Fairbanksgas wrote on Saturday, Nov 28 at 09:41 AM »

"The particulates are known to embed in the lungs and make people sick."

...and the genius response- "This is a flat out lie!"

Then he pastes some article he found on the internet somewhere, trying to convince...someone...that smoke is not dangerous to the human lungs. Meanwhile- that was already tried, long ago, by the tobacco companies.

Being environmentally responsible is not some big conspiracy, people. Nobody is after your money, guns or religion.

agree but I don't think Parnell has the stones that Hickel had to go through with it.

___________________

Would little pebbles help? Cause we have Luke!

"We need someone to do that again with this issue. "

I agree but I don't think Parnell has the stones that Hickel had to go through with it.

Golden Country, I too, remember when Walley told the EPA to take a hike. People were getting sick all around town, and they had only studied the oxygenated fuel in Denver as their "cold weather" test. When it got cold here, that stuff was sickening....literally!! Walley Hickel, being the Patriot he is, told the EPA that we were not going to use that fuel anymore. That was the last we ever heard of it!! We need someone to do that again with this issue.

I have an air problem inside my house when I DON'T burn my wood stove. The air gets cold, making everything in the house cold. Also, it makes me cold. The best way I've found to keep the inside of my house warm, is to put a fire in my woodstove. Does anyone else have this problem? How do y'all fix it?

Why is the New-Miner so fair and balanced on this issue? All I read are stories about how bad our air quality is and how right the local, state, and federal regulators are in protecting our health. Dare you to publish the information presented by Fairbanksgas!

"The particulates are known to embed in the lungs and make people sick."

This is a flat out lie! The studies used by the EPA did not reach this conclusion whatsoever. The studies that the EPA used to justify this program are now 20 years old, google ACS or Six Cities study. and they showed a .7-1.2% increase in mortality for subjects that lived in an area with an average level of PM above .35 year round.

I will role the dice all day long on 100:1 odds if it the only affordable energy alternative that we have. Personally I save $3,000 - $4,000 a year by not adding to the 65 million gallons of high-sulfur heating oil burned in this community annually.

**Problems with EPA's Studies**

"In crafting its proposed PM 2.5 rule, EPA staff relied exclusively on observational epidemiological studies to show the purported cause-and-effect relationship between PM 2.5 and health. Some studies show a small correlation between particulate matter and premature mortality after controlling for confounding factors.

This methodology implicitly assumes the researchers can and have controlled for all of the possible externalities (confounding factors) that would influence health. Such studies tend to overstate the effects the researchers are trying to find.

EPA relies heavily on an American Cancer Society (ACS) study and the Harvard Six Cities study. But a follow-up and reanalysis of the ACS study by the Health Effects Institute found some strange results. They found that PM 2.5 kills those with no more than a high school degree, but not those with at least some college education; it kills men, but not women; and it kills the moderately active but not people who are very active or sedentary.

These results are bizarre if we are to believe the ACS study has controlled for all of the factors that could influence health. These results suggest there are other factors at play and that the health effects are not necessarily the result of PM 2.5.

This is not the only problem with the ACS study. When the Health Effects Institute controlled for people moving into and out of cities, the apparent effects of PM 2.5 declined by two-thirds and became statistically insignificant. This suggests the health effects EPA is trying to attribute to PM 2.5 could be better explained by things that cause people to move, such as economic factors.

The Harvard Six Cities study has similar problems. It found PM 2.5 was not associated with increased mortality for people with more than a high school education. Again, this result is bizarre if we are to believe that PM 2.5 itself is a killer.

EPA's Claims Contradicted

A recent review of toxicological and clinical studies, published in Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology, found:

"Toxicologic data on typical forms of pollution-derived PM strongly suggest that current ambient concentrations in the U.S. are too small to cause significant disease or death. We review here the results of inhalation studies using concentrated ambient particles, diesel engine exhaust particulate matter, and sulfate and nitrate salts, and find no evidence that moderate concentrations are lethal. The expectation that lives will be saved by reducing ambient PM 2.5 in the U.S. is not supported by the weight of scientific evidence, although other bases for regulating PM may be justifiable."

Unreliable Experiment Used

Even clinical studies that appear to lend support to EPA's claims of the dangers of PM 2.5 at normal ambient concentrations do not stand up to scrutiny.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in December 2005 that claimed to show PM 2.5 at current ambient levels harm Americans. The study asserted current ambient levels of PM 2.5 are associated with heart disease. But the report itself showed the results were not statistically significant.

Furthermore, to find any effect caused by particulate matter, the authors used laboratory mice that were specially bred to be susceptible to heart disease.

Air pollution expert Joel Schwartz explained the problem of using these mice:

"The very reason for using these grossly unrealistic mice to study PM 2.5 is that PM 2.5 does not kill regular mice or other animals at concentrations relevant to real-world exposures. ...

"[I]f you design an artificial mouse that can't regulate its fat or cholesterol levels, it isn't any surprise that even a minor environmental insult can cause it some health problems. But this doesn't tell you much about the effects of low-level air pollution on regular mice or on people."

Study's Results Self-Contradictory

In fact, it is easy to assert the JAMA study actually finds PM 2.5 is not dangerous at current ambient levels. As Schwartz explained:

"PM 2.5 has such minute health effects that to even get PM 2.5 to cause an increase in heart disease you need mice specially engineered to have unrealistically stupendous cholesterol levels, you have to feed them a high-fat diet, and you have to expose them to unrealistically high acute doses of PM 2.5 five days a week, every week, for a quarter of their lives. Based on the JAMA mouse study, the current PM 2.5 NAAQS are health-protective with plenty of room to spare."

This quick review is by no means a complete catalogue of the problems with the studies EPA relies on for its PM 2.5 rule. Schwartz has more information in his Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, and a number of industry groups contributed to very statistically sophisticated comments to EPA in a paper titled, Comments on Behalf of Industry Trade Associations on EPA's Transition to New or Revised Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20080/Analysis_Elusive_Particles_of_Truth_EPAs_Proposed_PM_25_Regulations.html

What's Wrong with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)? http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/11335.pdf

I agree with golden_country.

"Some day a real leader will come along and help us instead of going BHA BAA BHA. Send EPA back to Washington where they belong..."

It seems like those leaders are in short supply. I do recall one of the greats, Walter J Hickel who boldly, and with a national audience, told the EPA in no uncertain terms that Alaska was not going to use oxygenated fuel anymore as mandated by the EPA. This after countless health concerns and several studies from Europe saying that this additive was indeed harmful. Hickel flat out told them, federal highway funds be damned, that we are not going along anymore. The EPA blinked! Now the carbon monoxide levels are fine, largely due to regulation from the auto industry resulting in cleaner burning cars. I believe that is where the EPA does some good, but to force individual citizens to stop burning wood to keep warm is a terrible practice. They should make manufactures clean up their stove designs. Then go after the other sources of pollution such as coal fired power plants.

As for boilers, they could be cleaned up greatly by changing the way they are being used. There is simply no way a boiler that is made to smolder the wood while the home thermostat cycles on and off is poor design. What needs to happen is for the boiler to heat a large quantity of water, like say 2000 gallons, from which the home taps off from for heat. That way the boiler runs more or less full time until the tank is hot enough and then allowed to go out for a day or so. If the boiler is designed right, it should burn as cleanly as any stove.

I wish the EPA would do something nice, like make it warm in Fairbanks because the cold weather remains unhealthy for sensitive groups primarily the very old very young and people with respiratory diseases.

Larmex, i'll tell you what has changed... the population. Oh yeah and there is that lovely new fad known as the outdoor wood burning stove. Dozens more have gone up over this last summer. They are horrible things. With the pupolation increase you also have not only the wood stove jerks but all the other pulotion the average person generates. I know that it must seem that if somone isnt from the interior of Alaska they must not have an idea what they are talking about. Truth is they do. But what you fail to realize is they are trying to help, they are not running from state to state looking to prove people wrong and threaten their way of life. In addition, since this state is part of the United States (many fail to realize) the EPA does belong here and is obligated to inform people of dangerous situations. But i guess you should fire the mayor of North Pole so a new bold one can send the EPA packing, that will help the air quality... or will it?

Just what has changed in the last 50 years in Faribanks? When I first arrived here LOTS of homes were heated with wood, and coal.Before I arrived I am told that the NC company burned wood in their power plant, LOTS of it.

Isanova,, how dare you bring up the power plants, its just got to be your wood stove, we can stop you, the power plants are off limits.

If its not your car then it must be your home, EPA needs something to do, and you are IT. Sooner or later , if we are to remain free, we must stand up and DEMAND some common sence from our leaders, if we could just find ONE. The new mayor will follow the old one , because it is easer to swim down stream than up stream. Some day a real leader will come along and help us instead of going BHA BAA BHA. Send EPA back to Washington where they belong...

Umm yea, it's been that way more or less every day for the 4 years I've lived here! It's part of living in a bowl-valley with three coal plants burning day and night.