Settled Science – My You Know What!

March 16, 2010

Lee Brown, CDTOA Executive Director

The “quiet” Science Symposium held by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on February 26 exposed many things for sure. Ironically, it appears that the “truth in science” has little meaning to the media because the environmentalists “claim” that the sky is falling, the planet will soon be uninhabitable and diesel emmissions causes every imaginable disease, is all but settled - right - wrong!

Due to industry and academic pressures which have repeatedly exposed many improprieties at CARB, its Chair Mary Nichols and Board were forced into hosting a symposium to investigate whether or not diesel emissions fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure is actually having any health effects on us here in California.

We all have to remember that in 1998 CARB’s Scientific Review Panel (SRP) controlled by extreme academic activist scientists determined that PM2.5 from diesel emissions exposure “MAY” have certain health effects on Californians. Now after 12 years and at least five major studies, there really is still no clear and convincing evidence that this is the case. In fact, ignored researchers and their reports, typecast as critics, strongly argue that there are NO health effects associated with diesel emission PM2.5 exposure, in California. Yet, here we are after 10 years of Draconian diesel engine regulations and billions of dollars of costs to businesses, and there is still no clear undeniable proof. These regulations are all based on a pack of scare tactics, lies, deception, cherry-picked reports and trust me science. Frankly, none of this is right, and yet CARB plows ahead with another $30-billion of new diesel engine regulations!

Additional Observations & Key Debate Issues
The daylong event allowed an open discussion of all the key studies relating to fine particulate matter and death or dieses here in California. We listened as each side was given equal time to present their materials, and the key findings were debated instead of being manipulated to fit the typical rubber-stamped conclusions favored by CARB and EPA. This was in sharp contrast to the previous lack of objectivity in the selection of reports and data, which was guaranteed to produce findings supporting the false conclusion that tens of thousands here were “dying prematurely”?

Central to the discussion was the fact that CARB has blatantly ignored health effects studies specific to California when they suggest contrary evidence. So far, CARB has ignored national studies of fine diesel PM2.5. Fine particulate matter exposure appears to have a greater impact on health in the Ohio Valley and Northeastern Rustbelt area of the U.S. where substantially more coal is utilized as a fuel.

Some of the areas of major disagreement during the debates, included:

  • When using California-only data, some diesel health effects estimates show no significant adverse health problems arising from diesel emissions.
  • Many, if not most, of the studies evaluated health effects from PM2.5, a much larger pollutant category than narrowly defined diesel exhaust components.
  • The science is very thin on identifying “bad actor” diesel exhaust components, and their relationship to many other components that may be part of fine-particle air contamination.
  • The observation of Professor Jerrett that high levels of PM2.5 in California were associated with low levels of human cancer should be followed up. He should make his data set public.
  • The research used/funded by CARB has never evaluated the health risk of their regulations on the regulated community, including loss of jobs, benefits and elevated stress.
  • Relative contribution of PM2.5 from natural or unregulated sources has not been evaluated/disclosed in the CARB-utilized research.
  • A number of the PM2.5 studies showed a strong relationship between sulfur content and more serious health effect problems. California motor fuel is nearly sulfur free and this state does not use coal or heating oil, likely sources of increased sulfur in eastern areas of the country

Studies Show PM Does Not Impact Life Expectancy
“Studies of California-specific diseases and mortality show diesel particulate matter (PM) does not impact life expectancy in the state,” says Dr. James Enstrom, president of the Scientific Integrity Institute at UCLA. “My primary concern is not how this has been discussed but how these studies have been turned into regulations that unfairly affect owners of diesel trucks and other equipment.”

Dr. Enstrom’s studies examining only California data found diesel emissions had a very small, virtually negligible impact on health in California between 1973 and 1982 when the air here was arguably the dirtiest. His second study from 1983 to 2005 found “no risk at all” associated with exposure to PM emissions. If there were slight effects in the first study when the air was very dirty and none in the second study when the air was much cleaner, then most reasonably intelligent people would conclude that there are probably no health effects relating to PM exposure especially now that the air is very clean.

Other studies were presented at the symposium by scientists in epidemiology (the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations) and toxicology (the study of adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms) on the effects of PM2.5 exposure on human health. One of the most revealing was presented by Dr. Robert “Bob” Phalen, a toxicologist from UC, Irvine, and member of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Scientific Review Panel. Dr. Phalen discussed two issues: 1.) CARB has been so successful that we don’t need them any longer and 2.) What actually is particulate matter and what is actually measured and how by CARB, the AQMD’s and EPA?

Our Air has Mainly Ambient Dust in it, Common to Any Environment
Dr. Phalen explained that PM2.5 is not a single substance in the air; rather, it’s a “mass,” a measurement of many different fine particulates that circulate in the air. Fine particulate airborne matter includes many different chemical components in many different geographic areas.

In California, and particularly in mostly arid Southern California, a large part of that particulate mass is dust from fires, roads and wind circulated particles from arid land masses. Phalen made the case that CARB’s diesel emissions regulations will not improve health in the state and will result in significant economic harm. “If you really want to hurt people’s health, put them below the poverty line,” says Phalen. “That’s the highest risk group in the United States.” Dr. Phalen was obviously talking about how CARB rules will be taking away the use of so many owner-operators and small businesses tools – their trucks. Also see Betty’s report on why Del Norte County with its clean air has the worst health rating in this state.

Dr. Phalen, added that ultra-clean air is in fact unhealthy, our bodies need a certain amount of foreign matter like germs, viruses and particulate matter to build immunity defenses.

Even some scientists supported by CARB and EPA research grants questioned the methodology used to measure air pollution. When scientists analayze the particles collected by local air district filters they can-not differentiate between PM from fires, road dust, factory emissions and many other sources, and of course, even from the enemy: diesel.

“We don’t really know what the emissions are,” says Prof. Michael Jerrett, a University of California, Berkeley, a researcher who has been an author or co-author of many “popular” PM studies, and who has come under critical examination for his most recent work which appears to omit data and fabricate CARB favored results.

Only one study presented demonstrated that PM2.5 has a relative risk (a statistical measurement of causation) greater than 1.6, and most think that it was so extreme it should have never been published (Ostro). Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar was especially critical of this study, saying it was “implausible” and that probably the most dangerous particulate matter was associated with sulfur dioxide (common in burning coals and high sulfur fuels), and that wasn’t even on CARB’s radar. When the major credible study results were analyzed by both sides, they actually reflected a relative risk of under 1.2, which is almost nothing.

“Relative risk” is a scientific term associated with key measurements in both epidemiology and toxicology, and has been incorporated into requirements for admissibility as evidence in the federal courts.

The threshold for concluding an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual’s disease is a relative risk greater than 2; a relative risk of 1 means the agent has no effect on the incidence of disease or deaths. When relative risk is between 1 and 2, the agent is responsible for the same number of cases of disease as all other causes. A relative risk of 2 implies a 100 percent increase and there is a likelihood that an exposed individual’s disease was caused by the agent. Smoking cigarettes, for example, has a relative risk of 9 to 10 as a cause of lung cancer.

This is a Fraud as Big as ClimateGate
Personally, I’m convinced that there is a total lack of evidence about diesel emissions health effects, and it was all too clear when this was exposed during the Symposium on February 26. Every Californian should watch this debate. One question asked to Mary Nichols at the end of the symposium resonated with me (I believe it came from a lobbyist from the American Lung Association). The question was: “Why are you allowing so many critics of this issue to speak?” This question reveled to me that the process has been so skewed against the truth in science that all these environmental activists are shocked at CARB’s efforts to finally try to be fair and balanced. I say follow the grant funding!

Below are some important things I learned at this symposium that you should all understand:

  1. The scientific evidence behind all of CARB’s rules relating to diesel equipment emissions is so incomplete that most researchers with any degree of integrity referred to the health effects conclusions as minimually “null” but most likely a fraud (i.e. Tran’s reports and his credentials). Basically there are no health effects of diesel emissions related to PM2.5 and premature deaths or mortality in Californian - none, nada, zip! This should have been big news, but no one in the main stream media apparently either believes or understands it! We have experienced 10 years of lies about diesel; everyone knows it is very bad “because is just has to be,” yet there is no evidence of this being true.
  2. The scientific community is clearly divided on the research and access to the data which attempts to support these Draconian CARB regulations. I believe that this industry should be demanding a halt to all diesel emissions regulations based on these studies, especially UC Berkeley Professor Mike Jerrett’s arguably misleading results of his research that he was forced to disclose. He actually admitted that there was no relationship between PM2.5 and all causes of mortality in California.
  3. CARB is so focused on its Draconian regulations that it has lost sight of the overall health effects of its own regulations on the people of this state. Billions in lost diesel equipment and truck values, potential fines and forced equipment purchases and replacements will be the cost if one wishes to stay in their business of choice. What are the direct health effects to the owners and their families and their employees because of these rules?
  4. Why does a state government regulatory agency with 1,400 employees and a $700-million budget not have one trained, qualified and properly credentialed epidemiologist on its staff? A key scientific position in helping to determine the true health effects of substances in our environment, like diesel related PM2.5, is left empty? This is unforgiveable!
  5. Why has CARB not listened to any suggestions from the industry and regulated the “low hanging fruit” such as focusing on pre-1994 (mechicanical) diesel engines (at least for trucks)? We believe that 20% of the older vehicles cause 80% of the emissions, which, in my opinion, have no associative health effects, at least in California. (see point 1 above). Why are low-mileage vocational trucks treated just like high-mileage highway trucks?
  6. Are you all aware that the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society have both become more involved in environmental activism than they are in sound health care research? They will only share their data if they are guaranteed a result that supports their aggressive activist positions. I personally believe that we should all stop supporting these organizations until they change.
  7. Government grants and research funding (public funds) are only given to academic researchers who have provided results consistent with mainstream environmentalist causes. Scientists who have been objective about their research and have shown results that are not desirable are totally shut out of research grant funding and are forced to rely on private funding only. Then government activists and environmentalists accuse these researchers of being pawns of private industry. This process, which has been allowed to flourish under the UC School system, is totally dysfunctional.
  8. Why hasn’t the news media (TV, web, print, etc.) reported the corrupt scientific process exposed this day? Is the balance and corruption so skewed against scientific integrity and objectivity that mainstream news is now just propaganda? It’s sickening, in my opinion.
  9. We should demand a continuation of this symposium as a public forum that will eventually expose the truth about how activist educators and scientists have virtually corrupted the scientific process within the UC School system.

In Conclusion
The results of the symposium were clear to most: the science is NOT settled, not even close. If the evidence is so overwhelming that diesel PM2.5 is dangerous, why is there any need to compromise the scientific process as badly as CARB has been allowed to do?

To watch a tape of the symposium go to the www.cdtoa.org or visit Cal-Span’s site at, www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=CARB&date=2010-02-26.”

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Features at Least Some Sessions Critical of Today’s Scientific Process

I was lucky enough to attend the AAAS, billed as the largest scientific-fest on the planet each year, on February 20th in San Diego. I was interested in sitting in on a number of sessions. I counted a total of about 20 sessions listed in the Symposia that were focused on global warming and its related dooms-day scenarios. I counted 3 that would appear to be critical of the integrity behind the “new” science and research that we are seeing today.

I sat in on a few global warming sessions and finished the day with False Discoveries and Statistics: Implications for Health and the Environment. While I found the session very interesting, what I was most disturbed about was the similar comments all the guest speakers made about how data can be manipulated in many ways (with super computers) to get the best results that the researchers are looking for, and it is often not preformed objectively and with any repeatability.

The story below by scientific reporter John Timmer at ARS Technica does a much better job of explaining concepts like statistical multiplicities controlling false-positive findings, so I suggest that you spend some time and review how data sets concerning Earth’s temperatures and CARB PM2.5 can be and are easily manipulated to get all those scary results.

Read related artilce "We're So Good at Medical Studies That Most of Them Are Wrong"