11 ms·

EPA proposes to strengthen air quality standards

158 points by ahaucnx 4y ago

ahaucnx 4y ago
Interesting that the EPA proposes going from 10 μg/m³ to 8 - 11 μg/m³ for the annual PM2.5 exposure and proposing to leave the 24h limit at 35 μg/m³ whereas the WHO air quality guideline that came out last year set much lower standards at 5 μg/m³ for annual exposure and 15 μg/m³ for 24h. Both argue with science and health based research. I wonder if the EPA is going far enough?
- londons_explore 4y ago
  > Both argue with science and health based research What benchmark are they using? Assuming PM 2.5 being too high harms health, and PM 2.5 being 'too low' has no negative impact on health, then it really is one of those 'lower is always better' things. There is no 'safe' amount - There is some amount below which the harm is unmeasurable with current techniques. This is the case with many pollutants, and the more such pollutants there are, the harder it becomes to measure the impact of low levels of any one, meaning everything can look 'safe', while in fact you are in fact being killed by a million cuts...
- Gigachad 4y ago
  These kinds of measures aren’t objective. It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount. The science says you should have 0. The reality is you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff point that’s good enough.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Is this a sustainable mentality?
    - strawhatguy 4y ago
      Yes, perfection is the enemy of the good. In fact the most sustainable mentality is for the epa to provide information only, and allow people to choose how risky they wish to behave.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        How do you think this would work with airborne or waterborne pollution?
      - soulofmischief 4y ago
        That isn't what I asked. I was asking if this policy/mentality is sustainable for our planet, not for my own personal life.
        antisthenes 4y ago
        The only thing that isn't sustainable for our planet is that the Sun will eventually expand and consume it, permanently. How do you figure the PM2.5 level is tied to the sustainability of the planet? Or even the ecosystem we enjoy?
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        The planet gives precisely zero fucks what happens on it, let alone whether it's "sustainable". As already mentioned elsewhere too, the Sun will eventually grow fat with helium and nom the planet along with a couple more.
        soulofmischief 4y ago
        This completely sidesteps the issue. No one asked if the planet was alive. When an educated person says or hears "the planet", they should, unless context dictates otherwise, interpret it to mean the entire biosphere. This is a question of morality and fairness to all life. This anthropocentrist mentality is short-sighted and selfish. And just because the sun expands in a few billion years doesn't mean I shouldn't be nice to my neighbor today.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Sayings like "no safe amount" makes for great virtue signaling and worse than useless public policy. While "no safe amount" may technically be true from a scientific perspective in a world where we can measure infinitesimal amounts of things a policy line needs to be drawn. At some point the average net effect of the poison is going to be so far below the noise threshold that caring further is a wash or of negative benefit.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Sayings like "no safe amount" makes for great virtue signaling and worse than useless public policy People that are rolling coal and clinging to their cars are also virtue signalling, just in the other direction
      - acdha 4y ago
        I’ve found non-ironic use of the phrase “virtue signaling” is a good indicator of bad faith. You wouldn’t presume someone else couldn’t possibly be acting on principle unless that’s your mode of operation.
    - solveit 4y ago
      You're certainly not disagreeing with the person you're replying to, so why the combativeness? You're literally saying the same thing (no amount is perfectly safe, we choose what level we're willing to take by analyzing costs and benefits).
  - dahart 4y ago
    Worth keeping in mind that the targets the WHO is setting are likely temporary, and they’re just goals we should aim for, because the air pollution is currently higher than the goal. There is a historical pattern of these goals being adjusted toward zero. There isn’t a single threshold either, there are several graded tiers they recommend cities and countries aim for, depending on how bad their pollution currently is. Ultimately, you’re right, 0 is the ideal. That said, one small nit: the cutoffs aren’t arbitrary, the WHO’s lowest level (“AQG”) is set to the “lowest levels of exposure for which there is evidence of adverse health effects.” This value was adjusted downward last year because we’ve accumulated new and compelling evidence of adverse health effects since the last time they set AQG guidance in 2005. Chances are high they’ll adjust downward again the future as we gather more evidence.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Science does not say anything like that. You can certainly have a small amount of lead an lead and not experience any observable increased risk to your health.
    - rcme 4y ago
      The science says that any amount of lead is correlated with negative outcomes, particularly in children: https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/low-level-lead-exposure-implications-human-health/ https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/low-level-lead-exposure-im...
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        Sure. And yet extremely small amounts have no observable effects.
        rcme 4y ago
        Did you read the article? Exposure levels measured as low as 3.5 mcg/dL in blood are associated with negative effects. Thats reaching the lowest levels that can be easily measured. We’re talking about a few micrograms here. Literally specs of dust. How much smaller can you get?
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Smaller, obviously. The claim was that there is no level of lead that is safe. You can’t refute that by putting a minimum smallness.
        rcme 4y ago
        The minimum level of lead we can measure is dangerous. Your claim is that there is some level that is safe, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. Each time we get better at measuring smaller and smaller lead levels in people, we find a correlation between lead levels and negative outcomes. There is literally zero evidence that supports a "safe" level of lead. We also understand the mechanisms in which lead acts on the body. We know it's harmful in any amount. There is no safe level of lead.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount. The reason this is stated is because lead is cumulative, that is not really the same thing as breathing particulates. Presumably, particulates do not accumulate over a lifetime.
    - rcme 4y ago
      If they don’t accumulate, then why is more exposure worse than less exposure? There must be some type of compounding factor at play.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        Above a certain amount you get inflammation, that's it. Small amounts are dealt with by the slime covering all your internals.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      They are basically a lottery ticket for cancer. They don’t accumulate, just the more you are exposed to, the worse your risk. The ideal amount of times you want to risk cancer is zero, realistically that’s impossible, but less is always better. It’s not like something like salt where some amount is fine or even good but too much could cause issues.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        This sounds like bullshit to me, it's mass accumulation resulting in inflammation. Below a given threshold inflammation does not occur at all.
yalogin 4y ago
[flagged]
- dylan604 4y ago
  No, I had the same basic thought process. Whatever policies current administration puts in place are reversed by the next opposition administration. It leaves everyone in blah/meh state about the whole thing. Nobody will ever see the benefits of any policies because they're just not in place long enough to lend credence to their validity.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Probably - in the united states - because lasting change can't come from a president edict, but from legislatures in the form of laws. edit:spelling
    - dylan604 4y ago
      But in the US with the control of the legislative body ping ponging just like the administration with the numbers being so close that major legislation like this will be very difficult to ever enact.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I don't think anyone would really disagree with you, including Republicans. They are very anti-government, and quite proud of it. They'd brag about keeping the government out of our lives.
  - thebigman433 4y ago
    > They are very anti-government This isnt even true at all. They are more than happy to use government power against people. Just look at the latest anti-trans bills as an example.. attempting to ban transitioning for anyone, including adults, and mandating pronoun usage in workplaces that "aligns with the persons DNA"
DoreenMichele 4y ago
I would be much more interested in seeing good articles about the following than seeing a revised number per se: EPA will work closely with state, local, and Tribal air agencies to implement the revised primary annual PM2.5 standard when finalized. Today’s proposal is the latest in a broader suite of programs under President Biden’s leadership to reduce air pollution that threatens communities. These programs include the proposed Good Neighbor Plan to address smog that affects downwind states, rules to address air pollution from oil and gas operations, including methane pollution, and other critical rules to reduce emissions from power plants and the transportation sector, such as the recently finalized Clean Trucks Rule that will slash smog- and soot-forming pollution from heavy-duty trucks. Additionally, funding from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at cutting pollution from school buses and trucks, port operations, and electricity generation are also expected to reduce soot and other harmful air pollutants. Revising the numbers: cool. But far too often, such things don't come with a firm plan for how to achieve it as a real goal.
WalterBright 4y ago
Having a standard of "X" is clean and "X plus Epsilon" is unacceptable is just bad science and inefficient economics. A much more sensible method is to assign a cost for a particle, and then tax the emitters of those particles that cost.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  These kinds of ideal free market solutions sound good in theory but basically never get used in reality. While all particles emitted are equally bad, they aren’t all as easy to cut out so we always end up with more specific laws which force the most capable of improving to move first.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Them never being implemented says nothing about whether they will work or not. However, we do know that the ideal way to distribute scarce resources is by supply&demand. There's no reason whatsoever why this would not work to allocate pollution to where it is necessary. In math we call the EPA rules "step functions", in engineering we call them "bang bang valves." They're simply very bad approximations to reality.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Them never being implemented says nothing about whether they will work or not. Real communism was also never implemented, lets try again? > ideal way to distribute scarce resources is by supply&demand Again, this is strictly false - Ideal process is perfectly informed central planning. Competition is a wastefull process, thats literally what it means- someone looses and goes under. Policing the market against fraud, insider trading, self dealing, etc. is a wastefull process too. The fact that those ideals are unachievable should indicate to you that your entire line of argument is faulty.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        > Competition is a wastefull process, thats literally what it means- someone looses and goes under. Competition, since we’re talking about ideals, is the opposite of wastefulness — it allocates resources where they are most vitality needed. The wasteful uses get priced out of the market and everyone, as a whole, benefits. If you make the (non-idealized) argument that all existing processes are useful because of the fact that they exist and competition causing them to fail is wasteful then…I don’t have an answer for that because that’s just absurd. Of course, we don’t live in some ideal world so wasteful processes get protected and subsidized, useful processes get penalized and everyone thinks the all knowing AI central planner won’t just nuke all the irrational human “market actors” as an optimization step in the ideal resource allocation strategy.
bertil 4y ago
There isn’t much that people can do unless car drivers realize how polluting their cars are. Any rule will be seen as some obstacle to freedom and lobbied into irrelevance—unless people wake up and look at their exhaust pipe differently. I don’t know how to do it. It’s such a violent dissonance that bridging it will be hard: people know that if they are in a room with their car while it runs, they will die within minutes. This is a trope used without explanation in popular movies and TV series. Having someone stand near the same exhaust affects their health because they breathe a comparable dose. If you tell the same driver, they will curse you loudly. They will openly prefer their convenience over something they know intuitively is deadly. That dissonance kills more people than anything else—besides eating fatty food and not exercising when you have a heart problem. It kills more young people than anything else. It kills more people than other car-related dissonances (1. most drivers think they are far better than others and drive dangerously, or 2. parents think having a tall hood that hides the children standing in front of your car is somehow protective of your children). I’m not sure why psychologists don’t investigate those three problems more. The yearly deaths alone are staggering. Unless car lobbyists suddenly lose their complete control of the media and car advertisers stop lying about how cars are used, no progress will happen in that domain. VW is trading after lying about killing millions of people with their diesel cheating device… The company is actually doing fine. What other group, what army could kill so many people and be welcome in polite society!? I suggested to a local group fighting pollution in a small, time-limited area (a school pick-up) that drivers buy plastic bags to capture their exhaust gases. In that plan, organisers would also offer to treat the bag's contents for a fee. That was to give people a sense of the scale of the pollution, not even the toxicity. How massive is the cloud of exhaust? It’s straightforward to compute the amount: RPM * engine volume. That was a conversation with people who were openly complaining that kids were sick because parents didn’t cut their engine while waiting. I couldn’t imagine a softer, more on-board target. They refused. No problem in human psychology is so deadly, and yet so frustrating to address…
- steve76 4y ago
  [dead]
- WalterBright 4y ago
bradly 4y ago
Does anyone have a recommendation on a quality air quality monitor for home use?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I use a CO2 meter. Dunno how quality it is, but it appears to work fine. co2meter.com
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    CO2 meters are good for detecting stuffy air. They won't help against things like NOX, ozone, or carbon monoxide from trucks passing by outside, which will also be impacting your health. But it isn't worth measuring something if you don't have much control over it anyway.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      You're right, CO2 meters are only good for detecting stuffy air. > But it isn't worth measuring something if you don't have much control over it anyway. Turns out you can do a lot about CO2. Open a window when it gets too high. With some fiddling around I determined how much to crack the window to keep the levels decent. Particulate levels can vary a lot. It's why I try to live not next to an arterial. Even a short distance away makes a big difference.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  IKEA sells a good cheap PM2.5 sensor which is fairly hackable (with a soldering iron).
  - ahaucnx 4y ago
    Yes but keep in mind that the colored LED is still showing green when the air is very polluted. I wrote about it. https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/blog/ikea-vindriktning-accuracy/ https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/blog/ikea-vindr...
neilv 4y ago
Wouldn't it be more politic, for bipartisan support, not to lead with a subtitle that sounds like partisan PR puff? > New Standards Demonstrate President Biden’s Leadership to Reduce Air Pollution that Threatens Communities To me (who is strongly supportive of environmental protection), this language sounded like it risks creating additional partisan opposition to this effort and other EPA efforts, which seems counterproductive. Or is 100% opposition already a given? Or is there additional complexity that requires promoting/rewarding a politician/party, even if that hurts other subgoals?
- dylan604 4y ago
  Isn't the EPA under the leadership of the current administration? So by extension, would the EPA policies be the execution of the administrations play calling? If the EPA were non-governmental, then sure, I might agree.
  - neilv 4y ago
    There are the interests of the public, represented by government institutions and individual public servants. Those interests are separate from PR for politicians/parties, and sometimes incompatible, like perhaps in this case.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    It's kind of under the White House but not quite. Structurally, the EPA is an agency of the Executive Branch (aka the White House, POTUS, etc.). Organizationally the EPA answers only to Congress (aka the Legislative Branch) and the Supreme Court (aka the Judiciary Branch).[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
    - dylan604 4y ago
      So, like all of the branches of govt are in control. Huh?
bamboozled 4y ago
People should be taxed for driving ICE in my view, the area where I live, people just drive around all the time for any reasons, I think mostly from boredom: down to the store, to buy a tool, just constantly driving around, because it's "cheap". All the money from these taxes should go to planting forests, renewables projects etc.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  They are: excise tax, sales tax, gas tax.
  - ignormies 4y ago
    Only one of those is valid: a sales tax affects electric and ICE vehicles equally. The gas tax _is_ the excise tax (unless you have another example?). But yes, the gas tax is exactly what the prior commenter is looking for. It's just far, far too low. US Federal gas tax, last raised in 1993, is 18.4¢/gal. Compare this with Europe, where the average is ~$2.47/gal [1]. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/#:~:text=The%20average%20excise%20duty%20on,1.98%20per%20gallon)%20on%20diesel https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/#:~:text=....
  - culi 4y ago
    if you add up the subsidies (even if you don't include building and maintaining the damn roads) it's still much more subsidized than it is taxed
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Electric vehicles use the road too.
      - culi 4y ago
        yeah...
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
EPA estimates that if finalized, a strengthened primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter, the lower end of the proposed range, would prevent: up to 4,200 premature deaths per year; 270,000 lost workdays per year; result in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  > As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. > Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? Because this is the point they concluded would maximize the benefits relative to the costs and downsides.
- schiffern 4y ago
  Primary standards are meant to determine healthy levels, including for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. They are not intended to determine what levels are economically efficient. That's handled during implementation, not when setting the primary standards. So the EPA does consider it, they just do it in a later step. "Garbage in, garbage out," so you want to make sure your medical science is accurate when it goes into the economic analysis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218
- tony69 4y ago
  The cost function is exponential. Ie getting the last 1 microgram out costs as much as getting down to the 10 micrograms before that
- S201 4y ago
  > Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. For the same reason we haven't dropped fossil fuel use overnight: It's not practical. You can't just wave a magic regulatory wand to elimination all air pollution without expecting (severe) economic impacts.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not because there are no costs, but because the EPA doesn't want to talk about that, and the reporter can't and/or won't do the work to figure it out.
nemo44x 4y ago
Why can’t they just make the point about air quality without covering it in layer after layer of woke nonsense? It makes me suspicious of the entire thing and is detrimental to the likely good ideas proposed. Why do they have to speak like this? Why is everything a social justice activist cause? It’s very weird, like it’s a new age replacement religion for midwits.
- acdha 4y ago
  If it makes you uncomfortable to learn how unevenly pollution has been distributed, imagine what it’s like for the people to live there. It’s important because many of us are able to go for years, even our entire lives without understanding how some people are written off. Here’s a good example: https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-w... Also look at this map and see how often the worst quality is in the poor part of town: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    It doesn’t discomfort me but annoys me. The language used. It never says “poor” people. In says “equity”, “justice”, “Black” (capital ‘B’), etc. It’s all coded (dog whistles) in garbage woke language.
    - acdha 4y ago
      The term equity seems appropriate because you don’t have to study American history for very long to realize how these things combine: someone is poor now because their community was redlined or got an interstate highway run through it during their grandfather’s era. If decision happened because most of the people living there were black and politically powerless, we can’t easily separate the two factors. Recognizing that is a first step of actually doing something: if the ill effects are unevenly distributed, doing something about it often requires getting people who are used to, say, thinking of a power plant as necessary and a source of jobs as also being responsible for conditions which they wouldn’t tolerate for their own children.
cyanydeez 4y ago
Will last as long as we elect same reps
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
knodi123 4y ago
Meanwhile, > EPA moves away from Permian Basin air pollution crackdown > The oil industry pushed hard against the proposal to issue an ozone nonattainment designation, which would have required that companies reduce oilfield emissions. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/13/texas-permian-basin-air-polution-epa-oil/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/13/texas-permian-basin-...
- pookah 4y ago
  LOL. I forgot all about that ozone hole and the mass frog-death (from fungal disease) that they tried blaming on the o-hole. I think before that their was the acid-rain and the "advancing sahara desert". At one point DDT was going to give the entire planet instant cancer... Will be interesting to see what other alarmist nonsense they can come up with next.
  - feoren 4y ago
    FYI, the ozone emissions we're talking about are separate from the Ozone Layer, which is where the "holes" are. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, because it blocks UV light. Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the air we all breathe) is bad, because it's harmful to humans and animals, especially to respiration. Ozone has a ton of precursor chemicals (collectively called Volatile Organic Compounds) which are roughly any organic carbon compound more complicated than ethane (so most things with 3+ carbon atoms), which the oil & gas industry in particular struggles to avoid emitting.
  - vharuck 4y ago
    >Alarmist nonsense The point of an alarm is to warn you of danger so you can fix things or get to safety. Scientists raised alarms about a hole in the ozone layer because there was (and still is) one. Because of that alarm, the world rallied around a treaty that phased out ozone-depleting chemicals. The problem is getting better because of that treaty. Hooray for alarms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
  - night862 4y ago
    You don’t think acid rain is real? It will actually dissolve gravestones and buildings. Major cities in the US have dealt with it since like the 20s. it’s (one reason) why your car has a catalytic converter.
fwungy 4y ago
The smaller the PM gets the worse it is healthwise. Unfortunately manufacturers meet more stringent PM standards by crushing the particles smaller. If they were serious about cleaning the air and fighting climate change they'd have started next gen nuclear programs twenty five years ago.
- zardo 4y ago
  You can't meet the the standards by crushing particles, it's a mass limit inclusive of all particles of the regulated size and smaller.
- feoren 4y ago
  Yeah I'm really not sure where you're getting this from. You can't really "crush" particles to smaller than 2.5 microns, and to do so, you'd have to somehow extract it from the emissions stream. If you can extract it from the emissions stream, why would you crush it? Just ... don't re-emit it. Manufacturers meet stringent PM standards mostly by filtering or by adding moisture, and sometimes by modifying the combustion that happens. Reducing your particle size wouldn't even help: The limit is on PM <2.5 microns. If anything, you'd be much better off somehow agglomerating your particles to be larger, which is one of the reasons adding moisture helps.
idontwantthis 4y ago
What happens when these regulations are violated en masse? The state of Colorado for example is wildly outside of current standards. Why are federal agents not shutting down gas wells all over the state?

158 points by ahaucnx 4y ago

Interesting that the EPA proposes going from 10 μg/m³ to 8 - 11 μg/m³ for the annual PM2.5 exposure and proposing to leave the 24h limit at 35 μg/m³ whereas the WHO air quality guideline that came out last year set much lower standards at 5 μg/m³ for annual exposure and 15 μg/m³ for 24h. Both argue with science and health based research. I wonder if the EPA is going far enough?

londons_explore 4y ago
> Both argue with science and health based research What benchmark are they using? Assuming PM 2.5 being too high harms health, and PM 2.5 being 'too low' has no negative impact on health, then it really is one of those 'lower is always better' things. There is no 'safe' amount - There is some amount below which the harm is unmeasurable with current techniques. This is the case with many pollutants, and the more such pollutants there are, the harder it becomes to measure the impact of low levels of any one, meaning everything can look 'safe', while in fact you are in fact being killed by a million cuts...
Gigachad 4y ago
These kinds of measures aren’t objective. It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount. The science says you should have 0. The reality is you have to pick an arbitrary cutoff point that’s good enough.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  Is this a sustainable mentality?
  - strawhatguy 4y ago
    Yes, perfection is the enemy of the good. In fact the most sustainable mentality is for the epa to provide information only, and allow people to choose how risky they wish to behave.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      How do you think this would work with airborne or waterborne pollution?
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      That isn't what I asked. I was asking if this policy/mentality is sustainable for our planet, not for my own personal life.
      - antisthenes 4y ago
        The only thing that isn't sustainable for our planet is that the Sun will eventually expand and consume it, permanently. How do you figure the PM2.5 level is tied to the sustainability of the planet? Or even the ecosystem we enjoy?
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        The planet gives precisely zero fucks what happens on it, let alone whether it's "sustainable". As already mentioned elsewhere too, the Sun will eventually grow fat with helium and nom the planet along with a couple more.
        soulofmischief 4y ago
        This completely sidesteps the issue. No one asked if the planet was alive. When an educated person says or hears "the planet", they should, unless context dictates otherwise, interpret it to mean the entire biosphere. This is a question of morality and fairness to all life. This anthropocentrist mentality is short-sighted and selfish. And just because the sun expands in a few billion years doesn't mean I shouldn't be nice to my neighbor today.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Sayings like "no safe amount" makes for great virtue signaling and worse than useless public policy. While "no safe amount" may technically be true from a scientific perspective in a world where we can measure infinitesimal amounts of things a policy line needs to be drawn. At some point the average net effect of the poison is going to be so far below the noise threshold that caring further is a wash or of negative benefit.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Sayings like "no safe amount" makes for great virtue signaling and worse than useless public policy People that are rolling coal and clinging to their cars are also virtue signalling, just in the other direction
    - acdha 4y ago
      I’ve found non-ironic use of the phrase “virtue signaling” is a good indicator of bad faith. You wouldn’t presume someone else couldn’t possibly be acting on principle unless that’s your mode of operation.
  - solveit 4y ago
    You're certainly not disagreeing with the person you're replying to, so why the combativeness? You're literally saying the same thing (no amount is perfectly safe, we choose what level we're willing to take by analyzing costs and benefits).
- dahart 4y ago
  Worth keeping in mind that the targets the WHO is setting are likely temporary, and they’re just goals we should aim for, because the air pollution is currently higher than the goal. There is a historical pattern of these goals being adjusted toward zero. There isn’t a single threshold either, there are several graded tiers they recommend cities and countries aim for, depending on how bad their pollution currently is. Ultimately, you’re right, 0 is the ideal. That said, one small nit: the cutoffs aren’t arbitrary, the WHO’s lowest level (“AQG”) is set to the “lowest levels of exposure for which there is evidence of adverse health effects.” This value was adjusted downward last year because we’ve accumulated new and compelling evidence of adverse health effects since the last time they set AQG guidance in 2005. Chances are high they’ll adjust downward again the future as we gather more evidence.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Science does not say anything like that. You can certainly have a small amount of lead an lead and not experience any observable increased risk to your health.
  - rcme 4y ago
    The science says that any amount of lead is correlated with negative outcomes, particularly in children: https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/low-level-lead-exposure-implications-human-health/ https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/low-level-lead-exposure-im...
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Sure. And yet extremely small amounts have no observable effects.
      - rcme 4y ago
        Did you read the article? Exposure levels measured as low as 3.5 mcg/dL in blood are associated with negative effects. Thats reaching the lowest levels that can be easily measured. We’re talking about a few micrograms here. Literally specs of dust. How much smaller can you get?
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Smaller, obviously. The claim was that there is no level of lead that is safe. You can’t refute that by putting a minimum smallness.
        rcme 4y ago
        The minimum level of lead we can measure is dangerous. Your claim is that there is some level that is safe, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. Each time we get better at measuring smaller and smaller lead levels in people, we find a correlation between lead levels and negative outcomes. There is literally zero evidence that supports a "safe" level of lead. We also understand the mechanisms in which lead acts on the body. We know it's harmful in any amount. There is no safe level of lead.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > It’s like asking what is the safe amount of lead to consume. There is no safe amount. The reason this is stated is because lead is cumulative, that is not really the same thing as breathing particulates. Presumably, particulates do not accumulate over a lifetime.
  - rcme 4y ago
    If they don’t accumulate, then why is more exposure worse than less exposure? There must be some type of compounding factor at play.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      Above a certain amount you get inflammation, that's it. Small amounts are dealt with by the slime covering all your internals.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    They are basically a lottery ticket for cancer. They don’t accumulate, just the more you are exposed to, the worse your risk. The ideal amount of times you want to risk cancer is zero, realistically that’s impossible, but less is always better. It’s not like something like salt where some amount is fine or even good but too much could cause issues.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      This sounds like bullshit to me, it's mass accumulation resulting in inflammation. Below a given threshold inflammation does not occur at all.

yalogin 4y ago

[flagged]

dylan604 4y ago
No, I had the same basic thought process. Whatever policies current administration puts in place are reversed by the next opposition administration. It leaves everyone in blah/meh state about the whole thing. Nobody will ever see the benefits of any policies because they're just not in place long enough to lend credence to their validity.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  Probably - in the united states - because lasting change can't come from a president edict, but from legislatures in the form of laws. edit:spelling
  - dylan604 4y ago
    But in the US with the control of the legislative body ping ponging just like the administration with the numbers being so close that major legislation like this will be very difficult to ever enact.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I don't think anyone would really disagree with you, including Republicans. They are very anti-government, and quite proud of it. They'd brag about keeping the government out of our lives.
- thebigman433 4y ago
  > They are very anti-government This isnt even true at all. They are more than happy to use government power against people. Just look at the latest anti-trans bills as an example.. attempting to ban transitioning for anyone, including adults, and mandating pronoun usage in workplaces that "aligns with the persons DNA"

DoreenMichele 4y ago

I would be much more interested in seeing good articles about the following than seeing a revised number per se: EPA will work closely with state, local, and Tribal air agencies to implement the revised primary annual PM2.5 standard when finalized. Today’s proposal is the latest in a broader suite of programs under President Biden’s leadership to reduce air pollution that threatens communities. These programs include the proposed Good Neighbor Plan to address smog that affects downwind states, rules to address air pollution from oil and gas operations, including methane pollution, and other critical rules to reduce emissions from power plants and the transportation sector, such as the recently finalized Clean Trucks Rule that will slash smog- and soot-forming pollution from heavy-duty trucks. Additionally, funding from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at cutting pollution from school buses and trucks, port operations, and electricity generation are also expected to reduce soot and other harmful air pollutants. Revising the numbers: cool. But far too often, such things don't come with a firm plan for how to achieve it as a real goal.

WalterBright 4y ago

Having a standard of "X" is clean and "X plus Epsilon" is unacceptable is just bad science and inefficient economics. A much more sensible method is to assign a cost for a particle, and then tax the emitters of those particles that cost.

Gigachad 4y ago
These kinds of ideal free market solutions sound good in theory but basically never get used in reality. While all particles emitted are equally bad, they aren’t all as easy to cut out so we always end up with more specific laws which force the most capable of improving to move first.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Them never being implemented says nothing about whether they will work or not. However, we do know that the ideal way to distribute scarce resources is by supply&demand. There's no reason whatsoever why this would not work to allocate pollution to where it is necessary. In math we call the EPA rules "step functions", in engineering we call them "bang bang valves." They're simply very bad approximations to reality.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Them never being implemented says nothing about whether they will work or not. Real communism was also never implemented, lets try again? > ideal way to distribute scarce resources is by supply&demand Again, this is strictly false - Ideal process is perfectly informed central planning. Competition is a wastefull process, thats literally what it means- someone looses and goes under. Policing the market against fraud, insider trading, self dealing, etc. is a wastefull process too. The fact that those ideals are unachievable should indicate to you that your entire line of argument is faulty.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      > Competition is a wastefull process, thats literally what it means- someone looses and goes under. Competition, since we’re talking about ideals, is the opposite of wastefulness — it allocates resources where they are most vitality needed. The wasteful uses get priced out of the market and everyone, as a whole, benefits. If you make the (non-idealized) argument that all existing processes are useful because of the fact that they exist and competition causing them to fail is wasteful then…I don’t have an answer for that because that’s just absurd. Of course, we don’t live in some ideal world so wasteful processes get protected and subsidized, useful processes get penalized and everyone thinks the all knowing AI central planner won’t just nuke all the irrational human “market actors” as an optimization step in the ideal resource allocation strategy.

bertil 4y ago

There isn’t much that people can do unless car drivers realize how polluting their cars are. Any rule will be seen as some obstacle to freedom and lobbied into irrelevance—unless people wake up and look at their exhaust pipe differently. I don’t know how to do it. It’s such a violent dissonance that bridging it will be hard: people know that if they are in a room with their car while it runs, they will die within minutes. This is a trope used without explanation in popular movies and TV series. Having someone stand near the same exhaust affects their health because they breathe a comparable dose. If you tell the same driver, they will curse you loudly. They will openly prefer their convenience over something they know intuitively is deadly. That dissonance kills more people than anything else—besides eating fatty food and not exercising when you have a heart problem. It kills more young people than anything else. It kills more people than other car-related dissonances (1. most drivers think they are far better than others and drive dangerously, or 2. parents think having a tall hood that hides the children standing in front of your car is somehow protective of your children). I’m not sure why psychologists don’t investigate those three problems more. The yearly deaths alone are staggering. Unless car lobbyists suddenly lose their complete control of the media and car advertisers stop lying about how cars are used, no progress will happen in that domain. VW is trading after lying about killing millions of people with their diesel cheating device… The company is actually doing fine. What other group, what army could kill so many people and be welcome in polite society!? I suggested to a local group fighting pollution in a small, time-limited area (a school pick-up) that drivers buy plastic bags to capture their exhaust gases. In that plan, organisers would also offer to treat the bag's contents for a fee. That was to give people a sense of the scale of the pollution, not even the toxicity. How massive is the cloud of exhaust? It’s straightforward to compute the amount: RPM * engine volume. That was a conversation with people who were openly complaining that kids were sick because parents didn’t cut their engine while waiting. I couldn’t imagine a softer, more on-board target. They refused. No problem in human psychology is so deadly, and yet so frustrating to address…

steve76 4y ago
[dead]
WalterBright 4y ago

bradly 4y ago

Does anyone have a recommendation on a quality air quality monitor for home use?

WalterBright 4y ago
I use a CO2 meter. Dunno how quality it is, but it appears to work fine. co2meter.com
- londons_explore 4y ago
  CO2 meters are good for detecting stuffy air. They won't help against things like NOX, ozone, or carbon monoxide from trucks passing by outside, which will also be impacting your health. But it isn't worth measuring something if you don't have much control over it anyway.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    You're right, CO2 meters are only good for detecting stuffy air. > But it isn't worth measuring something if you don't have much control over it anyway. Turns out you can do a lot about CO2. Open a window when it gets too high. With some fiddling around I determined how much to crack the window to keep the levels decent. Particulate levels can vary a lot. It's why I try to live not next to an arterial. Even a short distance away makes a big difference.
londons_explore 4y ago
IKEA sells a good cheap PM2.5 sensor which is fairly hackable (with a soldering iron).
- ahaucnx 4y ago
  Yes but keep in mind that the colored LED is still showing green when the air is very polluted. I wrote about it. https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/blog/ikea-vindriktning-accuracy/ https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/blog/ikea-vindr...

neilv 4y ago

Wouldn't it be more politic, for bipartisan support, not to lead with a subtitle that sounds like partisan PR puff? > New Standards Demonstrate President Biden’s Leadership to Reduce Air Pollution that Threatens Communities To me (who is strongly supportive of environmental protection), this language sounded like it risks creating additional partisan opposition to this effort and other EPA efforts, which seems counterproductive. Or is 100% opposition already a given? Or is there additional complexity that requires promoting/rewarding a politician/party, even if that hurts other subgoals?

dylan604 4y ago
Isn't the EPA under the leadership of the current administration? So by extension, would the EPA policies be the execution of the administrations play calling? If the EPA were non-governmental, then sure, I might agree.
- neilv 4y ago
  There are the interests of the public, represented by government institutions and individual public servants. Those interests are separate from PR for politicians/parties, and sometimes incompatible, like perhaps in this case.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  It's kind of under the White House but not quite. Structurally, the EPA is an agency of the Executive Branch (aka the White House, POTUS, etc.). Organizationally the EPA answers only to Congress (aka the Legislative Branch) and the Supreme Court (aka the Judiciary Branch).[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
  - dylan604 4y ago
    So, like all of the branches of govt are in control. Huh?

bamboozled 4y ago

People should be taxed for driving ICE in my view, the area where I live, people just drive around all the time for any reasons, I think mostly from boredom: down to the store, to buy a tool, just constantly driving around, because it's "cheap". All the money from these taxes should go to planting forests, renewables projects etc.

thehappypm 4y ago
They are: excise tax, sales tax, gas tax.
- ignormies 4y ago
  Only one of those is valid: a sales tax affects electric and ICE vehicles equally. The gas tax _is_ the excise tax (unless you have another example?). But yes, the gas tax is exactly what the prior commenter is looking for. It's just far, far too low. US Federal gas tax, last raised in 1993, is 18.4¢/gal. Compare this with Europe, where the average is ~$2.47/gal [1]. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/#:~:text=The%20average%20excise%20duty%20on,1.98%20per%20gallon)%20on%20diesel https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/#:~:text=....
- culi 4y ago
  if you add up the subsidies (even if you don't include building and maintaining the damn roads) it's still much more subsidized than it is taxed
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Electric vehicles use the road too.
    - culi 4y ago
      yeah...
- bcrosby95 4y ago

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

EPA estimates that if finalized, a strengthened primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 9 micrograms per cubic meter, the lower end of the proposed range, would prevent: up to 4,200 premature deaths per year; 270,000 lost workdays per year; result in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides.

oneoff786 4y ago
> As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. > Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? Because this is the point they concluded would maximize the benefits relative to the costs and downsides.
schiffern 4y ago
Primary standards are meant to determine healthy levels, including for vulnerable people like children and the elderly. They are not intended to determine what levels are economically efficient. That's handled during implementation, not when setting the primary standards. So the EPA does consider it, they just do it in a later step. "Garbage in, garbage out," so you want to make sure your medical science is accurate when it goes into the economic analysis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376218
tony69 4y ago
The cost function is exponential. Ie getting the last 1 microgram out costs as much as getting down to the 10 micrograms before that
S201 4y ago
> Well why don’t they just lower it to zero?? As usual, no consideration given to the costs/downsides. For the same reason we haven't dropped fossil fuel use overnight: It's not practical. You can't just wave a magic regulatory wand to elimination all air pollution without expecting (severe) economic impacts.
BurningFrog 4y ago
OP is here trying to point out that we're only told of the benefits of this proposal, not the costs. Which gives a one sided view of the issue. This is not because there are no costs, but because the EPA doesn't want to talk about that, and the reporter can't and/or won't do the work to figure it out.

nemo44x 4y ago

Why can’t they just make the point about air quality without covering it in layer after layer of woke nonsense? It makes me suspicious of the entire thing and is detrimental to the likely good ideas proposed. Why do they have to speak like this? Why is everything a social justice activist cause? It’s very weird, like it’s a new age replacement religion for midwits.

acdha 4y ago
If it makes you uncomfortable to learn how unevenly pollution has been distributed, imagine what it’s like for the people to live there. It’s important because many of us are able to go for years, even our entire lives without understanding how some people are written off. Here’s a good example: https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-w... Also look at this map and see how often the worst quality is in the poor part of town: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/ https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It doesn’t discomfort me but annoys me. The language used. It never says “poor” people. In says “equity”, “justice”, “Black” (capital ‘B’), etc. It’s all coded (dog whistles) in garbage woke language.
  - acdha 4y ago
    The term equity seems appropriate because you don’t have to study American history for very long to realize how these things combine: someone is poor now because their community was redlined or got an interstate highway run through it during their grandfather’s era. If decision happened because most of the people living there were black and politically powerless, we can’t easily separate the two factors. Recognizing that is a first step of actually doing something: if the ill effects are unevenly distributed, doing something about it often requires getting people who are used to, say, thinking of a power plant as necessary and a source of jobs as also being responsible for conditions which they wouldn’t tolerate for their own children.

cyanydeez 4y ago

Will last as long as we elect same reps

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

knodi123 4y ago

Meanwhile, > EPA moves away from Permian Basin air pollution crackdown > The oil industry pushed hard against the proposal to issue an ozone nonattainment designation, which would have required that companies reduce oilfield emissions. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/13/texas-permian-basin-air-polution-epa-oil/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/13/texas-permian-basin-...

pookah 4y ago
LOL. I forgot all about that ozone hole and the mass frog-death (from fungal disease) that they tried blaming on the o-hole. I think before that their was the acid-rain and the "advancing sahara desert". At one point DDT was going to give the entire planet instant cancer... Will be interesting to see what other alarmist nonsense they can come up with next.
- feoren 4y ago
  FYI, the ozone emissions we're talking about are separate from the Ozone Layer, which is where the "holes" are. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, because it blocks UV light. Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the air we all breathe) is bad, because it's harmful to humans and animals, especially to respiration. Ozone has a ton of precursor chemicals (collectively called Volatile Organic Compounds) which are roughly any organic carbon compound more complicated than ethane (so most things with 3+ carbon atoms), which the oil & gas industry in particular struggles to avoid emitting.
- vharuck 4y ago
  >Alarmist nonsense The point of an alarm is to warn you of danger so you can fix things or get to safety. Scientists raised alarms about a hole in the ozone layer because there was (and still is) one. Because of that alarm, the world rallied around a treaty that phased out ozone-depleting chemicals. The problem is getting better because of that treaty. Hooray for alarms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
- night862 4y ago
  You don’t think acid rain is real? It will actually dissolve gravestones and buildings. Major cities in the US have dealt with it since like the 20s. it’s (one reason) why your car has a catalytic converter.

fwungy 4y ago

The smaller the PM gets the worse it is healthwise. Unfortunately manufacturers meet more stringent PM standards by crushing the particles smaller. If they were serious about cleaning the air and fighting climate change they'd have started next gen nuclear programs twenty five years ago.

zardo 4y ago
You can't meet the the standards by crushing particles, it's a mass limit inclusive of all particles of the regulated size and smaller.
feoren 4y ago
Yeah I'm really not sure where you're getting this from. You can't really "crush" particles to smaller than 2.5 microns, and to do so, you'd have to somehow extract it from the emissions stream. If you can extract it from the emissions stream, why would you crush it? Just ... don't re-emit it. Manufacturers meet stringent PM standards mostly by filtering or by adding moisture, and sometimes by modifying the combustion that happens. Reducing your particle size wouldn't even help: The limit is on PM <2.5 microns. If anything, you'd be much better off somehow agglomerating your particles to be larger, which is one of the reasons adding moisture helps.

idontwantthis 4y ago

What happens when these regulations are violated en masse? The state of Colorado for example is wildly outside of current standards. Why are federal agents not shutting down gas wells all over the state?