EPA Claims On Dangers Of Particulate Matter Are False

The Environmental Protection Agency is hard pressed to justify its proposed reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal. Even the EPA admits that the possible effect on climate is prevention of just 0.03 C by the year 2100. The other tact the EPA is taking is the claim that burning less coal will decrease the emissions of “fine particulate matter” (PM2.5) i.e., dust and soot which, the EPA claims, will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths annually.

Steve Milloy, proprietor of JunkScience.com takes a detailed look at the EPA claims and finds such claims unsupported by science. Here are some excerpts and summaries:

EPA’s position is that any inhalation of PM2.5 can cause death; that death from PM2.5 may occur within hours of inhalation (i.e., “short-term” or literally “sudden death”) and that long-term (i.e., years or decades) exposure to PM2.5 can cause premature death.

Milloy shows that PM2.5 does not kill anyone. The EPA’s claims of PM2.5 lethality rank among the most nonsensical, fraudulent and readily disprovable scientific claims ever.

The EPA attempts to support its position with “thousands” of epidemiologic (statistical studies of human populations), toxicologic (experiments on animals) and clinical (experiments on humans) studies. However none of these types of studies have ever proven that PM2.5 particulate matter poses a danger.

Epidemiology: EPA admitted in federal court that its epidemiologic studies on PM2.5 prove nothing by themselves. In 2012 litigation in which EPA attempted to justify its experiments on humans with PM2.5, EPA admitted doing the experiments because: “epidemiologic studies do not generally provide evidence of direct causation.” The purpose of the human experiments, according to EPA, was to develop a medical or biological explanation (i.e., the direct causation) that would support the merely statistical (and, by the way, controversial) results of the PM2.5 epidemiology studies.

Toxicology: No laboratory animal has ever died from PM2.5 in an experimental setting — even though animals have been exposed to levels of PM2.5 as much as 100+ times greater than human exposures to PM2.5 in outdoor air.

Clinical studies: EPA has tested a variety of air pollutants — including very high exposures to PM2.5 — on over 6,000 human volunteers. Many of these volunteers were elderly or already health-compromised — the very groups EPA claims are most susceptible to dying from PM2.5 exposures. EPA has admitted that there have been no deaths or any dangerous adverse events clearly caused by these PM2.5 exposures. PM2.5 exposures in these experiments have been as high as 21 times greater than allowable by EPA’s own air quality rules.

EPA’s claim about PM2.5 causing death is not supported by the results from these research disciplines, individually or collectively.

Milloy goes on to note:

Real-world evidence that PM2.5 does not cause sudden or long-term death. Everyone is constantly and unavoidably exposed to PM2.5 from both natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include dust, pollen, mold, pet dander, forest fires, sea spray and volcanoes. Manmade sources primarily are smoking, fossil fuel burning, industrial processes, wood stoves, fireplaces and indoor cooking. Indoor exposures to PM2.5 can easily exceed outdoor exposures — by as much as a factor of 100.

Although EPA claims that almost 25% of annual U.S. deaths are caused by PM2.5, no death has ever been medically attributed to PM2.5.

Despite much research, there is no generally accepted medical or biological explanation for how PM2.5 could possibly cause death.

Read the full article here.

EPA rules account for about half of the nearly $2 trillion a year cost of complying with all national regulations in the U.S. In my opinion, the EPA is no longer protecting the environment. Rather it is manufacturing crises to protect political agendas. The federal EPA should be phased out and replaced with state agencies.

Related ADI articles:

Be the first to comment on "EPA Claims On Dangers Of Particulate Matter Are False"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


error: Content is protected !!