KILLCARB.ORG
Dedicated to Putting an End to a Rogue State Agency

Join Our CARB Awareness Email List
Email:
For Email Marketing you can trust
HOME
Forum
CARB Meetings
Make Your Signs
Make Your Own T-Shirts
Tips for Truckers
The Gov
Senate Members
Assembly Members
CARB Payroll
Who is CARB
Hien Tran Fraud
ClimateGate
Reading Room
Links of Interest
Contact Us



OPINION

From Richard S.

How Shocking - a new compound more dangerous than the rest in our air


All, another “batch” of UC California based air scar propaganda 50,000 and counting. This interesting story is about new, more dangerous compounds and particles never considered before – all right out of an Asimov short story. You have to love the self-serving comments by this crew of political scientists:

“If the authors’ analysis is correct, the public is now facing a false sense of security in knowing whether the air they breathe is indeed safe,” said Bill Becker, of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
Taken together, the findings of the new study and of a handful of others published in the past two years could mean that two decades’ worth of pollution-control strategies — focused on keeping tiny particles from escaping into the atmosphere — have addressed only part of the air quality problem.

The Irvine study of the formation of secondary compounds in the atmosphere, which will be published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Science, upends previous assumptions about the fate of the byproducts of the pollution from internal-combustion engines. These gaseous byproducts were thought to incorporate themselves into tiny airborne drops of liquid that would then dissipate quickly as the drops evaporated.

Clearly, this is all the next orchestrated attack on clean diesel, gasoline and even natural gas from vehicles. Interestingly, natural gas may give off more of these types of compounds than thought, maybe even more than diesel emissions. Who wants to bet me where the next round of “important” emissions research, regulations and “missed” premature death claims come from?

Funny how one of UC Irvine’s most respected researcher in this area (Dr. Phalen) was not part of this, or is it?  Prof. Phalen’s lack of following the “air party line” on this subject exposed in his book "The Particulate Air Pollution Controversy" probably sealed his fate as a researcher in this area. All proving the bias within this (Froines) realm of science today.

We can all call these new compounds: Regulatory Perpetuation Particles (RPP’s)

If this doesn’t want to make you puke! Enough is Enough! They will never stop – their jobs, tenure, grants, pensions depend on all of this and so does thousands of other takers from the NRDC to the EPA. If the ambient air was clean room classified, they would still find it unacceptably dangerous and a killer of children and old folks – which ironically it would be – as our immunity system will become compromised if this continues. I suppose we should thank China and India for this!

So which brave soul/film studio will ever produce Michael Crichton’s, State of Fear book into a movie and expose all of this? I wonder when this book will become standard fair for public school curriculum – like never! Read it all and weep.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/science/earth/scientists-find-new-dangers-in-tiny-but-pervasive-particles-in-air-pollution.html?_r=1


Scientists Find New Dangers in Tiny but Pervasive Particles in Air Pollution
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: February 18, 2012


Fine atmospheric particles — smaller than one-thirtieth of the diameter of a human hair — were identified more than 20 years ago as the most lethal of the widely dispersed air pollutants in the United States. Linked to both heart and lung disease, they kill an estimated 50,000 Americans each year. But more recently, scientists have been puzzled to learn that a subset of these particles, called secondary organic aerosols, has a greater total mass, and is thus more dangerous, than previously understood.
Green

A batch of new scientific findings is helping sort out the discrepancy, including, most recently, a study led by scientists at the University of California, Irvine, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., that is scheduled to be released on Tuesday. It indicates that the compounds’ persistence in the atmosphere was under-represented in older scientific models.

“If the authors’ analysis is correct, the public is now facing a false sense of security in knowing whether the air they breathe is indeed safe,” said Bill Becker, of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

Taken together, the findings of the new study and of a handful of others published in the past two years could mean that two decades’ worth of pollution-control strategies — focused on keeping tiny particles from escaping into the atmosphere — have addressed only part of the problem.

Scientists and regulators say that new models, strategies and technologies would be needed to address the secondary organic aerosol particles, which are formed not during combustion but later, in the wake of interactions between pollutants and natural chemical compounds.

Paul Shepson, a professor of analytical and atmospheric chemistry at Purdue University and one of the reviewers of the Irvine paper, called it “highly significant in scientific terms,” adding that current models of fine particulates “grossly underpredict” their density, “sometimes by as much as a factor of 10.”

A former regulator agreed. “There’s no doubt this is important stuff,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who ran the Environmental Protection Agency’s air and radiation program during the administration of President George W. Bush. “It may be harder than we thought” to clean the fine particles out of the air and protect public health, he said, “but if we really know what’s causing it, we can focus our efforts more.”

Mr. Holmstead added that the findings could significantly affect the future design and implementation of air-pollution control strategies and that regulators would have to rethink the models that inform air quality rules.

This new information has scientists questioning whether climate change modeling should be adjusted as well.

The E.P.A. has announced that it is reassessing the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, which were last set in 2006 at levels higher than the agency’s staff and scientific advisers had recommended. The agency’s most recent data show that airborne particles decreased 27 percent from 2000 to 2010.

A spokeswoman for the E.P.A. said the agency usually declined to comment on individual studies, preferring to incorporate them into its larger analyses during the rulemaking process.

The Irvine study of the formation of secondary compounds in the atmosphere, which will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, upends previous assumptions about the fate of the byproducts of the pollution from internal-combustion engines. These gaseous byproducts were thought to incorporate themselves into tiny airborne drops of liquid that would then dissipate quickly as the drops evaporated.

The new study finds instead that they attach themselves more tightly to airborne organic particles, creating tiny tar balls that evaporate more slowly and persist longer than anyone had thought. E.P.A. models built on these assumptions now appear to understate the total amount of fine particles, according to Barbara J. Finlayson-Pitts, a professor at Irvine and one of the study’s authors.

“If you’re going to use models in a predictive sense, you need to make sure they are getting the right answer for the right reasons,” she said. “Right now most models are not getting the right answer.”

Allen Robinson, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, focuses his work on fine particulates and their regulation. “We haven’t been trying to control a lot of the organics,” he said of the subset of particles that is the subject of the new findings.

Emissions of coal-fired power plants do not play a role in the formation of these organic particles, several scientists said, but they do come into play in the formation of sulfide-based particles.