws that end up benefitting us far more than they cost us, and that is something that all of WC's bullshit irrelevant posting of chemical reactions can't obfuscate.

[RandomGuy]

Well, I related "likely" to the wrong number. Likely normally means 66% or more. "Most" is the term normally meant 50% or more.

I didn't see it quantified in the press release. Is it there?


Yes, I am biased. As a skeptic, I need proof or reasonable assessments to change my mind.


... of everything, it seems, except this administration. What they say, you take as dogma.

I have yet to see you express an iota of doubt regarding anything the administration puts forth.

The fact that you can't even bring yourself to admit that they might have a poltical motivation to argue for/against something says volumes.

[RandomGuy]

dubya forces out/neutralizes/guts/edits yet another EPA/NASA/AAAS/FDA/USDA person or report that would enforce regulations, or in some way be anti-business. Many cases over the past 7 years where dubya negates /weakens/removes regulations to favor politics/religion/iedology over science.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-epa-official-resigns_webmay02,0,4655733.story

Can't blame Congress with this one.

Here is another brick in the wall. Yet another way in which the administration pushes in any way it can to weaken environmental laws.

[RandomGuy]

air study:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080501/ap_on_re_us/polluted_cities.html

This is a news story that has a doctor of pulminary medicine describing the overall bad effects of ozone, the effects of which even WC admits are deleterious to health.

Yet somehow, oddly, we shouldn't consider the benefits of reducing such pollution to the overall health of populations. "The evidence isn't clear" according to the administration.

(shrugs)

This is exactly the kind of thing, word for word, that the tobacco companies used to say. They were very motivated to spin the science, and they did, unabashedly. :greedy

When the Bush administration, with its strong business links and overall commitment to easing pollution restrictions whereever and whenever possible, starts saying things like "the science isn't there" we should take that argument as dogma, unflinchingly, and without any skepticism. Because what? Some pretentious ass can post some chemical reactions, and count the number of times the word "smog" is mentioned in an AP article?

Good critical thinking and HONEST skepticism requires looking at the motivations on both sides of any issue, and subjecting the side with something to gain to a little more skepticism and fact checking.

[RandomGuy]

Here's a good one.


[The article is inaccurate when talking about what the report said.]


The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments ... [that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits]


Future RIAs should give little or no weight to the assumption that there is no causal association between estimated reductions in premature mortality and reduced ozone exposure... Because short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths, future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone-control measures should include the benefits of reduced mortality risk.

Looks pretty accurate from here.

Another fault that WC lists of the article is that is doesn't talk about what levels would be safe.

THIS IS FUCKING STUPID, BECAUSE NEITHER DOES THE REPORT, AND THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE REPORT.


The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.


In addition, the committee examined research based on large population groups to find how changes in ozone air concentration could affect mortality, specifically to determine the existence of a threshold -- a concentration of ozone below which exposure poses no risk of death. The committee concluded that if a threshold exists, it is probably at a concentration below the current public health standard.

Neither talked about specific levels that would be safe, but this is the level of proof required by our resident "skeptic".

WC has yet show by any direct quote of how the article was inaccurate. His claim, his burden of proof. To prove what he says, he needs to show two things:

1) A direct, inaccurate quote.

and

2) A direct, contradictory quote from the report.

Ask yourself, why has he not done so?

[Wild Cobra]

Random, again, you have no perspective.

What are the relavant levels that the administratuion said are not a problem?

LEVELS PLEASE

The article links the administration saying smog is not a problem. At what levels did the administration say it isn't a problem.

This is an unscrupulous hit piece.

Roll, all your arguments together however you want. They do not explain what I have repeatedly asked. The sum of the article is propaganda.

[RandomGuy]

The sum of the article is propaganda.

Propaganda? Perhaps.

BUT

You have yet to prove your claim that it is inaccurate, other than some weak-ass attempt at counting the number of times "smog" is mentioned.

You have provably lied, spun the truth, and lamely attempted to obfuscate the wider issues, while falsely trying to cloak yourself in objectivity.

Here is another honesty check for you:

Can propaganda be truthful?

[RandomGuy]

LEVELS PLEASE


Here is another honesty check:

What was the purpose of the report?

I will give you a quid pro quo for this one. I will give you an answer to what level would be dangerous, IF you can sum up, in one sentence, what the purpose of the report was, i.e. what question did it attempt to answer?

[boutons_]

If the Repugs' (environmental) lips are moving, they are lying:

Why did the EPA fire a respected toxicologist?

"eight scientists that served as consultants or members of EPA science advisory panels while getting research support from the chemical industry to study the chemicals under review. Two scientists were actually employed by companies that made or worked with manufacturers of the chemicals under review."

"EPA summarily fired Rice even though it had honored her just a few years before with one of its most prestigious scientific awards for “exceptionally high-quality research into lead’s toxicity.” Why" Because the American Chemistry Council asked the agency to fire her."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/plos-wdt050708.php

==============

It's total waste of time to discuss environmental destruction with Repugs or conservatives.

Sorta like discussing science with Hagee, Parsons, Bible-thumpers, etc.

[RandomGuy]

It's total waste of time to discuss environmental destruction with Repugs or conservatives.

Sorta like discussing science with Hagee, Parsons, Bible-thumpers, etc.

(shrugs)

I don't delude myself into thinking I can convince a zealot that they are being biased and unfair.

I can, however, expose the dishonesty and logical fallacies used by such people.

My hope is that anybody who might be sitting on the fence or tempted to give into the irrational dogma of the anti-environmental movement will give it a MUCH harder look when they claim something.

Too often, their "facts" turn out to be either bad science, bad economics, or both, as is the case here.

[Wild Cobra]

You have yet to prove your claim that it is inaccurate,

I have proven the article to be innacurate. I'm sorry if youi don't see that.

Game over.

You lose.

You lose because you don't understand my points to counter.

[RandomGuy]

I have proven the article to be innacurate. I'm sorry if youi don't see that.

Game over.

You lose.

You lose because you don't understand my points to counter.

:lmao

Clap.

Clap.

Clap.

I understand perfectly well.

You have slain the strawmen of your own making. Congratulations, you have graduated to first-class hack.

But hey, assume I really am stupid.

Show me exactly how you "proved" the article inaccurate, because I re-read your posts, and you have done little more than chest-thumping that I can find.

[RandomGuy]

Ah, fuck it. I will just sum up your "proof" for you, because I have given up on waiting for you to be honest enough or not lazy enough to do so.


This article has very little merit in my eyes... I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels... (provides data on ozone from a fact sheet)


As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article. I assume it was laziness and not stupidity.


the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.


They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.

You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.

To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.

The two points you are making are:


1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.

and


2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.

You have also pointed out the following:


4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.

I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.

To prove that this is NOT a reasonable substitution, you would have to show three things:

a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"

This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".

I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.

This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."

This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.

Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.

In your own words:

Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "

You respond:

I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life.

YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.

I will get to the rest of it (yet again), later.

[Wild Cobra]

Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is. That's all I'll repeat. This is a waste of my time.

[RandomGuy]

Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is. That's all I'll repeat. This is a waste of my time.

Translation:

"I got my hat handed to me, and will fall back on something I think I can win with."



The term nitrogen oxide typically refers to any binary compound of oxygen and nitrogen, or to a mixture of such compounds:

Nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen(II) oxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrogen(IV) oxide
Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen (I) oxide
Dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), nitrogen(II, IV) oxide
Dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), nitrogen(IV) oxide
Dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5), nitrogen(V) oxide


Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels


Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is.

Again, yet another case where you either can't read, or aren't being honest.

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS THAT "NO" IS THE PRECURSOR TO O3 (ozone).

[RandomGuy]

This is where confirmation bias invites failure of reason, and why one should be suspicious of people who can't admit they are wrong, and can't admit when someone they might disagree with has a point.

If you are incapable of admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, you are not a scientist. Period.

[Wild Cobra]

The wiki definition is not correct in this case. What you say only applies when the plural form (nitrogen oxides) is used.

[Wild Cobra]

From page 144 of the report:

Abbreviations

----snip---

NO: nitrogen oxide
NO2: nitrogen dioxide
NOx: oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2)

---snip---

NOx is also commonly called "nitrogen oxides" rather than "oxides of nitrogen," but in either case is PLURAL! "Nitrogen oxides" appear in the report several times. "Nitrogen Oxide" only appears once, here in the abbreviations.

The report is specific.

You never read it. Did you?

[RandomGuy]

From page 144 of the report:


NOx is also commonly called "nitrogen oxides" rather than "oxides of nitrogen," but in either case is PLURAL! "Nitrogen oxides" appear in the report several times. "Nitrogen Oxide" only appears once, here in the abbreviations.

The report is specific.

You never read it. Did you?

:lmao

La dee fucking doo.

That's it?

Minor semantic errors? "OOOH, HE DIDN'T INCLUDE AN "S" ON THE END OF THE WORD "OXIDE", THEREFORE HE MUST BE LYING"

Give me a fucking break.

I noticed you dodged yet another question.

To answer your question, yes I read it.

CARE TO SHARE THE TITLE OF THE REPORT WITH US, GENIUS?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess if you asked for water (H2O) and someone gave you hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), you would drink it?

I don't plan to continue with this lunacy. You believe the AP without verification. I pity you.

Title. Simple enough, just a minute of time:

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution

[RandomGuy]

Future RIAs should give little or no weight to the assumption that there is no causal association between estimated reductions in premature mortality and reduced ozone exposure.



The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments.


Wild Cobra, you are a dishonest hack.

You lied about what I believe, you lied about what the article said, and you have proven here that you can't be trusted because of your bias.

[RandomGuy]

I guess if you asked for water (H2O) and someone gave you hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), you would drink it?

I don't plan to continue with this lunacy. You believe the AP without verification. I pity you.

Title. Simple enough, just a minute of time:

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution

Very good.

Now where in the report was the committee charged with defining levels of acceptable ozone?

Part of your argument here is that the article and report were propaganda and implicitly false because they didn't specify levels.


I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout[sic] levels.

Is it reasonable for such a report to consider something outside the ultimate mandate?

Or are you going to actually be honest and admit the report didn't address levels, and therefore neither should the article, if the article was to be accurate?

[RandomGuy]

Defining a [harmful level] is unnecessary for establishing a level above which ozone is harmful to human health or for estimating changes due to a specific regulatory action, nor is it needed for quantifying human health responses to short-term ozone levels or monetizing risk changes in response to ozone changes, which are the primary foci of this study.

[RandomGuy]

There is a fundamental difference between information needed for regulatory benefits assessment and information needed to set a protective health standard. Selection of a primary (health-based) standard focuses on the lowest ambient concentration that poses a risk of adverse health effects in the most
sensitive population. Assessing benefits requires information for estimating all the reductions in health risks in the entire population that is expected to experience a reduction in ambient concentrations.

This passage essentially proves that your entire tack about trying to find "non harmful" levels is irrelevant to the article or the report.

Got any other strawmen you want to trot out?

[Wild Cobra]

This passage essentially proves that your entire tack about trying to find "non harmful" levels is irrelevant to the article or the report.

Got any other strawmen you want to trot out?

I sure wish I had the time to waste like you do. I'm sure anyone following this thread and was technically proficient in the areas would agree to my points over yours. There is more than the NO vs. NO2. It just seems to be over your head. I'm tired of trying to explain it and have better things to do with my time.

[RandomGuy]

I sure wish I had the time to waste like you do. I'm sure anyone following this thread and was technically proficient in the areas would agree to my points over yours. There is more than the NO vs. NO2. It just seems to be over your head. I'm tired of trying to explain it and have better things to do with my time.

Pfft.

I have spelled out your entire argument in my own words, and very clearly understand you.

If you want to pretend that I am not smart enough to keep up with your dumb ass, feel free.

If you want to cop out of your stupidity here, and wash your hands of your lies, feel free.

You and I both know that the underlying basis of the article and the report, that it makes economic sense to include the estimated health costs of ozone pollution when considering the effects of regulations, is correct.

Is the article absolutely, 100% iron-clad accurate? No. The reporter made, as you proved, a couple of minor mistakes.

What you don't have the courage to admit, is that these mistakes don't change the underlying validity of the point of the article and the report.

If the best you can do is attempt to deflect the truth by focusing on minutae, by all means, there are better things to do with your time than digging your hole deeper. At least you have the sense to stop digging.

[RandomGuy]

I will just sum up your "proof" for you, yet again.


This article has very little merit in my eyes... I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels... (provides data on ozone from a fact sheet)


As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article.


the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.


They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.

You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.

To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.

The two points you are making are:


1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.

and


2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.

You have also pointed out the following:


4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.

I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.

To prove that this is NOT a reasonable substitution, you would have to show three things:

a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"

This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".

I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.

This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."

This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.

Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.

In your own words:

Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "

You respond:

I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life.

YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.

[Wild Cobra]

Pfft.
I have spelled out your entire argument in my own words, and very clearly understand you.

No, you left allot out.



If you want to pretend that I am not smart enough to keep up with your dumb ass, feel free.

Sorry, when I point out "inaccuracies" and you say I'm wrong, what am I suppose to think? I must assume you say the article is "accurate," so... How many ways can I explain it and you still don't get it?



If you want to cop out of your stupidity here, and wash your hands of your lies, feel free.

If you recall, I said a few times otherwise. It wasn't until you repeatedly ignored my relevant points that I started losing respect for you.



You and I both know that the underlying basis of the article and the report, that it makes economic sense to include the estimated health costs of ozone pollution when considering the effects of regulations, is correct.

Yes, economics if a strong factor.



Is the article absolutely, 100% iron-clad accurate? No. The reporter made, as you proved, a couple of minor mistakes.

They are far from minor errors. Anyone qualified to make and review or edit such articles are not allowed to make such mistakes in science. You claimed the AP to be fact checked. What happened?



What you don't have the courage to admit, is that these mistakes don't change the underlying validity of the point of the article and the report.

If I disregarded the other points I made, then that could be said. However, you cherry pick what you respond to.



If the best you can do is attempt to deflect the truth by focusing on minutae, by all means, there are better things to do with your time than digging your hole deeper. At least you have the sense to stop digging.

I stopped digging because you are too hard headed to be open minded, and see the relevance of what doesn't fit in your acceptance.



I will just sum up your "proof" for you, yet again.

The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article.

What, if it a foul to interject additional problems associated with ozone? I only wanted to show I do understand how dangerous the acute and chronic effects can be.




the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.

They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.
You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.

Yes, what good are the claims in the article without a relative viewpoint, or quantization?



To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.

The two points you are making are:


1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.

Yes, so you still say the article is accurate?

Wow................



and


2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.

Yes, I specified this part referring to the quote by a biased source. They give a general statement that is idiotic. You can technically say the author quoted the source, but to use such a source shows disregard for accuracy.



You have also pointed out the following:


4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.

I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.

Absolutely not! This is a serious error!

Dioxides are the primary ingredient to smog and ozone does not maintain any special ration to them.



To prove that this is NOT a reasonable substitution, you would have to show three things:

This is where you get crazy, asking me to prove something that goes much farther than I should. It is outside the scope of the article or report. I would counter by saying you should prove how one is a proxy for the other.



a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"

Forget such idiotic exercises. You may as well say hydrogen pyroxide and water are the same thing as well.



This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
Half hearted, yes. I find the fact you refuse to open your mind to the facts distressing. I should have to say more. I'm very surprised you don't get it. It's not important enough for me to spend more than the extra time I find on it, which isn't very much. If I had more time, I would try to explain it better.

Like I've said in the past, English is my worse subject.



The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".

I also said it could be high. My point was that it's ratio changes quite a bit.



I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.

Yet you ignore I pointed out when the article says the administration claims smog is not a problem, that something of relevance must be given, else the statement has no merit. Give a location or level at least. You cannot take a statement like that referring to where I live and say that applies to Los Angeles, or all the USA.



This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."

I disregard the article because it is deceitful in the way it's written.



This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the accuracy of the article.



Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.

My argument here was saying it's necessary for the implication of the quoted hearsay.... and it used smog, not ozone.



In your own words:


and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "

You respond:


YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.

Did I ever say otherwise?

I'm not going to take the time and go back over the material. This however:


"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings "refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

I disagree with these statements. These are from biased pundits. The nuances also. You never see "acute" ozone exposure outside an industrial setting where something went wrong for example. Ozone is already recognized as one component to report air quality from. As for downplay? From what? Give me a relative viewpoint rather than making me assume one. I'm sure it is a "downplay" from a pundits point of view. What are the facts though?

The article has inaccuracies and uses activists. Must be nice being a lemming. I refuse to follow such bullshit myself.

[RandomGuy]

Yet you ignore I pointed out when the article says the administration claims smog is not a problem, that something of relevance must be given, else the statement has no merit.

Keep up the strawmen.

Here is what the article said about the administration view point:



arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits...

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link

"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell

"refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE THE ADMINISTRATION'S VIEWPOINT WAS PORTRAYED AS "SMOG IS NOT A PROBLEM".

[RandomGuy]

air study:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080501/ap_on_re_us/polluted_cities.html

This is a news story that has a doctor of pulminary medicine describing the overall bad effects of ozone, the effects of which even WC admits are deleterious to health.

Yet somehow, oddly, we shouldn't consider the benefits of reducing such pollution to the overall health of populations. "The evidence isn't clear" according to the administration.

(shrugs)

This is exactly the kind of thing, word for word, that the tobacco companies used to say. They were very motivated to spin the science, and they did, unabashedly. :greedy

When the Bush administration, with its strong business links and overall commitment to easing pollution restrictions whereever and whenever possible, starts saying things like "the science isn't there" we should take that argument as dogma, unflinchingly, and without any skepticism. Because what? Some pretentious ass can post some chemical reactions, and count the number of times the word "smog" is mentioned in an AP article?

Good critical thinking and HONEST skepticism requires looking at the motivations on both sides of any issue, and subjecting the side with something to gain to a little more skepticism and fact checking.

[xrayzebra]

cough, cough. Damn hot South Texas Weather and the ozone.
cough, cough. Lived here a good portion of my life, it's gonna
kill me yet.

[RandomGuy]

LEVELS PLEASE


Here is another honesty check:

What was the purpose of the report?

I will give you a quid pro quo for this one. I will give you an answer to what level would be dangerous, IF you can sum up, in one sentence, what the purpose of the report was, i.e. what question did it attempt to answer?

[RandomGuy]

cough, cough. Damn hot South Texas Weather and the ozone.
cough, cough. Lived here a good portion of my life, it's gonna
kill me yet.

How much would you pay not to be exposed to any ozone over natural norms?

;)

That is actually one of the interesting things that economists fret over, and was one of the things they discussed in the report.

[xrayzebra]

Latest from the Weather people.


TXZ171>173-183>194-202>209-217>225-228-211730-
LLANO-BURNET-WILLIAMSON-VAL VERDE-EDWARDS-REAL-KERR-BANDERA-
GILLESPIE-KENDALL-BLANCO-HAYS-TRAVIS-BASTROP-LEE-KINNEY-UVALDE-
MEDINA-BEXAR-COMAL-GUADALUPE-CALDWELL-FAYETTE-MAVERICK-ZAVALA-
FRIO-ATASCOSA-WILSON-KARNES-GONZALES-DE WITT-LAVACA-DIMMIT-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...LLANO...BURNET...GEORGETOWN...DEL RIO...
ROCKSPRINGS...LEAKEY...KERRVILLE...BANDERA...FREDE RICKSBURG...
BOERNE...BLANCO...SAN MARCOS...AUSTIN...BASTROP...GIDDINGS...
BRACKETTVILLE...UVALDE...HONDO...SAN ANTONIO...NEW BRAUNFELS...
SEGUIN...LOCKHART...LA GRANGE...EAGLE PASS...CRYSTAL CITY...
PEARSALL...PLEASANTON...FLORESVILLE...KARNES CITY...GONZALES...
CUERO...HALLETTSVILLE...CARRIZO SPRINGS
642 AM CDT WED MAY 21 2008
...HOT AND DRY CONDITIONS AGAIN TODAY...

ANOTHER HOT AFTERNOON FOR LATE MAY IS EXPECTED TODAY...WITH HIGHS
CONTINUING AT 10 TO 12 DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR.
HIGHS IN THE MID 90S ARE EXPECTED OVER THE EAST PART OF SOUTH
CENTRAL TEXAS TO NEAR 100 TO 102 OVER THE WEST PART OF THE AREA.

THE DAILY RECORD HIGHS FOR MAY 21ST ARE LISTED BELOW.

AUSTIN CAMP MABRY.. 99 IN 1939
AUSTIN BERGSTROM... 97 IN 2005
SAN ANTONIO........ 98 IN 1939
DEL RIO........... 107 IN 1953

THE LATE MAY SUN IN THE AFTERNOON WILL ONLY ADD TO THE HEAT...
AS IT HAS THE SAME INTENSITY AS THE MID SUMMER SUN IN JULY.

MINIMUM RELATIVE HUMIDITIES THIS AFTERNOON WILL FALL TO
BETWEEN 30 AND 40 PERCENT OVER THE EAST PART OF SOUTH CENTRAL
TEXAS TO BETWEEN 20 AND 30 PERCENT OVER THE RIO GRANDE PLAINS.
CONDITIONS NEAR THE RIO GRANDE MAY BRIEFLY REACH CRITICAL LEVELS
IN THE MID TO LATE AFTERNOON...WITH BREEZY SOUTHEAST WINDS.

[RandomGuy]

LEVELS PLEASE


Here is another honesty check:

What was the purpose of the report?

I will give you a quid pro quo for this one. I will give you an answer to what level would be dangerous, IF you can sum up, in one sentence, what the purpose of the report was, i.e. what question did it attempt to answer?

[Wild Cobra]

Here is another honesty check:

What was the purpose of the report?

I will give you a quid pro quo for this one. I will give you an answer to what level would be dangerous, IF you can sum up, in one sentence, what the purpose of the report was, i.e. what question did it attempt to answer?

It doesn't matter what I say. You dodge my questions, demanding answers in return. You simply cannot acknowledge my points of the articles inaccuracies, or refuse to.

I'm done with you on this subject until you show some worthiness of the subject.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter what I say. You dodge my questions, demanding answers in return. You simply cannot acknowledge my points of the articles inaccuracies, or refuse to.

I'm done with you on this subject until you show some worthiness of the subject.

:owned

It does matter what you say. The fact is, I have caught you being evasive and pretty much outright lying.

You're just being a titty baby because I am not letting you get away with being dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

Prove me wrong here.

What is the ultimate question that the report seeks to answer?

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting...

[RandomGuy]

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?

Not by what I read in the report. Again, LIKELY is not the same as CLEAR!

Oh really?

Perhaps my limited knowledge of science doesn't allow me to read well, either.

Let's try a simple non-sciencey comparison and see if my reading comprehension is up to speed.


Link between massive amounts of rain and floods confirmed.

Link between massive aomunts of rain and floods is clear.

Yes or no, are these two statements interchangible? Are they synonymous?

Quid pro quo. Answer this yes or no, and I will answer one of your questions.

[Wild Cobra]

DID THE PANEL CLAIM THAT THE LINK BETWEEN SMOG AND PREMATURE DEATH WAS CLEAR?
Not by what I read in the report. Again, LIKELY is not the same as CLEAR!
Oh really?

Perhaps my limited knowledge of science doesn't allow me to read well, either.

That must be it. You keep confusing ozone and smog. The panel never made the claim with smog. The claim was with ozone. The two are not interchangeable. Smog has a varying amount of ozone in it. There is no fixed ratio, therefore, there can be heavy smog with almost no health hazards, or little smog with high health hazards.

The statement in the press release is:



LINK BETWEEN OZONE AIR POLLUTION AND PREMATURE DEATH CONFIRMED


The only place the press relese says "smog" is here:



Ozone, a key component of smog, can cause respiratory problems and other health effects.




Let's try a simple non-sciencey comparison and see if my reading comprehension is up to speed.

Yes or no, are these two statements interchangible? Are they synonymous?

Quid pro quo. Answer this yes or no, and I will answer one of your questions.
Come on man. Are you really that dumb?

[RandomGuy]

Are the following two phrases interchangeable?:

Link between massive amounts of rain and floods confirmed.

Link between massive aomunts of rain and floods is clear.



Come on man. Are you really that dumb?


Yes, I really am that dumb. Now answer the question, Brainiac.

[RandomGuy]

Prove me wrong here.

What is the ultimate question that the report seeks to answer?

Still waiting on this one.

I seem to be not smart enough to ferret this out. Enlighten me with your "vast understanding of science".

[Wild Cobra]

Prove me wrong here.

What is the ultimate question that the report seeks to answer?

Still waiting on this one.

I seem to be not smart enough to ferret this out. Enlighten me with your "vast understanding of science".

You see, the problem here is that you are askiing me about somthing I never disputed. I never disputed the report, and there isn't a single subject matter involved. It is outside of what we have been at odds about. Why does it matter?

Isn't the title good enough for you?

"Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution"

Why do you go around in circles? My point is the innacuracy of the article. Not the press release, or the report. You just cannot stand it that I'm right, and you are fishing for way to get me to make a mistake.

Why do you insist that ozone and smog are interchangeable?

[RandomGuy]

You see, the problem here is that you are askiing me about somthing I never disputed. I never disputed the report, and there isn't a single subject matter involved. It is outside of what we have been at odds about. Why does it matter?

Isn't the title good enough for you?

"Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution"

Why do you go around in circles? My point is the innacuracy of the article. Not the press release, or the report. You just cannot stand it that I'm right, and you are fishing for way to get me to make a mistake.

Why do you insist that ozone and smog are interchangeable?

(shrugs)

It matters because I am breaking down a logical argument into its component pieces.

Because you are a lying weasel, I have to do this to remove your ability to weasel out of your logical mistakes and intellectual dishonesty.

You probably realize this on some level and that is why you prevaricate, and prefer obfuscation over answering simple yes or no questions with simple yes or no answers.

But let's continue the vivisection of your illogical views...

[xrayzebra]

^^^^:stirpot::stirpot::stirpot:

[Wild Cobra]

(shrugs)

It matters because I am breaking down a logical argument into its component pieces.

Because you are a lying weasel, I have to do this to remove your ability to weasel out of your logical mistakes and intellectual dishonesty.

You probably realize this on some level and that is why you prevaricate, and prefer obfuscation over answering simple yes or no questions with simple yes or no answers.

But let's continue the vivisection of your illogical views...
You are the lying weasle.

Again, smog and ozone...

How an I wrong about the article being wrong. That's all I ever argued, that the article was wrong. The article misrepresents the report.

[RandomGuy]

What is the ultimate question that the report seeks to answer?



Isn't the title good enough for you?

"Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution"

Fail.

The question that the report ultimately sought to answer, and did, is:

"Should future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone- control measures include the benefits of reduced mortality risk?"

The answer the report came up with was "Yes, they should."

To be able to reasonably and scientifically reach this conclusion they would have to review available evidence to see if there was enough reason to conclude that there was a definite link between ozone exposure and increased mortality.

[RandomGuy]

This ran directly counter to arguments by the white-house controlled OMB, who argued against this.

This is exactly what the article showed.

The reason you don't like it, is that it shows something rather unethical and unscientific that the administration did, likely for purely political reasons.

You dishonestly seek to discredit the entire article based on simple semantics, as if that would make what the administration did any less vile.

Shame on you.

[Wild Cobra]

Fail.

The question that the report ultimately sought to answer, and did, is:

"Should future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone- control measures include the benefits of reduced mortality risk?"

The answer the report came up with was "Yes, they should."

To be able to reasonably and scientifically reach this conclusion they would have to review available evidence to see if there was enough reason to conclude that there was a definite link between ozone exposure and increased mortality.
So what. That's not what the article said, and it was the articles accuracy I questioned.

This isn't what our argument was about, that is why I didn't go back and look at that. Again, I don't dispute that. How can you twist this argument into that?

You just cannot stand to lose so you change the argument, so you're a fucking loser.

Answer our original argument about the accuracy of the article.

[RandomGuy]

You dishonestly seek to discredit the entire article based on simple semantics, as if that would make what the administration did any less vile.



Again, smog and ozone...


NOx is also commonly called "nitrogen oxides" rather than "oxides of nitrogen," but in either case is PLURAL! "Nitrogen oxides" appear in the report several times. "Nitrogen Oxide" only appears once, here in the abbreviations.

:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

This ran directly counter to arguments by the white-house controlled OMB, who argued against this.

No, a third party was a source of that comment.



The reason you don't like it, is that it shows something rather unethical and unscientific that the administration did, likely for purely political reasons.

Hearsay.



You dishonestly seek to discredit the entire article based on simple semantics, as if that would make what the administration did any less vile.

Shame on you.

Yes. I discredit the article for lack of dilligence to be correct. They quoted two activist sources and dicked with the truth of chemistry.

But I said this near the start of this thread already. You just don't accept that as a valid reason.

[RandomGuy]

Random, again, you have no perspective.

What are the relavant levels that the administratuion said are not a problem?

LEVELS PLEASE




Defining a [harmful level] is unnecessary for establishing a level above which ozone is harmful to human health or for estimating changes due to a specific regulatory action, nor is it needed for quantifying human health responses to short-term ozone levels or monetizing risk changes in response to ozone changes, which are the primary foci of this study.


The article did not talk about specific levels, because the report did not talk about specific levels, mainly because IT WASN'T RELEVANT.

[Wild Cobra]

The article did not talk about specific levels, because the report did not talk about specific levels, mainly because IT WASN'T RELEVANT.

There you go again. Refusing to return to the original argument. That was a derailment we went on. However, levels are important under relative conditions. Remember why I asked for levels? If not, forget it.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. I discredit the article for lack of dilligence to be correct. They quoted two activist sources and dicked with the truth of chemistry.

But I said this near the start of this thread already. You just don't accept that as a valid reason.

Because the thrust of the article, was not about getting the chemistry right, or whether "smog" and "ozone" are interchangible, or even about specific levels.

It was about whether the link between increased mortality and exposure to ozone was clear enough to be used in budget calculations.

If memory serves, I even provided links to where the administration officials, in the form of the OMB, said pretty much exactly what those "activists" said they did.

Indeed, if you read the report, SOMEONE was asserting that it wasn't reasonable to factor in increased mortality into budgetary analysis of environmental legislation.

Who do YOU think that was, braintrust?

[RandomGuy]

Remember why I asked for levels?




Defining a [harmful level] is unnecessary for establishing a level above which ozone is harmful to human health or for estimating changes due to a specific regulatory action, nor is it needed for quantifying human health responses to short-term ozone levels or monetizing risk changes in response to ozone changes, which are the primary foci of this study.

You want to talk about levels because it distracts from the central issue of the budget analysis. :nope

[Wild Cobra]

Because the thrust of the article, was not about getting the chemistry right, or whether "smog" and "ozone" are interchangible, or even about specific levels.

It was about whether the link between increased mortality and exposure to ozone was clear enough to be used in budget calculations.

If memory serves, I even provided links to where the administration officials, in the form of the OMB, said pretty much exactly what those "activists" said they did.

Indeed, if you read the report, SOMEONE was asserting that it wasn't reasonable to factor in increased mortality into budgetary analysis of environmental legislation.

Who do YOU think that was, braintrust?
Addressed in past posts, but you never addressed them back.

Go fuck yourself. I'm tired of repeating myself and getting no where with you. You're a broken record.

[Wild Cobra]

You want to talk about levels because it distracts from the central issue of the budget analysis. :nope

No. Here is an example of your stupidity. You disregaurd what I specifically say, and assume idiotic stuff like this.

Go back and read my responces. If you want me to continue, tell me what I already said about why I wanted levels.

[RandomGuy]

Ah, fuck it. I will just sum up your "proof" for you, because I have given up on waiting for you to be honest enough or not lazy enough to do so.


This article has very little merit in my eyes... I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels... (provides data on ozone from a fact sheet)


As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article. I assume it was laziness and not stupidity.


the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.


They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.

You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.

To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.

The two points you are making are:


1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.

and


2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.

You have also pointed out the following:


4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.

I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.

To prove that this is NOT a reasonable substitution, you would have to show three things:

a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"

This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".

I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.

This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."

This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.

Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.

In your own words:

Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "

You respond:

I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life.

YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.

I will get to the rest of it (yet again), later.

[Wild Cobra]

This is fun watching you go off.

You know, I don't clearly remember that many posts back, but you still missed where I said levels were important relative to what the white house statement supposable was by the activist 3rd party source.

Now let me remind you of something you seem not to understand. I never said the article was a 100% fabrication, but you treat it as if I said that, arguing about points I don't disagree with. That's why I ignored allot of what you said like what did the report say. I was laughing my ass off all the way. You kept making up arguments between us that didn't exist.

Why do you waste the time with assumptions rather than address the things I have asked about. That's why I get so pissed at you. You assign things I didn't say. You even openly say I meant things I didn't. I can only conclude you purposely avoid all those past unanswered questions because you know I'm right about it. Why else keep changing to arguments that don't matter?

It sure is fun watching such foolish activity.

[Wild Cobra]

If memory serves, I even provided links to where the administration officials, in the form of the OMB, said pretty much exactly what those "activists" said they did.

I don't recall seeing that. I would like to see the context that statement was offered in. I have asked for the context before, but do not recall seeing it? Did I miss something?

[RandomGuy]

I don't recall seeing that. I would like to see the context that statement was offered in. I have asked for the context before, but do not recall seeing it? Did I miss something?

Hmm... I do specifically remember reading OMB stuff regarding their position on the issue. Damned if I can remember the link now, though. I will try to find it later today.

Perhaps I didn't post the links in the thread. If so: my apologies.

[boutons_]

They are only non-American kids and foreign science, by definition unimportant and irrelevant, but anyway:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/allergy-highway-47061301

[RandomGuy]

This is fun watching you go off.

You know, I don't clearly remember that many posts back, but you still missed where I said levels were important relative to what the white house statement supposable was by the activist 3rd party source.

Now let me remind you of something you seem not to understand. I never said the article was a 100% fabrication, but you treat it as if I said that, arguing about points I don't disagree with. That's why I ignored allot of what you said like what did the report say. I was laughing my ass off all the way. You kept making up arguments between us that didn't exist.

Why do you waste the time with assumptions rather than address the things I have asked about. That's why I get so pissed at you. You assign things I didn't say. You even openly say I meant things I didn't. I can only conclude you purposely avoid all those past unanswered questions because you know I'm right about it. Why else keep changing to arguments that don't matter?

It sure is fun watching such foolish activity.

You're just butt-hurt becasue I showed quite plainly that you are a liar, and a hack, using your own words.

[Wild Cobra]

You're just butt-hurt becasue I showed quite plainly that you are a liar, and a hack, using your own words.
Have any relavant facts of the issue, or are you just a troll?

[RandomGuy]

Have any relavant facts of the issue, or are you just a troll?

You said in your very first post that the article should have been talking about levels.

You went on and on about this, in a lame attempt to spin something you didn't like.

In the end, the report wasn't about levels, it was about whether it was reasonable to assume that one should calculate the benefits of pollution regulation when considering the costs.

You only want to see the costs, and not the benefits. Why is that?

[Wild Cobra]

You said in your very first post that the article should have been talking about levels.

You went on and on about this, in a lame attempt to spin something you didn't like.

In the end, the report wasn't about levels, it was about whether it was reasonable to assume that one should calculate the benefits of pollution regulation when considering the costs.

You only want to see the costs, and not the benefits. Why is that?

I explained all of that. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your criteria for understanding. I'm not goint to attempt to get through to you again. You are asking all the same things I adressed before.

Please stop wasting my time.

[RandomGuy]

I explained all of that. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your criteria for understanding. I'm not goint to attempt to get through to you again. You are asking all the same things I adressed before.

Please stop wasting my time.

Is it reasonable to calculate the benefits and costs of pollution legislation when considering whether or not to enact it?

Is it reasonable to seek data on past legislation to determine the costs and benefits of that legislation?

[Wild Cobra]

Is it reasonable to calculate the benefits and costs of pollution legislation when considering whether or not to enact it?

Absolutely



Is it reasonable to seek data on past legislation to determine the costs and benefits of that legislation?


Again, Yes. Your point? You don't seen to apply that to the GW question.

[RandomGuy]

This is fun watching you go off.

You know, I don't clearly remember that many posts back, but you still missed where I said levels were important relative to what the white house statement supposable was by the activist 3rd party source.

Now let me remind you of something you seem not to understand. I never said the article was a 100% fabrication, but you treat it as if I said that, arguing about points I don't disagree with. That's why I ignored allot of what you said like what did the report say. I was laughing my ass off all the way. You kept making up arguments between us that didn't exist.

Why do you waste the time with assumptions rather than address the things I have asked about. That's why I get so pissed at you. You assign things I didn't say. You even openly say I meant things I didn't. I can only conclude you purposely avoid all those past unanswered questions because you know I'm right about it. Why else keep changing to arguments that don't matter?

It sure is fun watching such foolish activity.

Its fun watching you be a sophist piece of shit. A practice you continue to this day.

[boutons_deux]

Air pollution: 'Heart disease link found'

Extremely small particles of pollution have the potential to evade the lungs' protective filter system and end up deep in the body, scientists suggest.

Researchers speculate the particles could then build up in blood vessels and raise the risk of heart disease.

They say their early study - based on extremely small particles of gold - brings them a step closer to cracking the "mystery" of how air pollution and heart disease and stroke are linked.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39710321

"fake news" "needs more study" "alternative facts trump science"