Too bad that people who strongly believe that burning fossil fuels is healthy will reject this and similar studies as smokers did a few years ago.

In reference to the about entry, what I question are the numbers they come up with.

More junk science from MIT.

Here is what is basically wrong with the model. Emissions do not hurt people, exposures hurts people.

That is the problem with statistical models. Statistically being a Brit and not too well educated Davemart has smoked lots of cigarettes. However, Davemart’s exposure does not harm me.

According to the MIT model air quality must really suck where I live. The good news is that measured air quality is very good.

To put is simply, the model is wrong.

“A huge number of those deaths can be avoided by the use of fuel cells and batteries.”

Not true because air quality is very good in North America.

“The German and Japanese”

There is a pattern to BS at some at GCC. First they are wrong about where I live, they talk about someplace.

If Dacemart talked about the benefits of his fool cell by telling us about the ‘measured’ air quality I would not think he is a ‘resident lunatic/shill’ for fool cells.

“to greatly alleviate the problem.”

Of course we already have because air quality is very good in North America. There was a time 40 years ago when that was not true. The good news is that we have demonstrated that the systemic use of technology can solve environmental problems.

“In reference to the about entry, what I question are the numbers they come up with.”

I have looked at the studies of Levy et al and many others. First they looked at high levels of pollution 30 years that were common at time. Second they looked at association not causation by looking at death certificates. A theory of causation in that the pollution triggered heart attacks in chronically ill old people. Of course this theory has yet to be proven although they have had plenty of time.

“The casualty rate is relatively high, …”

That is not true and the problem with fear mongers. Statistically insignificant is not the same relatively high. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

“No Linear Threshold for radiation is one such hypothesis on very thin foundations.”

There are some who like to debate how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. From a practical standpoint is does not matter. Some claim that nuclear power is expensive because of regulations. Depending on which theory you subscribe to, a 500 mrem limit could justified based on risk instead of the current 5 mrem limit. Since we do not have a problem meeting the current limits, there is no reason to increase them.

When it comes to air quality, we have reduced pollution levels below the levels where we are seeing health effects. There is lots on evidence that an aging population has health problems. Not much evidence that pollution is the cause.

For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with this site who may imagine that Kit is simply exhibiting reasonable scepticism, it should be pointed out that he simply ignores all the countless studies which have been referenced to him.

Here is one analysis of PRESENT air quality in the US in respect to health, including California:

'Particles, SOx, and acid aerosols are a complex group of distinct pollutants that have common sources and usually covary in concentration. During the past two decades, the chemical characteristics and the geographic distribution of sulfur oxide and particulate pollution have been altered by control strategies, specifically taller stacks for power plants, put in place in response to air pollution regulations adopted in the early 1970s. While the increasing stack heights have lowered local ambient levels, the residence time of SOx and particles in the air have been increased, thereby promoting transformation to various particulate sulfate compounds, including acidic sulfates. These sulfate particles constitute a large fraction of the total mass of smaller particles (< 3 microns in aerodynamic diameter). Epidemiologic studies have consistently provided evidence of adverse health effects of these air pollutants. Particulate and SO2 pollution were strongly implicated in the acute morbidity and mortality associated with the severe pollution episodes in Donora (Pennsylvania), London, and New York in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. There is new evidence that even current ambient levels of PM10 (30 to 150 micrograms/m3) are associated with increases in daily cardiorespiratory mortality and in total mortality, excluding accidental and suicide deaths. These associations have been shown in many different communities, as widely different in particle composition and climate as Philadelphia, St. Louis, Utah Valley, and Santa Clara County, California. It has recently been shown in a long-term prospective study of adults in the United States that chronic levels of higher PM10 pollution are associated with increased mortality after adjusting for several individual risk factors. Daily fluctuations in PM10 levels have also been shown to be related to acute respiratory hospital admissions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to decrements in peak flow rates in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8542133

In one way or another, Kit will evade or obfuscate.

The model is not wrong. Kit P lives in less-populated area with perhaps cleaner electricity generation method. The pollutions from coal-fired power plants and vehicles are well known.

However, the good news is that, since 2005, on-road diesel and gasoline engines are forced to be much cleaner due to much more stringent EPA regulations. The EPA is also trying to phase out coal-fired power generation. Furthermore, the bulk of new power generation capacity now comes from renewable sources with zero pollution. HEV's, BEV's and PHEV's are rapidly gaining in sales. FCV's, being ZEV with the advantage of rapid fill-up, will be mass-produced by 2015 from many different MFG's.

Gradually, air pollution and GHG emission will be things of the past. All thanks to modern technologies brought on by stringent environmental regulations.

Yes Kit...life expectancy has been going down and many difficult to cure diseases have been going up in USA due to all that so called clean air from fossil fuels burning etc.

The idea is to make more and more people sick so that industry can make higher profits by treating them.

The people involved/benefiting in those expensive 'growing cure' treatments for man made diseases should have the decency to tell the truth?

The filters on GCC flag lots of things for moderator review, so they "vanish" and re-appear when approved.  I've learned to be patient.

Kit P is quite correct. If you believe the professional "hired guns" writing a biased study for their clients who want a predetermined answer, you would also have to believe that all the hard work of the past 45 years by many people including green environmentalists, has accomplished nothing at all.

I may object to some green excess, but I do respect the work and what has been accomplished, by all side working together. The likes of Harvey D and Dave apparently do not.

Kit P has wisely observed the false basis of the "Study". That someone smoking a cigarette in London has no impact here in North America, on him. So are the false, pre-derived conclusions of this "so-called" Study.

That is patent bologna. Our Air and Waters on the North American continent have been almost completely cleaned up.

Phony greens in Europe have mostly offered voluminous hot air, and little else; and accomplished very little in the mean time. Only now and going forward into 2017 and beyond, is Europe actually beginning to cleanse its Air and Water, rather then posture and just emote; but collect voluminous taxes on a rather harmless and necessary trace gas.

Only then will they start to match N. A. regulations in force since the early 1980s, some 30 years ago, and long since super-ceded by even tougher regulations. By 2047, Europe may have air as clean as in North America, right now. Then the hired guns will have to go farther afield, to find a similar parallel to falsely conjoin in their "Studies".

Soot particles, NOx, CO, unburned hydrocarbon. Does anyone need a study to know that these are bad for your health. It took hundreds of years for governments to officially recognized the health affects of cigarette smoker, even though most people already knew that it was bad for your health. Sitting in a traffic jam is bad for your health. If you need a study to tell you that, there is something wrong with your brain function.

“In one way or another, Kit will evade or obfuscate.”

I do not think that Davemart actually bothers to read the long cut and paste. Rather than obfuscate, I will try to make it clear to those who have an open mind.

First thing to note is the date of Davemart’s linked article. It was published in 1996.

“the acute morbidity and mortality associated with the severe pollution episodes in Donora (Pennsylvania), London, and New York in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.”

Pollution used to be bad with significant health effects. Then we worked on cleaning up the air and air quality was much better by 1996. The debate shifted to how we could make the air even cleaner. Since 1996 there have been significant new regulation aimed at old coal plants and sulfur in transportation fuel. As a result, air quality has improved to the point in North America that there is not significant pollution problem.

Recent extreme weather conditions are directly related to past increases in air pollution and GHG.

Kit and D have already moved or will soon move to higher grounds?