thegreatdivide wrote on May 4^th, 2023 at 12:26pm:


What global problem?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 5^th, 2023 at 12:11pm:


So you don't have any idea of these "global problems"? 

thegreatdivide wrote on May 5^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:



The fact that you can't point to them, while not proof of no problems, is telling.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 5^th, 2023 at 10:31pm:



You haven't shown they have.

Did you read about PM2.5? You know the one it is supposed to be a killer.

"In 2012, a group with which I am affiliated, sued EPA for conducting illegal human clinical research experiments involving PM2.5. By the early 2000s, EPA had concluded that any exposure to PM2.5 could kill in a matter of hours and that elderly and sick people were most at risk. To prove its point, conducted numerous experiments on elderly and sick people in which diesel exhaust from a truck was pipelined into an actual gas chamber where the human guinea pigs inhaled very high levels of PM2.5 for hours at a time.This was illegal because researchers are not allowed to conduct Nazi-like experiments where the purpose is to cause harm, especially without the informed consent of the human guinea pigs.

In its defense to our lawsuit, the EPA stated that it conducted the PM2.5 experiments because the PM2.5 epidemiology was only statistics, and as all researchers know, statistics only demonstrate correlation and correlation is not the same as causation. The EPA told the court that the human experiments were needed to establish needed biological plausibility for the claims of the epidemiology studies.

The EPA’s unequivocal admission that epidemiology alone was an insufficient basis to conclude that PM2.5 kills obviates any further need to consider the many significant flaws of the PM2.5 epidemiology.

And what were the results of those clinical experiments?

Despite exposing hundreds of elderly (as old as 80) and sick people (with asthma and heart disease) to extraordinary levels of PM2.5 (as high as 75 times the level in average US outdoor air), not so much as a gasp, wheeze or cough, much less any death, was reported. The clinical research, in fact, provided not an ounce of biological plausibility to the (dubious) epidemiology."

...

"When smokers inhale, they inhale a lot of PM2.5. If you live in the US and inhale average air, you will inhale about 240 millionths of a gram of PM2.5 every day. And EPA claims that is a potentially deadly dose of PM2.5.

Now if you are a smoker, not only will you inhale that 240 millionths-of-a-gram every 24 hours, but for every filtered cigarette you smoke, you will inhale and astounding 8,000 to 10,000 millionths-of-a-gram in the five minutes or so it takes to smoke a cigarette. But no one dies from smoking a single cigarette. The PM2.5 exposure is even higher for a marijuana joint, on the order of 100,000 millionths-of-a-gram. We give sick people medical marijuana. Have you ever heard of one of them dying from smoking a joint? No."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/09/pm2-5-mass-killer-or-mass-fraud/

So the EPA did an Epidemiological, and they said they needed more. You just believe because there was a study.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2023 at 12:11pm:


Another epidemiological study. Not real world.

From the underlying paper -

"We used the chemical transport model GEOS-Chem to estimate global exposure levels to fossil-fuel related PM2.5 in 2012. Relative risks of mortality were modeled using functions that link long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality, incorporating nonlinearity in the concentration response. "

We know you have no science, but do you have to accept EVERYTHING at face value.

And did you read the bit about smoking? There should be millions in the street dying from their first smoke.

Edit: Link to the study - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2023 at 2:05pm:



Models aren't science. Why do you think the EPA subjected old, infirm people to hours of high concentrations of PM 2.5? Why do you think people never died or got sick from it?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2023 at 2:05pm:



I have never denied smoking causes lung cancer. Carcinogens cause cancer. PM2.5 being a particle size has not been shown to be a carcinogen. Some of PM2.5 particles may be carcinogenic, but it hasn't been shown.

You should try not to confuse yourself further.

According to the EPA 240 millionths of a gram will kill. Smoking one cigarette results in 8,000-10,000 millionths of a gram. No first time smoker has died as a result of PM2.5.

"In its defense to our lawsuit, the EPA stated that it conducted the PM2.5 experiments because the PM2.5 epidemiology was only statistics, and as all researchers know, statistics only demonstrate correlation and correlation is not the same as causation."

"I subsequently convinced prominent and expert researchers to obtain 12 years-worth of California death certificate and air quality data and do their own rigorous study. Their study of all deaths in California between the years 2000 to 2012 (more than 2 million) reported no correlation between PM2.5 and death."

Ibid

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 12:53pm:



But the EPA says that even a small amount is a killer and it didn't.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 12:53pm:


Nothing there about it being carcinogenic.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 12:53pm:


So what is the life expectancy in China, say Shanghai?

" In 2021, the average life expectancy for the registered population in Shanghai municipality was 84.11 years. In that particular year, the life expectancy of registered female persons was 86.56 years, while that of male persons was 81.76 years."  PM2.5 must really be a killer.

Mumbai - 69. Not good but they have a vast slum where life expectancy is lower, but the air is the same.

Wollongong - 85

So again you have failed.


The reason for the clean air drives is because it makes life more amenable. Not deaths from PM2.5. n

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:


They say as little as 270 millionth of a gram can kill you. It doesn't matter if that is over a lifetime or when you take your first smoke.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:



And yet you were the one who highlighted carcinogenic. So now you want us to believe you highlighted it in error?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:


But they still have pollution problems. SO what you mean is that life expectancy is increasing depite the high levels of PM2.5.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:



And PM2.5 is only located within that square mile? Did they put up a big fence?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:



You are the one trying to prove PM2.5 is a killer.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 8^th, 2023 at 3:50pm:



But you only mentioned PM2.5. Now all you have to do is list the other "ff -related illnesses". With citation of course.