[ RadSafe ] "Waste"

[Steven Dapra]

Sept. 26

         Yes, this is puzzling.  Are there two Joel Schwartzes?

         One is at Harvard:  He is a professor of Environmental 
Epidemiology in the Department of Environmental Health within the 
Department of Epidemiology.  This is from Schwartz's biography on the 
Harvard web site:  "My air pollution work has examined both acute and 
chronic effects of air pollution exposure. Recent research has established 
that exposure to fine combustion particles in the air at concentrations 
well below current standards are associated with a range of adverse health 
effects from increased respiratory symptoms, to increased hospital 
admissions, to increased deaths. This work has led to a tightening of the 
U.S. air quality standards."  The link is 
<http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/joel-schwartz/>.

         YES  ----  there are TWO Joel Schwartzes.  The one who wrote the 
article below criticizing the American Lung Association is at the American 
Enterprise Institute.  Link is 
<http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.80,filter.all/scholar.asp>.  This 
link has a photo of the AEI Schwartz, and the Harvard link (above) has a 
photo of the Harvard professor named Joel Schwartz.  They don't look 
anything alike.  The professor has a large beard and a full head of 
hair.  The AEI Schwartz has no beard, and a receding hairline.

         I do not know how the AEI Schwartz derived his conclusions, 
however the mystery is solved.  There are TWO Joel Schwartzes -- one at 
Harvard, and one at the  American Enterprise Institute.

Steven Dapra



At 03:31 PM 9/26/07 -0400, Min Sook Kim 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.


[edit a disjointed e-mail heading]

>"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).