Air pollution kills no one. Disagree? Show us a body.
85% of the deaths are allegedly due to particulate matter (PM). Much science and reality show that PM in outdoor air is innocuous.
Read how the image, below, debunks the notion that PM kills.
Air pollution kills no one. Disagree? Show us a body.
85% of the deaths are allegedly due to particulate matter (PM). Much science and reality show that PM in outdoor air is innocuous.
Read how the image, below, debunks the notion that PM kills.
Globalists and “consensus scientists” are two separate expressions of totalitarianism (end of personal freedom). The collapse of “consensus science” AGW dogma has carried the Globalists politicians down with BrExit vote.
Yes, we are all want good clean air to breathe, but we do not trust “consensus scientists” who accepted government research funds to change:
1. The definition of nuclear stability from
_ a.) Lowest value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII to
_ b) Highest value of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy per nucleon after WWII
2. The internal composition of the Sun from
_ c.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
_ d.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946.
Consensus scientists and Globalists politicians need to go back and correct obvious past lies.
Actually, without knowing the conclusion reached by the investigators, they are pretty close to the truth. Millions die every year through the use of bio fuels to heat homes and cook food. The solution is to move from bio fuels to fossil fuels, not allowed by the AGW worldwide regulations. In essence, the AGW fanatics are directly responsible for these deaths. This is the main reason that India is refusing to go along with the current French achieved agreement; India’s poor are major sufferers of the need to stay warm and eat food.
I am working my way through the full report. What is apparent is that the corpus rests on WHO-based estimates from recent reports.
Of some interest, though, is this text from the middle of the document
Source: WHO, 2006. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) defines maximum values of concentration for six pollutants, including a target of maximum 12 µg/m3 on average for primary PM2.5. The EU standard is currently 25 µg/m3, with provision for attainment ofthe WHO guideline by 2030. China sets the maximum average PM concentration of 35 µg/m3, with time allowed to get this level in some of the most industrialised areas. Table 1.2 ⊳ WHO air quality guidelines and interim targets for …………… PM PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3)
Basis for the selected level
Interim target-1 (IT-1) 35 70 These levels are associated with about a 15% higher long-term mortality risk relative to the ultimate guidelines.
Interim target-2 (IT-2) 25 50 These levels lower the risk of premature mortality by approximately 6% (2–11%) relative to the IT-1 level, in addition to other health benefits.
Interim target-3 (IT-3) 15 30 These levels reduce the mortality risk by approximately 6% (2-11%) relative to the IT-2 level, in addition to other health benefits
Air quality guideline m. 10 20 Below this level, there is no evidence (95% probability) of increased cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality in response to long-term exposure to PM2.5.
I’ll keep reading.
Brad, could you please elucidate the reasoning behind your statement that “Millions die every year through the use of bio fuels to heat homes and cook”? I assume the bio fuels you refer to are wood, charcoal, dung, etc. Other than fires caused by these fuels, what is the mechanism by which people are killed? Thanks.
To Rugger Jeff:
The mechanism is supposed to be diseases – mainly pulmonary – caused by exposure to solid fuel emissions. However, this exposure is just one of the “risk factors”, along with exposure to the same pollutants emerging from other activities and to other air pollutants. Strictly speaking, the estimate of deaths attibutable is the allocation – via select statistical methods, open to ample questions – of “pre-mature mortality” among various such “risk factors”. Any single risk factor can contribute to more than one disease and a person’s death may be attributed to more than one disease.
That is, it is not that air pollution kills any particular set of individuals. Rather, of the collective “pre-mature deaths” (about a half of deaths occur before life expectancy), x1 % is statistically attributed to y1 risk factor.
As a risk factor is eliminated, life expectancy may go up or down, depending on population composition and all other risk factors. As life expectancy changes, “pre-mature mortality” may go up or down in absolute terms, depending again on the changed age distribution of deaths. A new allocation according to to new data on disease associations with different risk factors will have to be made.
One would never know how much pre-mature mortality was reduced by switching from solid fuels to gas or electricity. From 1920 to 1970, say, rich countries switched from solid fuels to gas and electricity. Their life expectancies also increased, and pre-mature mortality (deaths at an age lower than life expectancy) probably dropped. There is no statistical estimate of how much of these can be attributed to reduction in solid fuel use (including in transport and industry).
To Brad Fregger who wrote: “The solution is to move from bio fuels to fossil fuels, not allowed by the AGW worldwide regulations.”
The first half of the claim is correct, but only for gas and electricity (whether from fossil fuels or not). The latter half is flat wrong. There are no worldwide regulations and, in fact, a couple of billion households have made the transition from uncontrolled combustion of solid fuels to gas and electricity (and better homes).
If I said regulations I apologize, however areas where they need fossil fuels for the citizens to stop using biomass are running into problems from the AGW fanatics and other environmentalists as they continue to demand that undeveloped countries use alternative methods for providing the energy needed to cook and eat.
It looks like the correct term is bio mass. Here’s a great article that describes the problem. From this article it looks like a dramatically under estimated the death toll, they are talking about billions dying.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/cooking.pdf
To Brad Fregger:
Biomass numbers also cooked – pardon the pun – and the claim “billions dying” is pre-posterous on its face.
IEA says “The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 million premature
deaths per year are directly attributable to indoor air pollution from the use of
solid fuels.” Note the word “attributable”. Pre-mature deaths are not actual individuals’ death. It is statistical jugglery to ascribe total deaths to “risk factors”. Actual deaths are due to disease (or accidents) and people often die of multiple diseases, each in turn attributable to one or more “risk factor” via a statistical allocation method.
You are correct – “GW fanatics and other environmentalists .. continue to demand that undeveloped countries use alternative methods for providing the energy “. World Bank financing of new coal development was stopped about 10 or more years back, and of coal power plants in South Africa and India.
Climate change is an ideological war. Climate zealots want to save Mother Earth but let her children die of benign – or malign – neglect.
Most anytime that you see the results of an alleged “study” by an organization with the name “International” in it title, check that your wallet is in a secure place and be prepared to get even more over regulated by the government. Be assured that the UN or one of its adjuncts is at it again.