1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

EPA Dismisses Panels Advising on Particulate Matter & Ground-Level Ozone

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by iplug, Oct 25, 2018.

  1. iplug

    iplug Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    2,455
    1,703
    0
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    ----USA----
    The EPA has dismissed two panels of outside scientists that advised the agency on particulate matter and ground-level ozone, which have been linked to smog and respiratory problems.​


    EPA dissolves boards of pollution scientists

    :cry:
     
    #1 iplug, Oct 25, 2018
  2. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    108,713
    49,402
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    ugly. get the vote out
     
    #2 bisco, Oct 25, 2018
    davecook89t and iplug like this.
  3. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    #3 tochatihu, Oct 25, 2018
  4. iplug

    iplug Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    2,455
    1,703
    0
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    ----USA----
    Interesting idea. Able to pull up the article abstract but not the full article. The abstract methods section does not specify if they measured air quality at the micro (local home or street) level.

    Sound and air pollution diminish most considerably by getting a certain distance from the source. So a home right off a busy freeway is subject to the highest levels of both. Just a few houses away from said freeway could have a significant reduction in the levels of both.

    Skepticism here being if we measure the dB of a home right off the freeway but use an average of air quality in the city or even neighborhood we could come to a faulty conclusion that overemphasis the effect of noise pollution.

    Without better access to the methods, hard to know if measurement resolution was obtained properly. Physiologically the relative impact of noise would not seem to be so great unless it lead to sustained increased stress levels. Big cities often have much noise.
     
    #4 iplug, Oct 26, 2018
  5. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,323
    3,591
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I was concerned the Obama ozone rules were not well conceived, but I do not know about particulates...mostly from coal as far as I know. Many EPA rules are hard to understand these days, because each locality has a different rule, so EPA cannot tell you what the practical effect of the rule is, becuase it is differfent for everybody. So we get an edict like mandated ozone reduction becuase EPA feels tens of thousands are being hurt, but we get no description about how ozone reduction would be accomplished, given that much progress has already been made, and ozone is already going down.

    Then Ca. says we still have a problem here with ozone and particlulates, and no wonder, Ca gave up worrying about pollution to focus on global climate change and mandating electric vehciles. Nobody is stopping Ca from solving their local eco-issues.
     
    #5 wjtracy, Oct 26, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  6. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    #6 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
  7. iplug

    iplug Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    2,455
    1,703
    0
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    ----USA----
    Article request sent to my (online) work librarian. Figure someone should get paid -hopefully towards supporting research.
     
    #7 iplug, Oct 26, 2018
  8. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I never object to paying publishers by way of existing journal subscriptions. Wish libraries could afford more journal subscriptions. It is possible that librarians could argue for more subscription funding if they get a lot of such requests. But budgets are generally tight.

    Direct requests to authors do not undercut that - not in any way I can see. They also offer a couple of potential benefits. Author knows at least one person is motivated*. Opens a line of communication with authors in case there is something one wishes to discuss.

    *When I make such requests, reply often includes them thanking me. Weird eh? But it feels good when one receives direct requests from all over the world.

    ==
    Authors benefit from publishing research when it gets heavily cited by subsequent published research. Helps getting new grant proposals funded, and with promotions. No additional benefits come to them if journal manages to sell (more) subscriptions.

    ==
    This publisher, Oxford University Press, is one of my favorites. Not that it matters. Not that I'll mention others I hold in lower esteem.
     
    #8 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
    iplug likes this.
  9. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Y'know, even if you obtain an article via open access or any other means, if it seemed important to you, send author an email anyway.

    In most cases, author will be recovering from cranky comments from journal reviewers. You can send them a 'bouquet of flowers' for free. Free for you (except moments of time) and nice for them. Weird eh?
     
    #9 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
  10. iplug

    iplug Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    2,455
    1,703
    0
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    ----USA----
    Oh tochatihu. What are you getting me into.

    Ok, received and read the article. First of all, much respect to the authors for their endeavors. An important topic that should continue to be researched.

    A few concerns:
    a) "noise and air pollution were both estimated at the residential address..."

    b) would imagine most people spend most of their time indoors in a city and the noise exposure database measures outdoor, not indoor noise levels

    c) NO2 address resolution was modeled by using a total of 1843 locations; actual spatial resolution is not described; the authors suggest their models provided residential level resolution

    d) PM2.5 "...was predicted...from satellite, land use, and meteorological data...we used aerosol optical depth data...at a 1x1 km resolution and combined it in four stages modelleling approach with various predictors...and was PM2.5 ground measures to refine model resolution to address level"; same here - I don't know if that truly provides for adequate spatial resolution to the address level but the authors say it does

    e) hard to tease out if the sound association is mostly one that can be attributed to lower socioeconomic status individuals tending to live closer to loud noises as this demographic has well established expected poorer health outcomes. The authors note "though our models are adjusted for socioeconomic status and other demographic variables we could not adjust for lifestyle..." Table one lists study population characteristics and there are subgroups with tertiary level education and "neighborhood socio-economic position", but these subgroup outcomes are not discussed in the article. That could be very telling data. Maybe this is in supplementary tables/figures.

    f) Even the authors note that "In Switzerland, mortality from cardiovascular diseases has been shown to be higher in rural areas, where air pollution is lower on average." But they neglect to mention that noise pollution is also much less there.

    g) Hazard ratios were shown for road, rail, and air sources of noise and pollution. Interestingly, HRs dropped almost in half at the same dB levels when going from road to rail. In Switzerland, the rail system is electric! - so this suggests much of the noise association with MI mortality is not real. We should attribute the drop in MI mortality here to non-noise factors.

    h) the study correctly points out that these are associations and did not attribute causality
     
    #10 iplug, Oct 26, 2018
  11. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I am transparent about science boosterism. Including getting regular folks involved - getting themselves involved. The communications wall is much more important than the paywall. Both are soft on your side. Just give little nudges and they both crumble.
     
    #11 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
  12. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    This study got picked up by Scencedaily for suggesting that direct effects of air quality could be overestimated if noise factors are ignored. Scencedaily notices red meat. As an initial inquiry, it does not settle the matter. It may not have even been best design that authors could have performed.

    Ideally it would lead to additional studies. Personally, I'd think about whatever are good 'animal models' for cardiopulmonary/air quality effects. Cage those critters up, give them a variety of 'airs' to breathe, and add various levels of traffic noise. Act 3 involves cutting out mouse (or whatever) lungs; not PETA-friendly. But such are how mechanisms are revealed.
     
    #12 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
  13. iplug

    iplug Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    2,455
    1,703
    0
    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    ----USA----
    Agree. If having good potential to enhance the knowledge AND quality of life for us humans, well designed randomized controlled trials involving rodents would be in order.

    As your day job involves the soil/botanical world, you at least can likely remain out of the scrutiny of PETA.:D
     
    #13 iplug, Oct 26, 2018
  14. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,046
    3,528
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Holy Moley. When I want chicken, I go to a 'wet market', pick a victim from a crowded cage and observe disassembly process. PETA would stew me if they could.

    These days I only kill invertebrates myself. Lots of them at times.

    ==
    If mice are suitable for air-blasting and noise-blasting, they gonna die. Mice heaven has zillions who have advanced biomedicine (sometimes only a tiny bit).

    To train young surgeons cardio[ulmonary surgery, beagles are the model. I've heard their unhappy voices (caged at Dartmouth Medical School) and it's hard to be dispassionate about that.
     
    #14 tochatihu, Oct 26, 2018
    iplug likes this.
  15. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,859
    8,163
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2018 Chevy Volt
    Model:
    Premium
    well yea - there IS somebody (possibly) stopping CA from solving 'local' issues. CARB had to sue in order to get stricter emissions standards. The feds can take that court approved benefit away if the Supreme court so swings. ~16 states are In Cahoots with Cali- & the group will likely take it up to the Supremes once again - because in the broader scheme of things, a state can't regulate "Interstate Commerce". That's what you are doing, if you force cars (brought into your state) to have a certain degree of echo cleanliness.
    .
     
    #15 hill, Oct 28, 2018
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)