Re: Study: Power Plants, Deaths Linked

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I gave the study a superficial reading, and note that the authors themselves
repeat, in quite a few different ways, that the bases of the study are
"hypothetical" and state further that the health effects extrapolations are
based on a "meta-analysis" of several other studies about which I myself
have serious doubts.  They also acknowledge that different models give
different results.

Am I skeptical because I don't think fossil fuel power plant emissions have
adverse health effects?  Absolutely not -- of course these emissions can be
harmful to health if enough is inhaled.   Should these power plants clean up
to the best extent they are technically able?  Of course.   But this study
exemplifies how ready we seem, as a society, to be to invoke "excess deaths"
when these supposed excess deaths are essentially modeled extrapolations.  I
have the same reservations about the conversion of radiation dose to "latent
cancer fatalities" by what is essentially a linear multiplying factor.  Now
we have these factors for airborne particulate matter, apparently.  I also
am always skeptical when a study like this appears in a press release before
it appears in a peer-reviewed journal.

Unlike all this hypothetical death modeling, we do have a pretty good idea
of what ambient concentrations of pollutants produce what effects.  That's
what ambient air standards are based on.  Deaths from breathing a panoply of
stuff that is bad for you occurs in smokers and as a result of occupational
exposure, but to the best of my knowledge (and this is borne out by the
report itself) "deaths" from exposure to relatively small concentrations of
air pollutants are extrapolations.  If it's particulates and nitrogen oxides
that are the problem, how many deaths can one predict from dust mixed with
exhaust from agricultural operations?  I'm going to try that one using the
Harvard study.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, May 08, 2000 11:59 AM
Subject: Study: Power Plants, Deaths Linked


>Study: Power Plants, Deaths Linked
>By STEVE LeBLANC
>Associated Press Writer
>May 8, 2000
>
>BOSTON (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation -
>
>Air pollution from two coal-burning power plants
>can be linked to more than 43,000 asthma
>attacks and an estimated 159 premature deaths
>each year, according to a Harvard School of
>Public Health report.
>
>The study, which looked at emissions from the
>Brayton Point plant in Somerset and Salem
>Harbor Station plant in Salem, found as many as
>32 million people in New England, New York and
>New Jersey could be exposed to the pollution.
>Both plants are owned by PG&E Generating Co.
>
>``There is no autopsy in the world that could
>say this particle or this gas you died from,'' said
>John Spengler, a professor of environmental
>health at Harvard and one of the study's
>authors. ``But we can calculate how many
>people are exposed to what amount of air
>pollution. From that you can calculate how many
>deaths.''
>
>The study was commissioned by the Clean Air
>Task Force, a nonprofit environmental
>organization focusing on air quality.
>
>PG&E officials said they are reviewing the study,
>but ``take issue'' with some of its findings
>concerning possible illness and death. The
>company bought the plants 18 months ago from
>New England Electric System.
>
>``We are committed to doing the right thing and
>have pledged substantial reductions of emissions
>at both facilities,'' PG&E spokeswoman Lisa
>Franklin said Thursday.
>
>Researchers calculated the amount of air
>pollution coming from the two plants and used
>mathematical models to determine where and in
>what quantity it landed.
>
>Using that information, Spengler said,
>researchers were able to estimate increased
>numbers of asthma attacks and deaths
>attributable to the pollution.
>
>Suzanne Condon, director of the state's Bureau
>of Environmental Health Assessment, said the
>report raises important questions but relies on
>assumptions.
>
>``It's more of a risk assessment approach rather
>than trying to actually evaluate impact on real
>people that live there,'' Condon said.
>
>On the Net: Harvard School of Public Health:
>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
>
>PG&E Generating Co.:
>http://www.gen.pge.com/welcome.html
>--
>==================================================
>Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
>Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
>136 S Illinois Ave, Ste 208, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
>Phone (865) 483-1333; Fax (865) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net
>==================================================
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html