rushmc 23 #101 January 5, 2012 QuoteI really think you should at least read the abstracts of the papers you cite. You're not making any sense. You posted that the EPA was not making the claims that that the author was referencing I provided links that clearly show the EPA IS making those claims. His paper compares current conditions in a town in China and questions how the EPA, with studies showing cleaner air here, can predict MORE deaths due to particulates and other pollutants than what is being seen in China. How do YOU explain this?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 January 5, 2012 Quote I want clean air as much as anybody This thread has clearly shown otherwise. We're still trying to get an idea from you of what "clean" means. The answer seems to be that today it is clean enough and perhaps cleaner than it needs to be, but you've declined several direct questions that would make this conclusive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #103 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuote I want clean air as much as anybody This thread has clearly shown otherwise. We're still trying to get an idea from you of what "clean" means. The answer seems to be that today it is clean enough and perhaps cleaner than it needs to be, but you've declined several direct questions that would make this conclusive. Today is not bad in most cases How much better than today is good enough for you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #104 January 5, 2012 >His paper compares current conditions in a town in China and questions how the >EPA, with studies showing cleaner air, can predict MORE deaths due to particulates and >other polutanats than what is being seen in China. Here's what the paper says: =========== After adjustment for PM2.5 mass, we found significant positive associations of total, cardiovascular, or respiratory mortality with OC, EC, ammonium, nitrate, chlorine ion, chlorine, and nickel for at least one lag. Nitrate demonstrated stronger associations with total and cardiovascular mortality than PM2.5 mass. For a 1-day lag, inter-quartile range increases in PM2.5 mass and nitrate (114.9 and 15.4 μg/m3, respectively) were associated with 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8%, 2.8%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 1.7%, 5.9%) increases in total mortality. ============ That's pretty similar to the conclusions in the NAS report. Why are there more deaths due to particulates in the US even though we are way cleaner than they are? Because there are 8 million people in Xi'an and 300 million people in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #105 January 5, 2012 QuoteToday is not bad in most cases So what needs to be done to get it to good in all cases? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #106 January 5, 2012 QuoteYou posted that the EPA was not making the claims that that the author was referencing I provided links that clearly show the EPA IS making those claims. His paper compares current conditions in a town in China and questions how the EPA, with studies showing cleaner air here, can predict MORE deaths due to particulates and other pollutants than what is being seen in China. How do YOU explain this? I never said that the EPA isn't claiming that more deaths (~1%) will result from a 10ppm increase in PM2.5. Clearly they are. What I said was that showing a Chinese study that claimed a 10ppm increase in 2.5PM in a certain city in China resulted in a 0.26% increase in deaths does not refute the EPA claims. For instance, if the 10ppm increase discussed in the EPA study represented a 40% increase in particulate matter, while the same increase in the Chinese study represented a 10% increase, then the studies would actually be confirming each other (assuming that a linear relationship was the hypothesis). If the math is not clear, that's because it's not as simple as your author tries to make it. You've fallen into his sound bite trap. I'm just trying to point out that his trap doesn't bear up to even cursory scrutiny. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #107 January 5, 2012 .26% increase is statistical noise So the dirtier air in China caused this Yet the rate is much higher in the US (claimed anyway) with cleaner air? Somebody is not telling the truth"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #108 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteToday is not bad in most cases So what needs to be done to get it to good in all cases? Form a power generation stand point. Get the coal plants to the regs that were in place before this last round of rule making"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #109 January 5, 2012 Yet the "rate" is lower in China with worse air"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #110 January 5, 2012 Quote.26% increase is statistical noise According to your author, not according to the scientists who wrote the paper. QuoteYet the rate is much higher in the US (claimed anyway) with cleaner air? The rate of change with a given increase in particulates, not the death rate itself. Didn't you claim somewhere to have a Six Sigma Black Belt? Why is this so hard for you to understand? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #111 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuote.26% increase is statistical noise According to your author, not according to the scientists who wrote the paper. QuoteYet the rate is much higher in the US (claimed anyway) with cleaner air? The rate of change with a given increase in particulates, not the death rate itself. Didn't you claim somewhere to have a Six Sigma Black Belt? Why is this so hard for you to understand? I do understand that The author argues that the increase does NOT happen. As a comparison to the EPA claiming it does"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #112 January 5, 2012 or better stated REAL numbers from a place with bad air compared to EPA claims They do not match up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #113 January 5, 2012 Quoteor better stated REAL numbers from a place with bad air compared to EPA claims They do not match up Can someone else please explain this? I've already tried repeatedly. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #114 January 5, 2012 QuoteThe city of Xi'an had the second worst air quality in Asia in 2006. Using the same sort of data and statistical analysis employed by EPA-funded air quality researchers, the Chinese researchers reported having statistically correlated every 10 microgram per cubic meter’s (μg/m3) worth of fine particulate matter (soot or PM2.5) in Xi’an’s air with a 0.2% increase in the city’s death rate. While that sounds like a result in the statistical noise range — and it is as the mean daily death toll in Xi’an is only about 26.2 — we’re going to overlook that normally fatal flaw and, instead, momentarily embrace the result so that we can compare it with what EPA-funded researchers claim about U.S. cities. In a 2009 study of 112 U.S. cities, EPA-funded researchers reported that every 10 μg/m3 worth of PM2.5 correlated with about a 1.0% increase in death rate. Once again this is, in reality, statistical noise. But in the fantasy world of EPA air quality science it is five times greater than what Chinese researchers reported from the second dirtiest city in the world. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #115 January 5, 2012 Someone, anyone, please help me!!! - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #116 January 5, 2012 >Someone, anyone, please help me! Do what? Convince RushMC to talk about science instead of politics? I don't think that's possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #117 January 5, 2012 QuoteDo what? Convince RushMC to talk about science instead of politics? I don't think that's possible. I was hoping for some backup on the very, very simple math, but you're right, there's really no point. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #118 January 5, 2012 http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/xian/xian-facts/xian-population.html life expectancy in Xian Male 72.5 years Female 73.5 years http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/beijing/beijing-facts/beijing-population.html life expectancy in Beijing Total population 80.24 years (didn't break down by gender, but cited same 2007 Bureau source. http://www.chinatouronline.com/china-travel/hong-kong/hong-kong-facts/hong-kong-population.html life expectancy in Hong Kong total population 82.45years Male 79.3years Female 85.4years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #119 January 5, 2012 Quote>Someone, anyone, please help me! Do what? Convince RushMC to talk about science instead of politics? I don't think that's possible. Well, seeing how the EPA is the political church of the enviro evangelicals, it would seem only appropriate. Maybe this should be a seperation of church and state thread"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
