Sonia, this presentation concerns me in what seems to be a focus on skewed studies without addressing the real problems with particulate inhalation and respiratory problems. They are mentioned in one paragraph...
I know, but the comments indicate (James S) that this is all B.S. about particulate concern. People tend to read false deductions into the information instead of the facts.
The inability to publish negative data not confined to environmental studies. It is an industry axiom that you cannot get virtually any negative data published resulting in investigators wasting time and resources repeating failed experiments. Maybe we need journals dedicated to publishing only negative data,for reference.
My father, a chemical engineer used to enjoy reading “the journal of irreproducible results”, where in fellow, chemical, engineers and members of the American chemical Society would design false studies, seeming to clearly show ridiculous results.
Yes, and the journalist was supported by various scientific equipment makers! One “ contest” awarded a Pyrex glass beaker— and in very small print, “ a Rolls Royce to carry it home in”.
“These events were real, and here’s the part nobody mentions: these conditions literally cannot occur today. Modern EMISSIONS CONTROLS and CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS eliminated the conditions that created those killing fogs.”
I would like to know the year those conditions were eliminated. That is when emissions controls and clean air regulations were finished with their needed work. That is the Hoax.
May be looking at apple/orange comparison. No doubt air pollution still bad, or was 20 yrs ago when we drove into Houston. But many of the more dangerous components have been removed such as the lead that was in car emissions. So the question in this essay relates,to just how many deaths attritributable to the pollution today to warrant more,stringent controls
When did the US get clean air that does not pose a threat to citizens without lung disease? That should have been stated to support the claim that air quality scares are meaningless since "year" as problems were solved and behind us.
Of course that does not address the chem trails dumped 24/7 since late 1990s.
The chem trails are an issue. Evidently they dump chemicals, including aluminum, that gets into our soils. Plants consume/uptake them. To the extent they negatively impact our health, we end up with an additional intake.
Looking for an argument I am not involved in. My post merely referred to the fact that the failure to be able to publish negative data is problematic in that it results in waste of,resources and man power repeating experiments that others have performed with negative results. Have not the slightest interest in chem trails as nothing I can do about them whatever they are
Or maybe some kinda data base that lists all the negative result studies. Could EPA run that, although unfortunately they oscillate politically. What worthy group could do this? On the other hand honest researchers might be compromised by such a stance.
Good stuff here. Those Canadian wildfires blanketed the area where I live and while the smell of smoke was annoying I didn’t alter my outside activity whatsoever and saw no issues in my breathing then or days later. Now I know it’s all BS. They had people in a panic over it like it was an Armageddon disaster. Forest management is smart of course to mitigate these large out of control fires for other reasons like saving homes or grazing lands but it’s being used as scare tactics because of studies like Harvard’s. Thanks.
I agree with you DD. We live about 60 miles west of Detroit, and the air felt heavy and the smell of smoke, and whatever was in it, was very evident. We curtailed our time outside as a precaution. I’m not happy to learn we are paying for policies supported by studies that are untrue, but I’m still not going to expose myself to wildfire smoke.
That doesn't answer my question. I see people doing harmful activities that damage their lungs all the time, certainly you would advise precautions? P.S. you are talking to someone whose mother died from lung cancer that metastasized to her bones and brain, as well as other people I was with, doing hospice volunteer work.
My mom died the same way. To answer your question I think the human body is an amazing organ. I think it has the ability to deal with adverse conditions and if it’s not compromised heal itself after dealing with 3 days of wildfire smoke. If you generally breathe clean air those three days should not be an issue
The authors mention that these bad studies add quite a lot to the regulatory cost borne by the electrical industry. Maybe it would be better and drive the point home a little quicker if they just said take your electric bill and multiply it by 75% or 60% and ask the people reading the article if they would rather pay the lower electric bill than the one they are currently getting and then say.......the lower electric bill should really be the one you are paying and all of the excess is due to faulty studies like this that are used to justify shutting down many, many coal plants that the eco freaks blame for these deaths ------that are not really the cause. Currently coal is a little more expensive than natural gas but..........coal has advantages that natural gas does not have and our electric grid should have 3 or 4 dependable sources of power to back up the system even if one just happens to be slightly higher this year versus last and.......wind would be most expensive after you take out all the subsidies granted by the feds. Birdblenders are not efficient and are a waste of scarce money. Look at anywhere that wind is a major source and compare their rates with electrical systems that utilize nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Ask some German consumers if they would rather pay their electrical rate or the rates in most of the US.
Do people understand that coal and gas are compressed carbon from plants? The concentration of CO2 in the air is at a low, and agriculture benefits from higher CO2. It would be a blessing to use those fuels and get the carbon back into the atmosphere.
Just proves the point. As Mark Twain is often quoted, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I would suspect that Mark Twain never initiated his study by 1st undertaking a sample size analysis. But the statement lives on.
Wouldn't it be great if every grant dollar required a summary paper every six months? After briefly working at a university, realizing how and to whom dollars flowed, I no longer believe the published studies. Horrible designs, lack of sample and junior level analysts...all for the need to be published for tenure.
In addition to statistical malpractice by intellectually dishonest people, we have both legacy and (anti)social media artificially augmented by political entities (both national and international) using bots to escalate falsehoods leading to faddish "consensuses". Please check out the recent interview by Mike Rowe of (L) Todd Rose: "What If Everyone's Been Fooling Themselves". And L. Todd Rose does suggest an antidote for the anomie of our country. Personally, I just avoid the mind coffin (cell phone) most of the day and am busy interacting with people, animals and things in the physical world. That works best for me. We do not live in an age of real "science".
Silly question. If the EPA stands for clean air, then why are they not shutting down the governments experiments of seeding the clouds with air and soil polluting chemicals and etc.? Those contrails that last and last and pollute the air are changing weather patterns and may also be responsible for the rash of forest fires that are being experienced.
Like the Pharmaceutical "industry", you don't make money on the truth or actual cures. Just scare the population and soon their donating money to the "cause". We can cure cancer, we can cure global warming, just sacrifice and sent money to the new developing industry/scam.
Great piece of insight. Air quality looks like it ran the same path as statins. Both put copious quantities of money into someone's pocket Just like the snail darter fish that stopped the Tellico Dam in 1978.
This focus on "early death" seems incomplete considering the bigger picture many people are facing with the numerous fires in northern Mn., Canada and Spain and France. The chemicals from asbestos from burning houses and many other toxins are real. I do experience breathing issues from smoke of all kinds, and the effects can be cumulative on respiratory health. A more complete analysis including studies of firefighters,for instance, would make more sense to me. How can "smoking" cause cancer, and yet other smoke is a mute point?
I’m curious about the issues that arise out of the polluted China megalopolises. From what I’ve read over the years the mortality and morbidity numbers are not good (on top of the incessant smoking - although I was told once or twice many Chinese smoke to filter the air 😉)
Thank you for this good guest post from Drs. Young and Kindzierski, Dr. Malone. We can all . . . breathe easier now. I hope it gets widely shared.
Sonia, this presentation concerns me in what seems to be a focus on skewed studies without addressing the real problems with particulate inhalation and respiratory problems. They are mentioned in one paragraph...
That wasn't the thrust of the article. At least they are mentioned.
I know, but the comments indicate (James S) that this is all B.S. about particulate concern. People tend to read false deductions into the information instead of the facts.
Excellent story, thank you!
We need to shed some light to these half truth/ fraud researchers. You would think that major institutions would have more honesty.
I have no respect for those institutions no matter how noble the names are!
The inability to publish negative data not confined to environmental studies. It is an industry axiom that you cannot get virtually any negative data published resulting in investigators wasting time and resources repeating failed experiments. Maybe we need journals dedicated to publishing only negative data,for reference.
Negative data. I like what you have to say about environmental studies.
My father, a chemical engineer used to enjoy reading “the journal of irreproducible results”, where in fellow, chemical, engineers and members of the American chemical Society would design false studies, seeming to clearly show ridiculous results.
just for fun?
Yes, and the journalist was supported by various scientific equipment makers! One “ contest” awarded a Pyrex glass beaker— and in very small print, “ a Rolls Royce to carry it home in”.
“These events were real, and here’s the part nobody mentions: these conditions literally cannot occur today. Modern EMISSIONS CONTROLS and CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS eliminated the conditions that created those killing fogs.”
I would like to know the year those conditions were eliminated. That is when emissions controls and clean air regulations were finished with their needed work. That is the Hoax.
May be looking at apple/orange comparison. No doubt air pollution still bad, or was 20 yrs ago when we drove into Houston. But many of the more dangerous components have been removed such as the lead that was in car emissions. So the question in this essay relates,to just how many deaths attritributable to the pollution today to warrant more,stringent controls
When did the US get clean air that does not pose a threat to citizens without lung disease? That should have been stated to support the claim that air quality scares are meaningless since "year" as problems were solved and behind us.
Of course that does not address the chem trails dumped 24/7 since late 1990s.
The chem trails are an issue. Evidently they dump chemicals, including aluminum, that gets into our soils. Plants consume/uptake them. To the extent they negatively impact our health, we end up with an additional intake.
Looking for an argument I am not involved in. My post merely referred to the fact that the failure to be able to publish negative data is problematic in that it results in waste of,resources and man power repeating experiments that others have performed with negative results. Have not the slightest interest in chem trails as nothing I can do about them whatever they are
Or maybe some kinda data base that lists all the negative result studies. Could EPA run that, although unfortunately they oscillate politically. What worthy group could do this? On the other hand honest researchers might be compromised by such a stance.
Was thinking commercial publisher not likely but perhaps gov, i.e. n.i.h., e.p.a. etc
This study, questionable as it is, cost the power industry billions. The EPA is a rogue agency and has been for decades.
Good stuff here. Those Canadian wildfires blanketed the area where I live and while the smell of smoke was annoying I didn’t alter my outside activity whatsoever and saw no issues in my breathing then or days later. Now I know it’s all BS. They had people in a panic over it like it was an Armageddon disaster. Forest management is smart of course to mitigate these large out of control fires for other reasons like saving homes or grazing lands but it’s being used as scare tactics because of studies like Harvard’s. Thanks.
Hardly all B.S. and just because you didn't alter your activity, do you really think there is no effect from breathing the toxins in the smoke?
I agree with you DD. We live about 60 miles west of Detroit, and the air felt heavy and the smell of smoke, and whatever was in it, was very evident. We curtailed our time outside as a precaution. I’m not happy to learn we are paying for policies supported by studies that are untrue, but I’m still not going to expose myself to wildfire smoke.
I worked in construction for 30 years and I’m sure I’ve breathed worse.
That doesn't answer my question. I see people doing harmful activities that damage their lungs all the time, certainly you would advise precautions? P.S. you are talking to someone whose mother died from lung cancer that metastasized to her bones and brain, as well as other people I was with, doing hospice volunteer work.
My mom died the same way. To answer your question I think the human body is an amazing organ. I think it has the ability to deal with adverse conditions and if it’s not compromised heal itself after dealing with 3 days of wildfire smoke. If you generally breathe clean air those three days should not be an issue
The authors mention that these bad studies add quite a lot to the regulatory cost borne by the electrical industry. Maybe it would be better and drive the point home a little quicker if they just said take your electric bill and multiply it by 75% or 60% and ask the people reading the article if they would rather pay the lower electric bill than the one they are currently getting and then say.......the lower electric bill should really be the one you are paying and all of the excess is due to faulty studies like this that are used to justify shutting down many, many coal plants that the eco freaks blame for these deaths ------that are not really the cause. Currently coal is a little more expensive than natural gas but..........coal has advantages that natural gas does not have and our electric grid should have 3 or 4 dependable sources of power to back up the system even if one just happens to be slightly higher this year versus last and.......wind would be most expensive after you take out all the subsidies granted by the feds. Birdblenders are not efficient and are a waste of scarce money. Look at anywhere that wind is a major source and compare their rates with electrical systems that utilize nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Ask some German consumers if they would rather pay their electrical rate or the rates in most of the US.
Do people understand that coal and gas are compressed carbon from plants? The concentration of CO2 in the air is at a low, and agriculture benefits from higher CO2. It would be a blessing to use those fuels and get the carbon back into the atmosphere.
Just proves the point. As Mark Twain is often quoted, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." I would suspect that Mark Twain never initiated his study by 1st undertaking a sample size analysis. But the statement lives on.
Now about those chem-trails...
Yes, let's address the chem-trails.
Wouldn't it be great if every grant dollar required a summary paper every six months? After briefly working at a university, realizing how and to whom dollars flowed, I no longer believe the published studies. Horrible designs, lack of sample and junior level analysts...all for the need to be published for tenure.
Government funded grants (taxpayer money) for study.
It, in my opinion, is a ‘sleight of hand’.
In addition to statistical malpractice by intellectually dishonest people, we have both legacy and (anti)social media artificially augmented by political entities (both national and international) using bots to escalate falsehoods leading to faddish "consensuses". Please check out the recent interview by Mike Rowe of (L) Todd Rose: "What If Everyone's Been Fooling Themselves". And L. Todd Rose does suggest an antidote for the anomie of our country. Personally, I just avoid the mind coffin (cell phone) most of the day and am busy interacting with people, animals and things in the physical world. That works best for me. We do not live in an age of real "science".
How about we look into the money grab, under the guise of auto emissions testing, that many states require.
Silly question. If the EPA stands for clean air, then why are they not shutting down the governments experiments of seeding the clouds with air and soil polluting chemicals and etc.? Those contrails that last and last and pollute the air are changing weather patterns and may also be responsible for the rash of forest fires that are being experienced.
I would definitely like to see more analysis of the chem-trails.
Like the Pharmaceutical "industry", you don't make money on the truth or actual cures. Just scare the population and soon their donating money to the "cause". We can cure cancer, we can cure global warming, just sacrifice and sent money to the new developing industry/scam.
Great piece of insight. Air quality looks like it ran the same path as statins. Both put copious quantities of money into someone's pocket Just like the snail darter fish that stopped the Tellico Dam in 1978.
This focus on "early death" seems incomplete considering the bigger picture many people are facing with the numerous fires in northern Mn., Canada and Spain and France. The chemicals from asbestos from burning houses and many other toxins are real. I do experience breathing issues from smoke of all kinds, and the effects can be cumulative on respiratory health. A more complete analysis including studies of firefighters,for instance, would make more sense to me. How can "smoking" cause cancer, and yet other smoke is a mute point?
I’m curious about the issues that arise out of the polluted China megalopolises. From what I’ve read over the years the mortality and morbidity numbers are not good (on top of the incessant smoking - although I was told once or twice many Chinese smoke to filter the air 😉)