> 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...
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...