[ RadSafe ] "Waste"
Min Sook Kim
msk02 at health.state.ny.us
Thu Sep 27 14:29:01 CDT 2007
Thanks Mr. Dapra for your clarification that there are two Joel Schwartzes.
I personally don't care for the author's credentials or the organization he
belongs to. I didn't and will not propose whether the poor quality of air
is not harmful or is even beneficial to individual's health. I haven't
done my own experiment on the topic so won't make any statement based on my
own experience that I had a few unpleasant symptoms such as sore throat and
mild breathing difficulty, and felt bad every time I visited several big
cities in Asia (some of them was known for poor air but some was not any
worse than the air quality in LA). I like to say though, I don't agree with
almost everything he said in the article based on a healthy dose of reading
peer reviewed papers over years. If I'm not wrong, the author wrote the
article based on literature reviews rather than his own experiments. My
point was how he'd drawn the opposite conclusion with one of the study his
article was based on. Unless there are two reports sponsored by California
Air Resources Board, published May 2004, the author and I referred to the
same report. I haven't reviewed international data or a Kaiser Permanente
study he mentioned (reference not provided), but won't be surprised if the
author pick and chose their study at best.
Min-Sook Kim, Ph.D.
NYSDOH
Steven Dapra
<sjd at swcp.com>
To
09/26/2007 10:02 Min Sook Kim
PM <msk02 at health.state.ny.us>,
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
cc
Subject
Re: [ RadSafe ] "Waste"
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).
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.
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list