The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a 3 page article on June 10 condemning EPA’s proposal to not change standards for particulate matter (PM, PM2.5, PM10) because science shows that the current standards allow too many people to die.
In the article, the authors state that lowering the standard for long-term (annual) PM2.5 from 12μg per cubic meter to 9μg per cubic meter could lower excess deaths by up to 27%, and lowering the short-term (24 hour) standard from 35μg per cubic meter to 25-30μg per cubic meter would also save laves.
In addition, myriad other health problems would be prevented, including heart and lung events, cognitive problems, dementia, and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes.
The article notes that the committee advised the EPA that disparities in health risk borne by communities of color should be considered when choosing where to set the standard.
Despite all the scientific evidence of harm from PM, and the disparities in health risk experienced by communities of color, EPA decided to leave the PM standards as they are. This will surely results in lawsuits, waste more time, and allow more people to needlessly die.
The article was written by former members of the Particulate Matter Review Panel which EPA dismissed last fall right before they released their scientific assessment of current studies about health and PM.
The article describes how the EPA process works, what the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Particulate Matter Review Panel do, how members have been chosen for each, and how EPA is favoring industry and ignoring scientists who study health effects of air pollution.
