Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[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.

le. 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.

le. 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 subs ution, 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 subs ution, 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 bull 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/20080...ed_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.

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.

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 ty 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 le 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?