Scientists are not political big shots, or the rock stars of the environmental movement. They are concerned citizens like you and I who set out to systematically discover and document answers to pressing scientific queries. Doctors, nurses, researchers and professors devote their lives to making the world a better place for our families.
More than 2,500 U.S. scientists sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to reject legislation that would gut the EPA of its protective safeguards and ignore the human toll that inaction would take on their citizens. Here is an excerpt from the Scientists' Statement:
We urge you [Congress] to oppose attacks on the Clean Air Act by respecting the scientific integrity of the EPA's endangerment finding, and the agency's authority to act based on this finding.
We trust these smart folks with the health of our children. Scientists know that stripping the EPA of its ability to protect our children against environmental pollutants means more asthma attacks, more respiratory illnesses and disease, and more premature deaths. They are well aware that in the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory diseases, which is why...
...5 Scientists Make Clean Air Sense
1. The Lung Doctor -- Dr. Albert A. Rizzo of the American Lung Association and a pulmonary and critical care physician, responded to the release of American Electric Power's evaluation of the impact of Clean Air Act pollution protections:
Continuing to belch hazardous pollutants into the air we breathe is not an acceptable business practice and neither is threatening rate hikes and electricity shortages when big polluters are asked to clean up their toxic emissions. The EPA's proposed mercury and air toxics reduction rule will prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 120,000 asthma attacks each year. Yet, American Electric Power (AEP) is irresponsibly attempting to scare Americans away from demanding that their children no longer be exposed to dangerous levels of pollutants like mercury and arsenic, and other toxic pollutants. Clean Air Act protections do not mandate the closing of power plants but rather set standards that many energy companies have met using existing technologies to successfully rein in dangerous pollutants. The imperative to clean up is strong: these toxins are directly linked to grave health problems, from developmental complications in babies and young children, to asthma attacks and long-term lung complications. After more than two decades of delay, big polluters and their friends in Congress want further delays rather than investing in pollution cleanup.2. The Pediatrician -- Dr. Jerome A. Paulson, for the American Academy of Pediatrics, testified last week at the Senate's Clean Air Act and Public Health hearing. The whole testimony is powerful, but here's his statement on the effects of mercury on children:
As a pediatrician who has cared for children suffering from the health impacts of air pollution, I am incredibly concerned about threats to clean air and the effect of air pollution on children's health... The developing fetus and young children are disproportionately affected by methyl mercury exposure, because many aspects of development, particularly brain maturation, can be disturbed by the presence of methyl mercury. Minimizing mercury exposure is essential to optimal child health.
3. The Science Professor -- Dr. Arden Pope, a Brigham Young University epidemiologist who led a New England Journal of Medicine study, found that efforts to reduce fine particle pollution from automobiles, diesel engines, steel mills and coal-fired power plants have added between four and eight months to the average American's life expectancy:
It's stunning that the air pollution effect seems to be as robust as it is...However, the continuing problem demonstrates that more remains to be done, especially in cleaning up coal-fired power plants and existing diesel engines.
4. The Heart Doctor -- Dr. Robert Brook is the lead author of The American Heart Association (AHA) report stating that there is strong evidence that air pollution can clog arteries, and cause strokes and heart attacks:
Particulate matter appears to directly increase risk by triggering events in susceptible individuals within hours to days of an increased level of exposure, even among those who otherwise may have been healthy for years.
5. The Energy Scientist -- Steve Clemmer, the Director of Energy Research for the 
Union of Concerned Scientists claims that limiting coal, gas and nuclear power, and boosting the renewable energy practices of wind and solar, could meet 27 percent of America's electricity needs by 2030:
Unlike natural gas, coal or nuclear plants, wind and solar plants don't produce air or water pollution, global warming emissions or waste products, and use much less water.
Oh, there is a rock star scientist... and he knows Oprah!
It's sobering news that one in five people still live in communities with lethal levels of smog and particulate pollution -- the toxic soup of chemicals, metals, acids, ash and soot that triggers asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes and early deaths. Makes you want to close the windows, bar the door and stay home.
The science proves that that Clean Air Act is the bedrock that protects our children from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter or less healthy. For the sake of our kids, does it make sense to debunk and diminish the warnings of scientists?
Here's how to speak up... or forever hold your breath: JOIN MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution
finally watch this map and regional coal usage!
THE EPA can no longer handle the problem!
Because pollution does not respect borders!
another Inconvenient Truth!
Darn those things!
Sorry:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4390
click the interactive play button and watch China's coal usage climb after President Clinton signed Permanent Most Favored Trade Status with China.
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences took EPA to task over the formaldehyde risk assessment. No wonder! The highest concentrations EPA claimed to be safe were 10 to 100 fold lower than concentrations commonly occurring in human breath. This form of scientific halitosis does not pass the laugh test (to mix a metaphor).
The physicians and scientists mentioned above should examine EPA's toxicity assessments for themselves to determine the scientific merit and not accept them at face value.
Ted Simon
@AToxicAssault
http://tedsimon.authorsxpress.com/
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution
AND
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4390
NOTHING THE EPA CAN DO ABOUT THIS!
2/3's of our mercury pollution now comes from China!
I did read the two articles and the points they are making about pollution arising in China don't seem pertinent to the need to conduct an honest toxicity assessment, which is what I pointed out that EPA does not always do. Please don't confuse information about how much of a pollutant is released into the environment with how large a dose of a chemical is needed to produce adverse health effects.
Consider acetaminophen or tylenol. An adult dose is 650 mg every 6-8 hours or between 2 and 4 grams per day. Doses over 4 grams per day may cause liver injury and death. Doses less than 0.325 g per day (1 tablet) will likely not reduce fever or ameliorate pain. This has nothing to do with how much Tylenol is manufactured?
Ted Simon
http://tedsimon.authorsxpress.com/
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences took exception to EPA's formaldehyde risk assessment. Formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body, and the highest air concentrations EPA declared as safe were 10 to 100 times lower than the concentrations commonly occurring in breath from people. This scientific halitosis does not pass the laugh test (to mix a metaphor) and may be an example of inappropriate influence of politics on EPA's science.
Thus, the physicians and scientists noted in the post above should examine the science and scientific interpretations in EPA's toxicity assessments for themselves rather than accepting them at face value.
Ted Simon
@AToxicAssault
http://tedsimon.authorsxpress.com/
As a former EPA staffer, I am aware that politics sometimes drives these flawed toxicity assessments. The often inappropriate attempts to influence scientific decisions is one of the reasons I left the agency.
Recently, the National Academy of Sciences took EPA took task for the formaldehyde risk assessment. EPA suggested that safe levels in air were 10 to 100 times lower than the levels measured in exhaled breath of unexposed people. This doesn't pass the laugh test, and one wonders how such a conclusion could be presented as the agency's best science.
EPA is a regulatory agency and very subject to political influence. That said, it is important for any physicians or scientists, including those mentioned in the post above. to examine EPA's toxicity assessments for themselves and decide whether these assessments are scientifically valid.
EPA's toxicity assessments should not be taken at face value precisely because of the political influence to which EPA is subjected.
Ted Simon
http://tedsimon.authorsxpress.com/