Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 3:56:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:27:24 GMT
linkNew Republis is running this article. “Scott Pruitt Declares war on Air Pollution Science”. Pruitt’s plan is to replace the scientists on the advisory board with those who don’t believe in the harm of air pollution on humans. Having recently spent a little over a week in air full of thick smoke I don’t need to be a scientist to tell Pruitt and his little nay sayers they are full of shit. And I was lucky. I had the choice of staying in during this time. But when I did go out for a short period of time I could feel the affects of breathing thick smoke. And the scary thing was how far that smoke went from the Sonoma, Napa, & Mendocino fires. But the reason I felt this was thread worthy is the beliefs of one potential replacements on the advisory board. From the article.... The EPA considers ozone a harmful air pollutant. “Reducing ozone pollution makes breathing easier,” the agency’s website reads. “Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.” Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the University of California Irvine, is not an obvious ideologue like Honeycutt, but his research findings would support a deregulatory agenda for air pollution. “The relative risks associated with modern [particulate matter] are very small and confounded by many factors,” he wrote in a 2004 study. “Neither toxicology studies nor human clinical investigations have identified the components and/or characteristics of [particulate matter] that might be causing the health-effect associations.” Phalen has argued that the air is currently too clean, because children’s lungs need to breathe irritants in order to learn how to fight them. “Modern air,” he said in 2012, “is a little too clean for optimum health.”
The problem with that thinking, if you believe breathing a little pollutants is good for you, and if the regulations are gutted what’s to stop the “ little to clean air” becoming “I can’t breath air”? I was lucky, the first responders beat down the fires and the wind finally kicked in and blew the smokey air out to sea. But places in China and India aren’t so lucky. And with the type of thinking demonstrated by Pruitt & Company that could happen here.
|
|
|
|
Post by missfrenchjessica on Nov 1, 2017 16:30:58 GMT
😳😡🤢😤
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Nov 1, 2017 16:34:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 1, 2017 16:44:10 GMT
Vetting of presidential appointees!! MOST of his Cabinet appointments are against present proven polices in place and are undoing most of them, just as dt is revoking all of Obama's actions!
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,643 
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Nov 1, 2017 16:52:39 GMT
Let's start with him. Seal his office and pipe in pollutants.
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Nov 1, 2017 16:54:19 GMT
How? They are just spewing anything that supports their agenda. They can not possibly give one thought to what they are actually saying. Can not.
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
|
Post by suzastampin on Nov 1, 2017 16:59:49 GMT
Oh my freaking Gawd! This asthmatic is speechless! Guess my parents should have piped pollutants down my throat at the age of two when I had my first asthma attack. Good Gawd!
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
|
Post by scrapaddie on Nov 1, 2017 17:02:08 GMT
linkNew Republis is running this article. “Scott Pruitt Declares war on Air Pollution Science”. Pruitt’s plan is to replace the scientists on the advisory board with those who don’t believe in the harm of air pollution on humans. Having recently spent a little over a week in air full of thick smoke I don’t need to be a scientist to tell Pruitt and his little nay sayers they are full of shit. And I was lucky. I had the choice of staying in during this time. But when I did go out for a short period of time I could feel the affects of breathing thick smoke. And the scary thing was how far that smoke went from the Sonoma, Napa, & Mendocino fires. But the reason I felt this was thread worthy is the beliefs of one potential replacements on the advisory board. From the article.... The EPA considers ozone a harmful air pollutant. “Reducing ozone pollution makes breathing easier,” the agency’s website reads. “Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.” Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the University of California Irvine, is not an obvious ideologue like Honeycutt, but his research findings would support a deregulatory agenda for air pollution. “The relative risks associated with modern [particulate matter] are very small and confounded by many factors,” he wrote in a 2004 study. “Neither toxicology studies nor human clinical investigations have identified the components and/or characteristics of [particulate matter] that might be causing the health-effect associations.” Phalen has argued that the air is currently too clean, because children’s lungs need to breathe irritants in order to learn how to fight them. “Modern air,” he said in 2012, “is a little too clean for optimum health.”
The problem with that thinking, if you believe breathing a little pollutants is good for you, and if the regulations are gutted what’s to stop the “ little to clean air” becoming “I can’t breath air”? I was lucky, the first responders beat down the fires and the wind finally kicked in and blew the smokey air out to sea. But places in China and India aren’t so lucky. And with the type of thinking demonstrated by Pruitt & Company that could happen here. This must be why I was so miserable in New Zealand.. Breathing all that wonderful, unpolluted air! Kiwis... I am being sarcastic..... I loved your country! And the air! |
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,380
|
Post by RosieKat on Nov 1, 2017 17:41:47 GMT
I think I'm speechless.
Yes, I understand things like how they show people who owned pets as kids are less likely to develop asthma. I get the theory that allergies are on the rise because we live in "too clean" a world. That does not even begin to equate to "breathe dangerous chemicals" though.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 3:56:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 17:51:10 GMT
I just can't.
The stupid is stong with these people.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 1, 2017 18:27:57 GMT
But but but, dt is OUTSIDE playing golf every weekend! dJr is OUTSIDE hunting animals....
Do they do it in bubbles?
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Nov 1, 2017 20:09:41 GMT
linkNew Republis is running this article. “Scott Pruitt Declares war on Air Pollution Science”. Pruitt’s plan is to replace the scientists on the advisory board with those who don’t believe in the harm of air pollution on humans. Having recently spent a little over a week in air full of thick smoke I don’t need to be a scientist to tell Pruitt and his little nay sayers they are full of shit. And I was lucky. I had the choice of staying in during this time. But when I did go out for a short period of time I could feel the affects of breathing thick smoke. And the scary thing was how far that smoke went from the Sonoma, Napa, & Mendocino fires. But the reason I felt this was thread worthy is the beliefs of one potential replacements on the advisory board. From the article.... The EPA considers ozone a harmful air pollutant. “Reducing ozone pollution makes breathing easier,” the agency’s website reads. “Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.” Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the University of California Irvine, is not an obvious ideologue like Honeycutt, but his research findings would support a deregulatory agenda for air pollution. “The relative risks associated with modern [particulate matter] are very small and confounded by many factors,” he wrote in a 2004 study. “Neither toxicology studies nor human clinical investigations have identified the components and/or characteristics of [particulate matter] that might be causing the health-effect associations.” Phalen has argued that the air is currently too clean, because children’s lungs need to breathe irritants in order to learn how to fight them. “Modern air,” he said in 2012, “is a little too clean for optimum health.”
The problem with that thinking, if you believe breathing a little pollutants is good for you, and if the regulations are gutted what’s to stop the “ little to clean air” becoming “I can’t breath air”? I was lucky, the first responders beat down the fires and the wind finally kicked in and blew the smokey air out to sea. But places in China and India aren’t so lucky. And with the type of thinking demonstrated by Pruitt & Company that could happen here. That’s just stupid.😡 They are trying to extrapolate the data regarding exposure to microorganisms to reach a conclusion regarding exposure to particulates, and they are completely different concepts! Microorganisms exist naturally in, well, nature. Our bodies have adapted over the course of human existence to real with these tiny creatures, and we have even developed somewhat symbiotic relationships with some of them. When you strip those organisms from the environment,or make the environment “too clean,” it disrupts the relationships between human and germ, which can have adverse effects on human health by not triggering the necessary immune responses that protect us from a wide range of problems. However, high levels of particulates DO NOT exist in nature except in the case of natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, extreme forest fires, and meteor strikes. Forest fires are the least harmful as far as adding toxins and particulate matter to the air, as those primarily affect the lowest levels of the atmosphere and remain fairly local and short-term hazards. Volcanoes would probably be next on the list as far as potential harm. They are less local and can cause longer-term atmospheric disruption. The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa caused a five-year period of global climate disruptions. Meteor strikes have the most wide-ranging and longest-term negative effects. They have been responsible for some mass extinction events. I cannot think of a single “natural” event causing air pollution that is “helpful” for human health, unlike the documented benefits of exposure to microorganisms. I am so sick of science illiterates having the power to wreak havoc on policies designed to improve human health outcomes. 😥 |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 1, 2017 20:26:28 GMT
Thanks for your explanation!
|
|
|
|
Post by peano on Nov 1, 2017 20:30:11 GMT
Tell you what, Scott Pruitt, you fucking amoral asshole. Give me your children and those of others in your administration and let me lock them in a room with some nicely polluted air. Then we’ll talk.
I hate him as much as I do Trump and I pray he gets his just rewards too.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 1, 2017 20:30:40 GMT
Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. so much for the whole 'go outside, get some exercise' campaign, then, I guess?? or what about the people whose JOBS have them outside all day long? Say, construction workers, perhaps, or the people who pick fruits and vegetables by hand? screw them, and their health, I guess.  |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 1, 2017 20:44:54 GMT
Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. so much for the whole 'go outside, get some exercise' campaign, then, I guess?? or what about the people whose JOBS have them outside all day long? Say, construction workers, perhaps, or the people who pick fruits and vegetables by hand? screw them, and their health, I guess. But no affordable medical care! |
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,731
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Nov 1, 2017 20:55:39 GMT
That’s just stupid.😡 They are trying to extrapolate the data regarding exposure to microorganisms to reach a conclusion regarding exposure to particulates, and they are completely different concepts! Microorganisms exist naturally in, well, nature. Our bodies have adapted over the course of human existence to real with these tiny creatures, and we have even developed somewhat symbiotic relationships with some of them. When you strip those organisms from the environment,or make the environment “too clean,” it disrupts the relationships between human and germ, which can have adverse effects on human health by not triggering the necessary immune responses that protect us from a wide range of problems. However, high levels of particulates DO NOT exist in nature except in the case of natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, extreme forest fires, and meteor strikes. Forest fires are the least harmful as far as adding toxins and particulate matter to the air, as those primarily affect the lowest levels of the atmosphere and remain fairly local and short-term hazards. Volcanoes would probably be next on the list as far as potential harm. They are less local and can cause longer-term atmospheric disruption. The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa caused a five-year period of global climate disruptions. Meteor strikes have the most wide-ranging and longest-term negative effects. They have been responsible for some mass extinction events. I cannot think of a single “natural” event causing air pollution that is “helpful” for human health, unlike the documented benefits of exposure to microorganisms. I am so sick of science illiterates having the power to wreak havoc on policies designed to improve human health outcomes. 😥 Thank you so much for your explanation! You pinpointed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 1, 2017 21:00:37 GMT
I'm not a fan of air pollution. I'll also say that what stuck out with me when I read the article was in the last paragraph:
I'd never heard such a thing. I also thought I'd research who exactly this person quoted is about air that's too clean his bio:
Robert F. Phalen, Ph.D. is a Professor of Medicine in the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California, Irvine. He is the founding director, and current co-director of the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory. He is a member of the graduate program in Environmental Toxicology, now called Environmental Health Science, and he is on the faculty of the Occupational Medicine Residency Program.
Phalen’s research is in several areas: aerosol science, inhalation toxicology, air pollution health effects, modeling the deposition and clearance of inhaled substances, and radiation biology. At San Diego State University his undergraduate major was physics with a minor in mathematics, and his master’s degree was in nuclear physics with an emphasis on inhaled nuclear reactor accident particles. At the University of Rochester (New York) School of Medicine and Dentistry, he obtained a Ph.D. in Radiation Biology and Biophysics, with an emphasis in Toxicology. His thesis was a study of inhaled nanosilver particles.
His post-doctoral training was at the Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He joined the Aerosol Physics group and worked on an NIEHS computer modeling grant on inhaled particles in four mammalian species, including humans. The University of California, Irvine, recruited Dr. Phalen to direct the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory, and to establish a research program. The research focused on the effects of air pollution mixtures on lung defenses.
Phalen has published over 250 journal papers, chapters, and proceedings papers on his research. Another research interest is in the ethics of laboratory, animal, and human research. He chaired the U.C. Irvine Institutional Review Board (IRB) for seven years, and was a member of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for seven years. His ethics textbook, Core Ethics for Health Professionals (Springer International Publisher) was published in August 2017. His current research funding is from an endowment (the Stocking Family Trust).
He is an elected fellow of three organizations: the Academy of Toxicological Sciences, the Southern California Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is a full member of eight scientific societies, and is the chairman of the Board of Directors of the California Society for Biomedical Research (CSBR). He has served on review and advisory committees for EPA, NIEHS, CDC/NIOSH, and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), including the NAS Committee on Controlled Human Inhalation – Exposure Studies at EPA, and on EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee – Particulate Material Subcommittee.
Phalen has authored and co-authored sixteen books and reports including Methods in Inhalation Toxicology (1997); Introduction to Air Pollution Science (2011); and Core Ethics for Health Professionals (2017). His recent awards include “Career Achievement” (Society of Toxicology – Inhalation Section); and “Public Education” (CSBR). He has chaired and co-chaired several international conferences on human effects of air pollutants; and on modeling inhaled aerosols.
Can we perhaps agree that he's not ignorant of science. I also read one of papers - and it was specifically discussing how California's air quality was different than the east coast (primarily as coal isn't used for energy on the west coast) and the particular particles were less hazardous than those on the east coast. It by no means was indicating that there were no hazards to air pollution or that we all should breath any and everything. I think the article makes some huge leaps on assuming that some of these scientists are suddenly be against any and all regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 2, 2017 3:38:28 GMT
“Modern air,” he said in 2012, “is a little too clean for optimum health.” If this is a direct quote from Phalen, and it looks like it is, then I don't think it's such a huge leap. |
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Nov 2, 2017 3:39:26 GMT
Awesome! Looking forward to the inversion this winter.  |
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
|
Post by scrapaddie on Nov 2, 2017 9:54:46 GMT
Honeycutt, who’s been trying to undercut the scientific basis for smog regulations since 2010, argues that people aren’t outside long enough for high levels of ozone exposure to make a difference. so much for the whole 'go outside, get some exercise' campaign, then, I guess?? or what about the people whose JOBS have them outside all day long? Say, construction workers, perhaps, or the people who pick fruits and vegetables by hand? screw them, and their health, I guess. FTR .... Thenwordsmabove are not mine! |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Nov 2, 2017 10:00:22 GMT
Oh for f*** sake! How dare he! If it only affected him, fine but to try and inflict his stupidity on all Americans and ultimately the rest of the world too is beyond the pale.
|
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Nov 2, 2017 10:23:23 GMT
Holy heck! 😈😢
What's next? Clean drinking water isn't healthy. A little toxins in your H2O is good for you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 3:56:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 12:23:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 2, 2017 16:04:35 GMT
Can a Carbon 'Vacuum Cleaner' Save the Planet?Companies are exploring ways to scrub carbon dioxide from the air and put it back into the ground. by Corey S. Powell / Nov.01.2017 / 10:25 PM ET We humans are really, really good at making carbon dioxide. Last year our smokestacks and tailpipes puffed out more than 60 trillion pounds of the greenhouse gas, monkeying with the planet’s climate and acidifying the oceans. What we’re not so good at is cleaning up our mess. Most efforts at shrinking our carbon footprint have focused on cutting emissions: switching to renewable energy, for instance, and making transportation and manufacturing more efficient. But those efforts are moving too slowly to stabilize the climate, so now engineers are also working the problem from the other side. What if we could scrub carbon dioxide out of the air, removing some of what we’ve already put out there? More at link: www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/can-carbon-vacuum-cleaner-save-planet-ncna816376Just was strange to come across this ...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 3:56:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 20:12:19 GMT
linkSF Gate is running this story “ trump’s EPA says Obama Climate Rule could prevent up to 4,500 deaths annually, move to scrap it.” The plan is the Clean Power Plan and it seems when the trump EPA looked at it they found the number of deaths that could/would be prevented was actually more than what the Obama EPA had said so they are moving toward repealing it. I do appreciate the research done on “let them breath dirty air” guy but you need to look at who’s calling the shots. It’s trump and Pruitt and neither like regulations for no other reason than they are regulations. Never mind what the regulations do. Already you have trump bragging about how many regulations he has repealed. And you have Pruitt busily doing the same in the EPA. Science be damned as he moves to eliminate anything that would support the need for the reagulations being repealed. The good news for me in CA is we have people running the government who think these regulations matter and will continue them on a state level. But in poorer red states it’s the poor who will suffer the most from eliminating these EPA regulations. But that should be no surprise as the poor always suffer when the GOP gets their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 2, 2017 20:43:48 GMT
Did you read this thread? 2peasrefugees.boards.net/thread/69282/perry-fossil-prevent-sexual-assaultwww.axios.com/rick-perry-fossil-fuels-sexual-assault-2505431646.html The man has no shame. This is his latest effort to change the narrative on fossil fuels so they are not perceived as harmful. BTW, the title is not a direct quote by Perry, but it does summarize what he implied by his statement, I.e. women are safer because lights powered by fossil fuels reduce sexual assault. (Research suggests there is no increased safety for streets with better lighting.) |
|
