Scare Pollution Why and How to Fix the EPA Mr Steven J Milloy 9780998259710 Books
Download As PDF : Scare Pollution Why and How to Fix the EPA Mr Steven J Milloy 9780998259710 Books
What is Scare Pollution about? Scare Pollution reveals the shockingly fraudulent science behind EPA’s flagship regulatory program which has been used to destroy the coal industry, justify global warming rules, and assert EPA's control over our fossil fuel-dependent economy. Author Steve Milloy's expose tells the story of how he uncovered the fraud via his investigative journalism, original scientific research and revealing interactions with EPA, Congress, federal courts and green activists. What is Scare Pollution's main theme? EPA’s economy-destroying rules depend on the false claim that particulate matter (i.e. soot from smokestacks and tailpipes) is so toxic it kills 570,000 Americans per year. EPA claims even brief exposures to typical outdoor levels in the U.S. can kill almost instantly. Milloy thoroughly debunks this claim in multiple and creative ways - thereby clearly revealing the outrageous and costly fraud EPA has perpetrated on Americans. What’s timely about Scare Pollution? President-elect Trump promised to rein in the out-of-control EPA. Scare Pollution shows just how out-of-control EPA is and offers a road map for reforming the agency. What are some of Scare Pollution's highlights? Milloy Uncovers EPA’s Illegal Human Experiments - After EPA falsely claimed before Congress that inhaling even tiny amounts of soot was deadly, the agency sought to justify those outrageous claims with illegal experiments on elderly and sick subjects making them inhale diesel exhaust in an "exposure chamber." EPA even experimented on 10-year old children with diesel exhaust. The Exposure of EPA’s Secret Science - To avoid scrutiny of its false claims, EPA hid scientific data for more than 20 years - despite numerous demands from Congress including by subpoena and bills passed. Scare Pollution shows how Milloy discovered a treasure trove of data and led a team of scientific researchers to debunk EPA's claims with new data. Finally, a Much-Awaited Explanation of the Likely Cause of Historical Episodes of 'Killer' Air Pollution. - EPA often cites fatal historical air pollution incidents to needlessly alarm the public about current air quality. Milloy finally debunks these claims with convincing analysis pointing to the likely actual culprit(s). Who endorses Scare Pollution? "As a leader in the fight to protect our environment and public health for nearly three decades, I am keenly aware of the scientific shortcomings of EPA’s agenda-driven air regulations that impose significant costs on our economy while yielding no meaningful benefits. Scare Pollution provides great insight into these problems and contributes to a timely discussion for how to reform the EPA." - Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works "Twenty years ago, I chaired the committee of independent science advisors reviewing EPA’s determination that fine particulate matter causes mortality at concentrations commonly experienced in outdoor air in the US. Most of the advisors doubted the EPA's finding for a number of reasons including the lack of a plausible biological mechanism, but the agency set stringent standards anyway. Scare Pollution confirms the committee’s original doubts in unique and compelling ways, and indicates that EPA’s human exposure scientists do not believe the Agency’s determination either. It’s a must read for those interested in how science is used at the EPA." - Dr. George T. Wolff, former Chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee."
Scare Pollution Why and How to Fix the EPA Mr Steven J Milloy 9780998259710 Books
This book presents challenges for some readers. The author can be irreverent or hostile about environmental topics or about the Federal entity, the USEPA. Author Steve Milloy defines himself as a confrontational intervenor against unjustified scares.Does tone or affiliation negate his criticisms? For many, values, causes, or affiliations can be given more heed than technical substance. There is a frequent human tendency to listen to someone of similar sympathies, whereas to distrust opponents. Should this happen, if the topics involve technical disciplines (like statistics, biology, or economics)? How to separate technical arguments from tribal sympathies? Can this be done?
Milloy discusses particulate matter (PM) 2.5. The USEPA issued air pollution regulations that required costly societal investments to reduce emissions of small airborne particulates. Lower levels of PM 2.5 would save thousands because PM 2.5 kills, at low doses, according to the USEPA. This was premised on extrapolations from two epidemiological studies that compared outcomes for high versus low exposures across several cities.
Reported correlations between PM 2.5 and deaths were modest, 0.26 and 0.17. A principle of statistics is correlations do not establish causality, they may instead owe to co-incidence or unknown causative factors. The detailed data underpinning the two studies was not disclosed by study investigators to enable independent review.
Milloy disagrees that fine particulate matter causes mortality at concentrations commonly inhaled, offering counter-evidence:
-- one cigarette supplies 10,000 times the prevailing dose of 2.5 PM in air, yet smokers do not die owing just to a single cigarette.
• States are legalizing marijuana, providing a four-fold higher dose of 2.5 PM, because joints do not have filters as do cigarettes. Abundant evidence about smoking does not support inhalation of PM 2.5 as a mortal threat. (Set aside Milloy as an annoying satirist of Big Government, do governments allow smokers to kill themselves? Clearly governments authorizing smoking do not regard 2.5 as a threat to the same degree as EPA.)
• Occupational health data about underground miners does not support PM 2.5 as a threat.
• Death data from California showed no correlation with PM2.5 levels in ambient air.
• Surprisingly, EPA funded experiments of people inhaling high doses of PM 2.5 that EPA considered fatal. EPA attorneys argued high doses were safe in the context of individuals undergoing tests, however harmful when lower doses are experienced across large populations.
To suggest low doses (of any substance) are more dangerous than high flunks pharmacology.
The doubletalk idea that individuals are invulnerable to effects only experienced within groups might tickle George Orwell.
Educated in biostatistics, Milloy recognizes unpersuasive reasoning. Unless educated and motivated people like Milloy have the self-assurance to ask annoying questions, weakly justified regulations can go unchallenged. This can in turn injure productive sectors of the economy and degrade the framing of public policy choices.
On the other hand, to consider the possibility of extenuating benefits, even if the evidence justifying PM 2.5 regulations was uncertain, it is still possible air quality may have improved in other ways owing to these regulations. There might be supplementary health benefits provided by cleaner air that are not captured by the PM 2.5 metric? Americans would generally not like to breathe the highly polluted air of China (containing higher levels of PM 2.5 and other airborne substances), even if residents of Beijing are reported to have longer life expectancy.
Nonetheless, regulatory choices are well served to be based on fuller information, incorporating discordant evidence, such as presented by Milloy. This is a nicely readable, concise book. Milloy uses the example of PM 2.5 to offer ideas about how to improve environmental regulations in future. Recommendations include ending the practice of withholding raw data from public scrutiny and accountability.
Product details
|
Tags : Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA [Mr Steven J Milloy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. <b>What is Scare Pollution about?</b> Scare Pollution reveals the shockingly fraudulent science behind EPA’s flagship regulatory program which has been used to destroy the coal industry,Mr Steven J Milloy,Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,Bench Press,0998259713,POLITICAL SCIENCE Public Policy Environmental Policy
People also read other books :
- Arise and Shine Forth eBook MD Jones
- 200 Chocolate Recipes Cookies Cakes Desserts Etc (Audible Audio Edition) Anna Wade Leigh Ashman Daniel Books
- The Anonymous Man Vincent L Scarsella 9781927598290 Books
- A Biography of Menno Simons Father of the Mennonite Church eBook Christopher Baird
- The Adventure of the Spanish Drums eBook Martin Daley
Scare Pollution Why and How to Fix the EPA Mr Steven J Milloy 9780998259710 Books Reviews
Top notch expose of self-serving government agency
Highly recommend this book if you want to know what's really going on at the EPA. Milloy makes this subject interesting and easy to understand. He presents a well documented case with the EPA, The Clean Air Act, PM2.5 and the controversy surrounding the EPA's human subject experimentation.
EPA is Atlas Shrugged in the flesh. Science should be open and verifiable, unless you are a bureaucrat.
Well written history of how the EPA operated as a regulatory body. Milloy has been following their activities closely from day 1. Didn't realize the amount of collusion between government bodies was so serpentine, The statistical "tweaking" of small sample studies to provide evidence on the effect of PM2.5 was particularly disturbing.
Powerful expose of junk science of air pollution scares by the left used to cripple industry and progress in general.
Steve Milloy Was reporting on the "Deep State" long before anyone knew what that was. Great, informative read Steve! Thanks for the insight!
So refreshing to be presented with information in context and with data in scale. One of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century is the turning of science into a propaganda tool for certain misanthropic strains of political belief.
This book presents challenges for some readers. The author can be irreverent or hostile about environmental topics or about the Federal entity, the USEPA. Author Steve Milloy defines himself as a confrontational intervenor against unjustified scares.
Does tone or affiliation negate his criticisms? For many, values, causes, or affiliations can be given more heed than technical substance. There is a frequent human tendency to listen to someone of similar sympathies, whereas to distrust opponents. Should this happen, if the topics involve technical disciplines (like statistics, biology, or economics)? How to separate technical arguments from tribal sympathies? Can this be done?
Milloy discusses particulate matter (PM) 2.5. The USEPA issued air pollution regulations that required costly societal investments to reduce emissions of small airborne particulates. Lower levels of PM 2.5 would save thousands because PM 2.5 kills, at low doses, according to the USEPA. This was premised on extrapolations from two epidemiological studies that compared outcomes for high versus low exposures across several cities.
Reported correlations between PM 2.5 and deaths were modest, 0.26 and 0.17. A principle of statistics is correlations do not establish causality, they may instead owe to co-incidence or unknown causative factors. The detailed data underpinning the two studies was not disclosed by study investigators to enable independent review.
Milloy disagrees that fine particulate matter causes mortality at concentrations commonly inhaled, offering counter-evidence
-- one cigarette supplies 10,000 times the prevailing dose of 2.5 PM in air, yet smokers do not die owing just to a single cigarette.
• States are legalizing marijuana, providing a four-fold higher dose of 2.5 PM, because joints do not have filters as do cigarettes. Abundant evidence about smoking does not support inhalation of PM 2.5 as a mortal threat. (Set aside Milloy as an annoying satirist of Big Government, do governments allow smokers to kill themselves? Clearly governments authorizing smoking do not regard 2.5 as a threat to the same degree as EPA.)
• Occupational health data about underground miners does not support PM 2.5 as a threat.
• Death data from California showed no correlation with PM2.5 levels in ambient air.
• Surprisingly, EPA funded experiments of people inhaling high doses of PM 2.5 that EPA considered fatal. EPA attorneys argued high doses were safe in the context of individuals undergoing tests, however harmful when lower doses are experienced across large populations.
To suggest low doses (of any substance) are more dangerous than high flunks pharmacology.
The doubletalk idea that individuals are invulnerable to effects only experienced within groups might tickle George Orwell.
Educated in biostatistics, Milloy recognizes unpersuasive reasoning. Unless educated and motivated people like Milloy have the self-assurance to ask annoying questions, weakly justified regulations can go unchallenged. This can in turn injure productive sectors of the economy and degrade the framing of public policy choices.
On the other hand, to consider the possibility of extenuating benefits, even if the evidence justifying PM 2.5 regulations was uncertain, it is still possible air quality may have improved in other ways owing to these regulations. There might be supplementary health benefits provided by cleaner air that are not captured by the PM 2.5 metric? Americans would generally not like to breathe the highly polluted air of China (containing higher levels of PM 2.5 and other airborne substances), even if residents of Beijing are reported to have longer life expectancy.
Nonetheless, regulatory choices are well served to be based on fuller information, incorporating discordant evidence, such as presented by Milloy. This is a nicely readable, concise book. Milloy uses the example of PM 2.5 to offer ideas about how to improve environmental regulations in future. Recommendations include ending the practice of withholding raw data from public scrutiny and accountability.
0 Response to "[XDD]∎ PDF Scare Pollution Why and How to Fix the EPA Mr Steven J Milloy 9780998259710 Books"
Post a Comment