Plant Trees SF Events 2006 Archive: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Event

 
fine particulate air pollution and infant mortality

"A study of infant mortality in California strengthens the link between
fine particulate air pollution and infant mortality.*  Researchers
examined infant death rates in relation to monitoring data for particles
smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. Higher levels of fine particle
pollution are associated with an increased rate in overall postneonatal
mortality." (EHN)

* * * *

Fine Particulate Matter (PM_2.5 ) Air Pollution and Selected Causes of
Postneonatal Infant Mortality in California

* Tracey J. Woodruff, Jennifer D. Parker, and Kenneth C. Schoendorf
*

*http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2006/8484/8484.pdf
*

*****
*


EPA: Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter
http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/fs20051220pm.html

*HOW TO COMMENT:* Comments will be accepted for 90 days beginning when
this proposal is published in the Federal Register. All comments should
be identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2001-0017 and submitted by one of the
following methods:

    * Federal e-rulemaking portal; www.regulations.gov
      <http://www.regulations.gov> http://www.regulations.gov
    * E-mail (a-and-r-docket@epa.gov )
    * Facsimile (202) 566-1741
    * Mail (Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
      Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
      Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460);

* * * *

*Pollution* Locator: Smog and *Particulates*
<http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/>
Criteria *Air Pollution* Reports Available at This Level *...*
NOTE:NOTE: Scorecard's
data about criteria *air pollutants* are derived from US *EPA's Air*
Quality *...*
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/ - 35k -

*

Advisers rap EPA over air pollution

Jeff Nesmith - Cox Washington Bureau
Saturday, January *1*4, 2006
http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_348cf90da21732380056.html
<http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_348cf90da21732380056.html>

Washington --- Scientists recruited to advise the Environmental
Protection Agency on air pollution will confer next month to vent their
frustration over the agency's failure to order reductions in the amount
of soot and dust in the air Americans breathe.

A special teleconference has been set up by the EPA staff for members of
the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to discuss the
rejection last month of their recommendation that the agency order
significant cuts in long-term allowable levels of fine particulate air
pollution.

The committee recommended in June that EPA lower the allowable average
level of that form of air pollution. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
announced Dec. 20 that the agency would propose making no changes.

Public comments that have begun trickling into a government Web site are
largely critical of the decision.

"I am writing to ask why you and this administration are not following
the recommendations of the air pollution health science experts," wrote
Thomas Markham of Lookout Mountain, Ga., in a letter posted to the Web
site on Thursday. "It is overwhelmingly clear that your proposal does
not protect us."

Most fine particle pollution --- made up of bits of dust and soot less
than 2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter --- comes from motor vehicle
exhaust pipes or industry smokestacks, especially coal-burning electric
power plants.

The scientific advisory committee recommended in June that the annual
average level of these dust particles be limited to 13 or 14 micrograms
per cubic meter of air, rather than the current standard of 15 micrograms.

Such a reduction would save thousands of lives, according to health
advocate groups and environmentalists.

Harvard public health researchers say that limiting it to 14 micrograms
would save an estimated 9,000 lives per year.

Johnson said he had based his decision on a careful review of the science.

But some members of the scientific advisory panel aren't convinced.

"What is the point of having a scientific advisory committee if you
don't use their judgment?" said Jane Koenig, a professor of
environmental health at the University of Washington and a member of the
panel.

Rogene Henderson, director of the Lovelace Respiratory Research
Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., and chairwoman of the committee, said
the telephone conference will be Feb. 3.

*

The material in this post is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for purposes
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
For updates and info, contact scott at planttrees dot org.