[ RadSafe ] "Waste" -Pollution?

Wed Sep 26 19:44:02 CDT 2007

        Thank you, Min Sook Kim.
  Individual variation repels me from the task of analyzing confounders of cited studies. For example, my own asthma, relieved by walnut pollen shots 40 years ago, was  also relieved by my taking a nap after lunch every day and coincided with the Reagan air cleaning, such as stopping the burning of stubble here, then the world's largest rose grower community, Pleasanton, CA. 

  Valid measure for hormesis with ionizing radiation is difficult individually and real-time (as with my feeling the heat before a burn this noon with a sunbath).
  Mortality rates and even low WC counts are not  convenient to guide individuals as to what is the best exposure for that individual. ALARA is not best for sunshine, and probably not for higher energies either, as HPs are currently trained.  Anyone have other indicators? Bursitis treatment with x ray 58 years ago was 75r locally, repeated 2x a week until the pain lessened enough for easy shoulder movement.

  Dose - of ozone, sunshine or radiation seems the key, but what is a good real-time indicator?

  Howard Long

Min Sook Kim <msk02 at health.state.ny.us> wrote:   

I found the article untruthful. I've also failed to understand how he
derived his conclusion:
"The Children's Health Study (CHS), released May 2004, is one of the
largest studies ever of the health effects of air pollution. Sponsored by
the California Air Resources Board, CHS researchers tracked thousands of
children in California from ages 10 to 18. The study found that higher
levels of air pollution were associated with a lower risk of developing
asthma."

Below is the summary of study result. The full report is available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/abstracts/94-331.htm#Executive

1.3. Results
Our findings demonstrated an association between breathing polluted air in
Southern California and significant chronic deficits in lung function among
adolescent children. We observed air pollution effects on lung function
level at study entry (youngest cohort, age 10yrs), on 4-year lung function
growth (age 10-14 years) in two independent cohorts, on 8-year lung
function growth (age 10-18 years) in the original fourth grade cohort, and
on the maximum rate of lung function growth during adolescence (over the
study period). Air pollution exposure over the 8- year (from fourth grade
to twelfth grade) study period was also linked to clinically significant
deficits [forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) below 80%
predicted] in lung function at age 18 years. We found that there were three
to five times more children with clinically significant deficits in lung
function living in communities with high outdoor air pollution levels
compared to communities with low pollution levels. In a subset of children
who moved away from their original study community, we observed consistent
associations of changes in lung function growth rates with corresponding
changes in ambient air pollution exposure between their former and current
communities of residence. The pollutants most closely associated with lung
function deficits were NO2, acids (either inorganic, organic, or a
combination of the four
acids monitored), PM10, and PM2.5. Several constituents of PM2.5, including
EC, nitrate, and ammonium, also showed associations with lung function
growth. However, the inter-correlation among PM pollutants, and their high
correlations with NO2 and acid, limited our ability to distinguish the
independent effects of any one of these pollutants.
Our findings demonstrated effects of air pollution on both new onset asthma
and asthma exacerbations. Prior to the performance of the CHS, the
prevailing scientific view was that air pollution made existing asthma
worse but that it did not cause new cases to develop. Study data showed
that new cases of asthma are much more likely to occur in high ozone
communities, especially among those children who exercise regularly and at
elevated levels. Additionally, our analyses regarding exposure to
traffic-related air pollution have found associations between proximity to
high traffic density (a marker for pollutant exposure) and increased risks
for prevalent asthma among children.
We have demonstrated that air pollution is related to bronchitic symptoms
and that asthmatics are more likely to be affected than non-asthmatics.
Evaluation of the longitudinal data implicated NO2 and organic carbon as
being responsible for the observed effects. Our results showed that
short-term changes in O3, but not NO2 or PM10, were associated with a
substantial increase in school absences from both upper and lower
respiratory illness. Absences were significantly increased 2 to 3 days
after exposure and reached a peak on day 5 after exposure. Because
exposures at the levels observed in this study are common, the increase in
school absenteeism from respiratory illnesses associated with relatively
modest day-to day changes in O3 concentration documents an important
adverse impact of O3 on children's health and well-being.
Our data also demonstrate an association between ozone levels and birth
weight of children. High ozone levels during the second or third trimester
of pregnancy are associated with lower birth weight. Other manuscripts
resulting from this study have demonstrated the important health effects
associated with maternal smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, genetics,
obesity, and dietary factors.

Min-Sook Kim, Ph.D.

howard long 
et> To 
Sent by: "Brennan, Mike \(DOH\)" 
radsafe-bounces at r , radsafe 
adlab.nl , 
know_nukes at yahoogroups.com 
cc 
09/25/2007 02:19 
PM Subject 
[ RadSafe ] "Waste" 

"Radiation Waste" may, like trace minerals (unrefined foods), turn out to
be healthful and valuable, when dose is limited. Take air "pollution"
(below).

Howard Long MD MPH

The American Lung Association's Fear Campaign

By Joel Schwartz
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2007

ARTICLES
Environment and Climate News (October 2007)
Publication Date: October 1, 2007

This article is the second in a three-part series by Joel Schwartz
addressing the American Lung Association's State of the Air 2007 report.
Part I appeared in the July issue of Environment & Climate News.

Visiting Fellow
Joel Schwartz
In the July issue of Environment & Climate News I showed how the American
Lung Association (ALA) misleads Americans about air pollution levels and
trends in their communities and the nation. This month, I will document the
evidence that even air pollution levels far higher than any we experience
in the United States are perfectly safe, and that the nation's air does not
cause adverse health effects.
ALA claims, "Over 136 million Americans . . . are exposed to unhealthful
levels of air pollution." Even in terms of actual federal standards, this
is a vast exaggeration. Fewer than 60 million Americans live in areas that
violate either or both of the federal ozone and fine particulate (PM2.5)
standards.
Of course, that would be 60 million people too many if their air were
genuinely dangerous. But EPA has made the standards so stringent that
exceeding them is no longer a cause for concern. Today's ever-tighter air
pollution standards are more about keeping the regulators and activists in
power than protecting Americans from real risks.
The most serious claim leveled against air pollution is that it
prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, even at today's
record-low levels. But here too, the real-world evidence says otherwise.

Children's Health Study
The Children's Health Study (CHS), released May 2004, is one of the
largest studies ever of the health effects of air pollution. Sponsored by
the California Air Resources Board, CHS researchers tracked thousands of
children in California from ages 10 to 18. The study found that higher
levels of air pollution were associated with a lower risk of developing
asthma.
For example, children who grew up in areas with the highest ozone levels
in the nation were 30 percent less likely to develop asthma than children
in low- or medium-ozone areas. Higher levels of particulate matter and
nitrogen dioxide were also associated with lower asthma risk.
Real-World Observations
That's not the only evidence that belies claims that air pollution causes
asthma. Every air pollutant we measure has been dropping for decades, even
as the prevalence of asthma has risen.
International data also show air pollution isn't causing asthma. The
prevalence of asthma is greatest in wealthy countries with low air
pollution, while highly polluted developing and ex-Soviet Union countries
have low asthma prevalence.
The former East Germany is Exhibit A. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall,
eastern Germany had awful air pollution and low asthma. After
reunification, eastern Germans adopted Western lifestyles. Air pollution
dropped, and asthma rose to West German levels.
Ozone Not Causing Asthma
The Children's Health Study came up with other surprising results. For
example, the most polluted areas in the CHS exceeded the federal eight-hour
ozone standard more than 100 days per year during the eight years of the
study. But these relatively high ozone levels had no effect on children's
lung growth or capacity.
Growing up in an area with average PM2.5 levels twice as high as the
federal standard was associated with only a 1 to 2 percent reduction in
lung capacity. And even the most polluted areas of the country no longer
come anywhere close to twice the federal standard.
Air pollution can exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions, but the
effect is tiny at worst. Both federal and California regulators estimate
that eliminating all human-caused ozone in the United States (somewhere
around one-quarter to one-half of ozone is natural or transported from
other countries) would prevent no more than 1 to 2 percent of all asthma
emergency room visits and respiratory hospital admissions.
Contrary Evidence Ignored
Even these small benefits are inflated, because they omit contrary
evidence. For example, researchers from Kaiser Permanente studied the
relationship between air pollution and respiratory distress in California's
Central Valley and reported higher ozone was associated with a decrease in
serious health effects such as hospital admissions.
Both California and federal regulators omitted this result from their
official estimates of harm from ozone, even though the California Air
Resources Board sponsored the Kaiser study.
The pattern of asthma attacks also suggests ozone can't be a significant
factor in respiratory distress. Across the nation, emergency room visits
and hospitalizations for asthma are lowest during July and August, when
ozone levels are at their highest.
No Premature Deaths
The most serious claim leveled against air pollution is that it
prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, even at today's
record-low levels. But here too, the real-world evidence says otherwise.
Even air pollution at levels many times greater than Americans ever breathe
doesn't kill laboratory animals.
Researchers can't, of course, do laboratory studies on people to see if
air pollution kills them. But they can look for more mild health effects in
human volunteers. Such studies provide little support for claims of serious
harm.
Two major forms of PM2.5--sulfates and nitrates--are simply nontoxic. In
fact, ammonium sulfate, the main form of particulate matter from coal-fired
power plants, is used as an "inert control"--that is, a substance without
any health effects--in human studies of harm from acidic particles. Inhaler
medications to reduce airway constriction are delivered in the form of
sulfate aerosols.
The lack of toxicity of power plant particulate matter is particularly
ironic. In a slew of reports with scary titles like Death, Disease, and
Dirty Power and Power to Kill, environmentalists have been running a
vicious multi-year campaign against inexpensive coal-fired electricity,
based on the false claim that power plant pollution is deadly.
Even Diesel Fumes Harmless
Even "carbonaceous" PM, the noxious, sooty emissions from diesel trucks
and other motor vehicles, causes surprisingly little reaction--at least at
concentrations encountered in urban air.
Studies sponsored by the Health Effects Institute had healthy and
asthmatic volunteers ride an exercise bike while breathing concentrated
PM2.5 collected in the Los Angeles area, or concentrated diesel exhaust.
In both cases the exposures were many times greater than typical levels
in urban air, and even a few times greater than peak levels in the most
polluted cities. Nevertheless, there were no changes in symptoms or lung
function in either the healthy or asthmatic subjects.
Joel Schwartz is a visiting fellow at AEI. He is the author, with Steven
F. Hayward, of Air Quality in America: A Dose of Reality on Air Pollution
Levels, Trends, and Health Risks (forthcoming from the AEI Press).

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.