Ozone?

[Townsend]

Their lobbyists had the bar lowered. How is it not?

The next 10 years will be difficult without people demanding protection of the air and water. Manufacturers and industry will not be friendly to our environment. Politicians are beholden to corporations, not human beings. We must lower our energy consumption. At least until France develops Fusion energy.

Lowering the PPB is good for the air.

[Teatownclown]

Lowering the PPB is good for the air.

I thought that allowed for more particulates in the atmosphere. I'm no scientist, but it's easy to see the effect all the traffic, refineries, and manufacturing has had on the air here. I even will go as far as to say the drought has been intensified by the ground heat emanating out of this land mass. I don't need technical support to understand what's happening. It's obvious. And then there's the foul water soaked in chloramine.

Sure glad I got to see what clean once was.....

[Townsend]

Sure glad I got to see what clean once was.....

Then you are much older than you look.

[Teatownclown]

Then you are much older than you look.

Perhaps. Good long term memory too....

Is it haze or pollution?

[Townsend]

Is it haze or pollution?

That depends.  If you partake then it very well may be haze.  If you're looking at Beijing, then it's probably pollution.

[RecycleMichael]

Their lobbyists had the bar lowered. How is it not?

It is the lobbyists, but not the ones you think.

It is the American Lung Association. They have done extensive research that says the regulatory limit should be no more than 60 parts per billion. Anything above that really affects a good chunk of the population.

But if the EPA made it 60 parts per billion, almost every metro area in the country goes in non-attainment. That also would mean also some area in almost every Congressional district would suddenly have the EPA imposing new rules on everything from gas blends and gas pumps at gas stations, and even road projects that increase idling cars. That is why politics are involved and the EPA has failed to put new cities on the list recently.

President Obama and his EPA leaders are being sued by the environmentalists to lower a standard that will piss off most of Congress and dramatically increase costs to cities and citizens alike. Tough problem to solve.

What should the standard be? A number that protects health? Or should it be an achievable number for metro areas that are doing all they can?  

Tulsa has one of the best voluntary citizen programs in the country and the gas providers voluntarily make a better blend of fuel to help. Even with all that, Tulsa has been within one part per billion of failing two years in a row and then last year completely saw record days of exceendances. A summer of weeks of heat with no wind this year and it will happen again in 2013.  

All that being said, don't care about ozone levels because we are trying to meet some arbitrary and political number. The reason you should care about doing all the little things you can to help is because it is OUR AIR. Do something because one out of five kids have asthma. Do it because your grandparents struggle to breath on high ozone days. Help out because we all need to breathe clean air.

[Teatownclown]

I'm still wanting to see the results of studies done by the government regarding lung cancer incidents in Tulsa which are unrelated to smoking tobacco products. Where's their lobby on that? It's easy for their lobby to find the tobacco scapegoat, but do they ever come up with real villains?
Seems to me there's too many here coming down with lung cancer who never smoked.

[Townsend]

I'm still wanting to see the results of studies done by the government regarding lung cancer incidents in Tulsa which are unrelated to smoking tobacco products. Where's their lobby on that? It's easy for their lobby to find the tobacco scapegoat, but do they ever come up with real villains?
Seems to me there's too many here coming down with lung cancer who never smoked.

Have you contacted anyone about these studies?

[Conan71]

I'm still wanting to see the results of studies done by the government regarding lung cancer incidents in Tulsa which are unrelated to smoking tobacco products. Where's their lobby on that? It's easy for their lobby to find the tobacco scapegoat, but do they ever come up with real villains?
Seems to me there's too many here coming down with lung cancer who never smoked.

Radon gas is known carcinogen which causes lung cancer.  That is emitted from the ground underneath houses, not something airborne emitted by normal pollutants.  Depending on who you believe, it's the second leading cause of lung cancer behind tobacco use.  You might want to get your home tested for radon, cracks in the foundation or in-ground ductwork can increase the concentration of it.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html

[Teatownclown]

Radon gas is known carcinogen which causes lung cancer.  That is emitted from the ground underneath houses, not something airborne emitted by normal pollutants.  Depending on who you believe, it's the second leading cause of lung cancer behind tobacco use.  You might want to get your home tested for radon, cracks in the foundation or in-ground ductwork can increase the concentration of it.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html

My house is stoned up tight with just 4 large rooms. Besides, doom will come one way or another. Thanks for your concern.

I can go for the adapt and be gentle path on global warming. I'm in touch with several friends in Jersey and New England where one to three feet of snow is forecast starting an hour or two ago. They seem to be taking these environmental changes in a gritty manner and getting use to climate change.

So, I'll whine about the difference from today and back when our water and air seemed better quality. We will get by.

Fusion energy would really help right now.

[Red Arrow]

It is the American Lung Association. They have done extensive research that says the regulatory limit should be no more than 60 parts per billion. Anything above that really affects a good chunk of the population.

Can you be a bit more specific about "a good chunk of the population"?

Can you be a bit more specific about "affects"?

I am not trying to be silly here.  Quantifying "affects" and "a good chunk" would go a long way towards credibility.

[Teatownclown]

Can you be a bit more specific about "a good chunk of the population"?

Can you be a bit more specific about "affects"?

I am not trying to be silly here.  Quantifying "affects" and "a good chunk" would go a long way towards credibility.

Another storm that could be the worst in history:
Historic Blizzard Poised to Strike New England: What Role Is Climate Change Playing?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/08/1561331/epic-blizzard-poised-to-strike-new-england-what-role-does-climate-change-play/



and the air today was clouded by mist.

[RecycleMichael]

Can you be a bit more specific about "a good chunk of the population"?

Can you be a bit more specific about "affects"?

I am not trying to be silly here.  Quantifying "affects" and "a good chunk" would go a long way towards credibility.

Here is an example of a press release form 2011...

http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/failure-to-update-ozone-standard-outrageous.html

President Obama's Failure to Update Ozone Standard Outrageous

Washington, D.C. (September 2, 2011)—

President Obama announced today that he would not update the 2008 ozone standard.

"For two years the Administration dragged its feet by delaying its decision, unnecessarily putting lives at risk. Its final decision not to enact a more protective ozone health standard is jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans, which is inexcusable," said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. "The American Lung Association now intends to revive its participation in litigation with the Administration, which was suspended following numerous assurances that the Administration was going to complete this reconsideration and obey the law. We had gone to court because the Bush Administration failed to follow the law and set a protective health standard."

"The ozone standard set in 1997 at 84 ppb is currently being implemented. The American Lung Association demands at minimum, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states must move forward to implement the 75 ppb standard as it will provide more protection than the 14-year-old standard," said Connor.

The EPA's nearly two-year-long "reconsideration" of the ozone standard determined that the 2008 standard, set at 75 ppb by the Bush Administration, failed to protect public health, failed to follow the scientific community's recommendations, and was legally indefensible. Furthermore, in reconsidering the 2008 decision, EPA had to limit its review to reconsider the science about ozone as it stood in 2006. Evidence accumulating since 2006 shows that ozone is harmful at levels well below the current.

By choosing to ignore the recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the President is failing to follow the nation's landmark air pollution law, the Clean Air Act, and therefore failing to protect public health, particularly those most at risk including children, older people, and people who suffer from chronic lung diseases. For these people, breathing smog-polluted air can lead to coughing and wheezing, restricted airways, hospitalization and even death. Even healthy young adults and people who exercise or work outdoors can suffer from high levels of ozone pollution.

"A new smog standard would have saved lives and resulted in fewer people getting sick," said Albert A. Rizzo, MD, National Volunteer Chair of the American Lung Association and pulmonary and critical care physician in Newark, Delaware. "The Administration should have set a standard at 60 ppb as advised by the American Lung Association and other medical societies and health groups. Its failure to do so will severely jeopardize public health," continued Dr. Rizzo.

An American Lung Association bipartisan poll of likely 2012 voters taken in June 2011 found that an overwhelming majority support the EPA's efforts to strengthen rules on ozone-causing pollution. The poll found that 75 percent of voters support stricter limits on ozone and that 72 percent oppose efforts by Congress to stop EPA from updating ozone standards. The poll also found that 65 percent of the voters do not agree with the industry's claim that the stricter smog standard will impact jobs. In fact, 54 percent rightly believe that a new standard will create jobs through innovation.

"The benefits to our economic and physical health of a stricter smog standard are without question," continued Connor. "While polluters continue to argue against health standards by repeating archaic, long-disproved claims about economic harm, the American people know better. The Obama Administration undoubtedly should not have delayed and failed to implement a new standard to help communities achieve clean air."

[RecycleMichael]

 Here is an 11 page study...

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/casac/Ozone%20White%20Paper%20for%20CASAC%20AAMMS%20-%20Feb%2010%202009.pdf

[Red Arrow]

Another storm that could be the worst in history:
Historic Blizzard Poised to Strike New England: What Role Is Climate Change Playing?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/08/1561331/epic-blizzard-poised-to-strike-new-england-what-role-does-climate-change-play/



and the air today was clouded by mist.

Please explain the correlation with ozone.