We bring a team through reading Particles of Truth: Discovery, Controversy, and the Story of Fighting for Healthy Airby C. Arden Pope III, Douglas W. Dockery, so you don't have to suffer.
The book has twelve chapters as well as references and indexes. It was written by Brigham Young and Harvard scholars.
Publisher MIT Press describes the book as “a convincing real-life description of how scientists discover the fatal effects of air pollution on human health and the controversial battle to use critical scientific evidence in the fight against clean air.”
Read the three-page introduction via the infamous email Gina McCarthy, a book of nonsense.
“…Pope Ardennes and Doug Pier are unsung heroes in the field of air pollution,” she said.
Almost not true, but anyway.
It's not as bad as Lisa Jackson, another notorious former Obama-appointed EPA administrator, who said at a 2011 congressional hearing: “If we can reduce the particles [in air] In terms of health levels, this will be the same as finding a cure for cancer in our country. ”
The book’s chapters explore many aspects of air quality, from health effects to economic effects to environmental justice (a term used in a barrel of salt).
It claims a powerful case where small particles in the air (particulate matter pm2.5) significantly affect public health. The book also explores the enormous efforts of others to discredit and raise doubts about science (we are in that team).
The book sees the Pope/Water take a celebratory stance on its (junk science) contribution to air quality improvement. They believe these advances have greatly mitigated the (false) health effects associated with air quality.
They noted (p. 156): “…life expectancy of air pollution is comparable to smoking.”
In the junk science community, nothing is possible.
This study stems from bad science, including potential data manipulation and false creation of convenient assumptions
In sharp contrast, in 2016 Intimidate pollution. Why and How to Fix EPA Steve Milloy and the 2021 National Association of Scholars’ Transfer of Beaches Report drilled into EPA bureaucratic malfeasance and academic junk science hazards “trust science” small particle health impact research.
This study is rooted in bad science, including potential data manipulation (P-hacking) and error-creating convenient assumptions (Harking).
The NAS report also highlights replication crises in academic research, including studies on small particle health effects.
Disturbing academic research claims cannot withstand further scrutiny. In short, this study is wrong. For small particles, this controversy can be traced back to the influence studies of Dockery (1993) and Pope (1995).
Discussions about small particles that cause health effects are worth discussing. The debate is two narratives: one asserts the impact of these claims and the other questioning the validity of the validity.
Substantive economic impacts are related to this debate.
Americans pay at least $14,000 per household annually, a total of about $1.9 trillion.
Most of this comes from air quality regulations.
Reading break in the American Thinker
