Interesting that the EPA proposes going from 10 μg/m³ to 8 - 11 μg/m³ for the annual PM2.5 exposure and proposing to leave the 24h limit at 35 μg/m³ whereas the WHO air quality guideline that came out last year set much lower standards at 5 μg/m³ for annual exposure and 15 μg/m³ for 24h.
Both argue with science and health based research. I wonder if the EPA is going far enough?
These kinds of measures aren’t objective. It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount. The science says you should have 0. The reality is you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff point that’s good enough.
Worth keeping in mind that the targets the WHO is setting are likely temporary, and they’re just goals we should aim for, because the air pollution is currently higher than the goal. There is a historical pattern of these goals being adjusted toward zero.
There isn’t a single threshold either, there are several graded tiers they recommend cities and countries aim for, depending on how bad their pollution currently is. Ultimately, you’re right, 0 is the ideal. That said, one small nit: the cutoffs aren’t arbitrary, the WHO’s lowest level (“AQG”) is set to the “lowest levels of exposure for which there is evidence of adverse health effects.” This value was adjusted downward last year because we’ve accumulated new and compelling evidence of adverse health effects since the last time they set AQG guidance in 2005. Chances are high they’ll adjust downward again the future as we gather more evidence.
Sayings like "no safe amount" makes for great virtue signaling and worse than useless public policy.
While "no safe amount" may technically be true from a scientific perspective in a world where we can measure infinitesimal amounts of things a policy line needs to be drawn. At some point the average net effect of the poison is going to be so far below the noise threshold that caring further is a wash or of negative benefit.
You're certainly not disagreeing with the person you're replying to, so why the combativeness? You're literally saying the same thing (no amount is perfectly safe, we choose what level we're willing to take by analyzing costs and benefits).
I’ve found non-ironic use of the phrase “virtue signaling” is a good indicator of bad faith. You wouldn’t presume someone else couldn’t possibly be acting on principle unless that’s your mode of operation.
> It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount.
The reason this is stated is because lead is cumulative, that is not really the same thing as breathing particulates. Presumably, particulates do not accumulate over a lifetime.
They are basically a lottery ticket for cancer. They don’t accumulate, just the more you are exposed to, the worse your risk. The ideal amount of times you want to risk cancer is zero, realistically that’s impossible, but less is always better.
It’s not like something like salt where some amount is fine or even good but too much could cause issues.
Science does not say anything like that. You can certainly have a small amount of lead an lead and not experience any observable increased risk to your health.
Did you read the article? Exposure levels measured as low as 3.5 mcg/dL in blood are associated with negative effects. Thats reaching the lowest levels that can be easily measured. We’re talking about a few micrograms here. Literally specs of dust. How much smaller can you get?
The minimum level of lead we can measure is dangerous. Your claim is that there is some level that is safe, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. Each time we get better at measuring smaller and smaller lead levels in people, we find a correlation between lead levels and negative outcomes. There is literally zero evidence that supports a "safe" level of lead.
We also understand the mechanisms in which lead acts on the body. We know it's harmful in any amount. There is no safe level of lead.
Yes, perfection is the enemy of the good. In fact the most sustainable mentality is for the epa to provide information only, and allow people to choose how risky they wish to behave.
Didn’t see the response til now. It’s odd though: the lead comes from the planet, there’s a set amount of it. the most humans do is increase it’s entropy. So I’m not sure talking about lead levels in the planet makes sense: they’ve been about the same planet-wide. Meteorites I guess? Hardly a man-made mechanism though.
This completely sidesteps the issue. No one asked if the planet was alive. When an educated person says or hears "the planet", they should, unless context dictates otherwise, interpret it to mean the entire biosphere. This is a question of morality and fairness to all life. This anthropocentrist mentality is short-sighted and selfish.
And just because the sun expands in a few billion years doesn't mean I shouldn't be nice to my neighbor today.
Considering the Earth was much hotter and colder with vastly different concentrations of atmospheric gasses at given points in time than it is today, yes it is "sustainable". The planet and life at large do not give a damn.
The Earth will continue to orbit and spin and life will go on, until one day the Sun decides it's time to get fat and eat a couple planets.
> Both argue with science and health based research
What benchmark are they using? Assuming PM 2.5 being too high harms health, and PM 2.5 being 'too low' has no negative impact on health, then it really is one of those 'lower is always better' things.
There is no 'safe' amount - There is some amount below which the harm is unmeasurable with current techniques. This is the case with many pollutants, and the more such pollutants there are, the harder it becomes to measure the impact of low levels of any one, meaning everything can look 'safe', while in fact you are in fact being killed by a million cuts...
EPA estimates that if finalized, a strengthened primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter, the lower end of the proposed range, would prevent:
up to 4,200 premature deaths per year;
270,000 lost workdays per year;
result in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032.
Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides.
Primary standards are meant to determine healthy levels, including for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. They are not intended to determine what levels are economically efficient. That's handled during implementation, not when setting the primary standards.
So the EPA does consider it, they just do it in a later step. "Garbage in, garbage out," so you want to make sure your medical science is accurate when it goes into the economic analysis.
> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides.
I don't understand this: isn't the fact that they didn't lower it to zero strong evidence that they performed a cost-benefit analysis? Where's the evidence that they gave it "no consideration"?
Not only is there a cost detailed, it's incredibly detailed, but instead of talking about how it was (obviously) detailed if you bothered to click two links, I'm wondering what cost 4,200 premature deaths would you consider not worth the change?
For 4000 lives saved, and at a valuation of roughly $7 to $9 Million/life (US) to be consistent with US gov’t engineering practices and regulations, perhaps $30 to $40 billion to be consistent with other US policy initiatives.
If you even spend, say, $100 Billion on this environmental concern (implicitly valuing $25M/life), you will underinvest in other governmental activities (e.g. DOT) that valued life at $9M/life, so reprogramming funds from air pollution to DOT would be estimated to save more lives. At first SWAG (linearity/hand-waving) implicitly accepting an additional 6000 lives lost due to such a misinvestment.
Both argue with science and health based research. I wonder if the EPA is going far enough?