PM2.5
(Particulate Matter)

What is it?  And why the anti-smokers are dead wrong to depend on its measure to prove risk.
 
 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has published a comprehensive review of the 1997 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) promulgated standards for fine particulate matter that were the most stringent and expensive in the agency’s 35-year history.

The EPA's Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Standards, Lung Disease, and Mortality
A Failure of Epidemiology
by Jerome Arnett
September 7, 2006



CEI concludes: "EPA’s PM2.5 regulations are a tragic failure of public policy that are shown to have no basis in science and thus are not saving lives or preventing illness.  Instead they are imposing billions of dollars of net cost each year on the American people."
 

To entice you to read this document we offer these excerpts:

PG. 8:  Dozens of these animal toxicologic studies over the past 30 years have searched for a biological mechanism, but none has supported the hypothesis that ambient PM2.5 air pollution, in the concentrations found in the U.S., causes lung disease. Studies using animals with diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, cardiopulmonary disease, and even old age—that should make them even more susceptible to the CAP—have produced only slight effects, all of which were reversible within one day.40 For example, exposing asthmatic mice to CAP for three days did not worsen their disease 24 or 48 hours after exposure, while exposing rats with cardiopulmonary disease to CAP produced a change in in?ammatory cells that reverted to normal 24 hours after exposure.

In summary, none of the experimental animal studies has found any plausible biological mechanism to support the hypothesis that exposure to ambient atmospheric PM2.5 produces or signi?cantly aggravates disease or causes death.

PG. 13:  [T]he idea that human lives will be saved by reductions in contemporary PM2.5 air pollution has been shown to have no basis in science. No biologic mechanism has been found to explain how the lungs might be damaged. The epidemiologic studies used to justify the agency’s PM2.5 standard have failed to show that air pollution causes disease or death. Instead of supporting causation, their weak associations likely are fortuitous and simply represent normal variation or methodological artifacts and biases.
 

Read the Executive Summary at CEI and download the complete document there.
 
 

Home