My atmospheric chemistry professor gave his point of view, and I felt it was worth sharing. He spoke of how the current standard (of 80 ppb) is rounded to the nearest 5, so the standard really means no more than 84 ppb. This new standard is measured more precisely so the new standard of 75 ppb ozone now actually means 75 ppb. Essentially, this means a nearly 10 percent reduction of primary ozone standards. The EPA Science Advisory Committee (SAC) has previously recommended a level of no more than 70 ppb, so even this new standard isn’t good enough.
quote: "Unfortunately, real science appears to have been tainted by political science," said Clean Air Watch president Frank O'Donnell.
"The Bush Administration is compromising public health to save industry money."
Industry is opposing this new standard, which is to be expected:
quote: Dan Ridinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute which represents 70% of the US electric power sector, said the new regulations were pointless.
"It looks to us like the rationale behind tightening the standard significantly skews and misrepresents the scientific record of ozone's health effects," he told the BBC.
My professor also pointed out that the EPA made no Secondary Standard, which is geared more to protect the environment from our emissions. (He said the Primary Standards are to protect us from us). He told us that the failure to establish a secondary standard is a serious disappointment, and it the next chance to change it won't happen for another 5 years.
Is this just the same battle we’ve been fighting for 40 years, with new standards for human health and opposition from industry because it costs too much? There’s got to be a better way.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, I don't remember the relationship between bad Ozone and the Ozone layer that has a hole in it. I knew once.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bad ozone is in the troposphere (ground level) and is corrosive and harmful to humans and is at higher levels than usual due to human-made emissions.
Good ozone is in the stratosphere (up high) and blocks most of the harmful rays from the sun and protects life on earth. Human made emissions (think refrigerants and aerosol cans of old) were especially good at destroying this ozone.
That's it in a nutshell, pooka.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
My atmospheric chemistry professor gave his point of view, and I felt it was worth sharing. He spoke of how the current standard (of 80 ppb) is rounded to the nearest 5, so the standard really means no more than 84 ppb.
I think there may be a slight error in here somewhere. If you round to the nearest 5, then an 84 would round to 85. In this scenario, the highest you could go would be 82.4999 etc. If however, they were rounding to the nesest 10, then 84 would round to 80.
As far as the math goes, that jumped out to me. Thanks for posting the info!
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Man, and I thought I had this math thing down pat.
Edit to add: That's right...I remember now. He said that the standard was a little lenient on the second digit, so an 84 could could count as an 80. In other words, rounded to the nearest 10. Thanks guys.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The BBC article missed the most important point "Mr. Johnson’s decision, if it survives court review, would lower that to 75, although implementation could be decades away." Also "a scientific advisory panel recommended 60 to 70 parts per billion."
Then there is the the report on the health effects of pollution in the GreatLakes which the DubyaAdministration is barring from public release, "caught up in analysis paralysis, you never get anything out."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
