Re: Power Plant Pollution Linked to 30,000 Premature Deaths

["Patricia Milligan" <PXM@nrc.gov>]

Dr. Cohen,
  my only point  is that when numbers of  "projected deaths" or "projected cancers" are published, the context in which they were developed should also be presented.  this includes the assumptions that were used and the limitations associated with these assumptions.  The public needs to  be aware of  not only the numbers, but the assumptions, limitations and errors associated with the risk characterizations.   Public policy decisions are often made by politicians in a "knee-jerk" reaction to pressure from citizens groups who are reacting to the latest set of numbers to hit the papers.   In a world of finite resources, we need to make the best use of those resources and that means really understanding what the risks are and when we have reached a level that can be considered  "safe " or perhaps "safe enough".  At some point, there are diminishing returns... and as a society, we have to recognize that.  And  I'm not just talking about air pollution, but about risk in general. 


Patricia A Milligan, CHP
pxm@nrc.gov
301-415-2223

>>> blc+@pitt.edu 10/20 9:39 AM >>>
	I am not sure I understand Patricia's points here, but will try
to respond.References will be provided on request.
The best method for establishing a connection between "normal" levels of
air pollution and premature mortality is through comparison of mortality
rates between different geographic areas with different average air
pollution levels.  Of course there are other factors affecting mortality
rates that vary with geographic area, like socioeconomic conditions and
ethnic backgrounds; mathematical regression analysis is used to separate
these effects, giving the risk of air pollution alone.  There have been a
number of such studies, comparing various cities in the United States, all
the counties in the United States, various cities in England, and so on.
In addition, there have been a number of studies of mortality rates in a
given city, especially New York and London (also in several other American
cities and Tokyo), on a day-by-day basis, correlating them with air
pollution levels.  In these there are no complications from socioeconomic
factors, since these do not vary on a day-to-day basis.  However, there
are weather factors that must be removed by mathematical analysis in order
to determine the effects of air pollution alone.
	These studies have established strong correlations in timing
between elevated air pollution levels and mortality rates.  There are also
numerous studies of temporary illness, involving hospital admissions,
questionnaires, measurements of pulmonary function, and so on, in New
York, London, Chicago, five Japanese cities, Rotterdam, Oslo, and others,
all indicating strong correlations with abnormally high air pollution
levels.
	The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Health and Environmental
Research sponsored a multiyear study by a Harvard University research
group to evaluate all of the available studies.  Its conclusion was that
air pollution is probably causing about 100,000 deaths per year in the
United States  These deaths are principally from heart and lung disease.
In addition it is estimated that air pollution causes about 1,000 cancer
deaths per year.

	To the comment that bodies would be piling up at a rapid rate, I
can respond that 2 million Americans die every year; is that a rapid rate?
	To the comment that life span should be decreasing, I respond that
air pollution deaths have been occurring for many years, and it is not
clear whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing.

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu 


On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Patricia Milligan wrote:

> my comments were not to make light of the problems of air pollution,
 but if you are going to quote risk numbers, you need to explain what they mean
... and how they are derived and how they are framed in context of society
 today.. if you take the numbers from EPA at face value, or accept them as
 real,  then the bodies would be piling up at a record rate.. and life span
 would be decreasing,not increasing..
> >>> blc+@pitt.edu 10/19 11:32 AM >>>
> 
> 
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Patricia Milligan wrote:
> 
> > the numbers that are quoted are risk estimates based on very
>  conservative models and assumptions.  if all of these numbers
>  were true, we'd be tripping over bodies on our way to the
>  grocery store!
> 
> 	--People who die from air pollution do not die while shopping for
> groceries. Respiratory, cardiovascular, and other systems in our bodies
> are weakened by years of exposure to air pollution, causing death to
> elderly people a few years prematurely. If you want to know where the dead
> bodies are, conside the 6000 people who die every day in the U.S.--
> several percent of these die prematurely because of air polltion.
> 
> 
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept.
> University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245
> Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu 
> 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html 
> 
> Patricia A Milligan, CHP
> pxm@nrc.gov 
> 301-415-2223
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html