Another day, another hysterical headline demonizing the automobile. This one arrives to us thanks to a study from California State University [via the SF Examiner]. Now, I’m no epidemiologist, nor do I play one in the autoblogosphere. But whenever I see the media glom onto research that promotes a particular political agenda, I want to see the methodology. (Hell, even if a study doesn’t become the darling of a crusade, I still want to see the methodology.) OK, so, “Hall and colleague Victor Brajer analyzed ozone and fine particulate concentrations across the two [most pollluted] basins in five-by-five kilometer grids from 2005 through 2007. The researchers applied those numbers to the health affects they are known to cause, then assigned peer-reviewed economic values to each illness or death that could result.” Fair enough. And then… “To illustrate its point, the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.” See? Now who asked them to do that?
“The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has been making grants since 1967 to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world.” This one was $90k, out of last year’s $483,654,925 in grants and disbursed $426,384,396 in grant and gift payments (shazam!). Did the grant giver and grantee had an agenda here? “‘For decades there has been a tug of war over what to do about air pollution,’ said Jane Hall, lead author of the study and an internationally recognized expert in the economics of regulation and the environment at Cal State Fullerton. ‘We are paying now for not having done enough.'” Or, in this case, getting paid.
Air pollution deaths are only measurable when comparing large groups with other large groups. These large groups have a whole host of multiply-variable inputs.
Vehicle injury and death numbers are much more precise.
To compare them is a huge stretch of the math. One simple problem: An Oregonian leaves his/her pristine Eugene air, drives to see family in San Diego and is killed in a crash in LA. They are counted in the auto deaths for the region but they scarcely would have died sooner from the 2 hours of toxic air just from driving through the region. False positives on the other side seem likely as well.
Others will be able to state this statistical problem more clearly, but it is a problem.
Here is the statistical discrepancy of the study: research was done on are 5 clicks by 5 clicks (3mi by 3 mi). The proper conclusion would be how many folks hit the bucket from accidents in 3mi. by 3mi. area vs. respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.
I don’t see a problem with this. Facts are (statistically proven) facts Robert.
Bad air sucks, we should do everything within reason to get rid of it.
Facts are (statistically proven) facts Robert.
Unfortunately these typically are not statistically proven facts. Most of these studies use lower confidence levels that would be rejected if one were to use more common statistical analysis.
Unfortunately environmental health reports always seem to be based on shaky science and tenuous causal links. For further examples one could actually look at the studies of health impacts from second hand smoke. (And before anyone wants to argue, it’s only common sense to think that second hand smoke is a low level carcinogen and therefore is not healthy.) However the vast majority of these studies have found no measurable affect which does not stop many organizations from making ridiculous claims about the annual death toll from second hand smoke.
I live in the San Joaquin Valley (Bakersfield) and have most of my life. No question the air quality is bad, but to calculate how many deaths are directly caused by it is not accurate. What is interesting and not mentioned in the study is the absolutely stupid politicians who have been in the pockets of developers out here for a long time. There are hundreds of thousands of new homes built within the past five years sprawling across this great valley (the fruit and vegetable capital of America.) These housing subdivisions were built without a great deal of planning, literally tens of thousands of houses in Bakersfield alone built on farm land, where the roads now used to get to the subdivisions were built in the 50’s and 60’s are one lane each way and there is no mass transit to and from the developments. Not to mention the shopping centers built the same way. The obvious happened, roads that once ran freely, are clogged with cars on outdated and overmatched roads, causing a backup of traffic and lots of idling of vehicles. Add further the hundreds of drive through coffee places, fast food places etc where thousands of cars sit idling.
California has talked for decades about building a high speed train and nothing occured, in fact a ballot measure just failed on November 4th to sell $9.9 billion in bonds for initial development. Of course the bond issue was on the ballot at the worst possible time, when California’s budget is near bankruptcy. The funds were never put forward during the golden years of the state (Disney had it right, he built a monorail in 1955 that is still very functional today), way ahead of his time and a visionary. We built freeways that are now gridlocked, and the funds are no longer available to change the status quo.
There is little alternative to the autmobile out here, unlike living in a big city where one can commute by bus or rail, that is not available in the San Joaquin valley, at least to make any sort of difference.
Besides autos, we could talk for days of the other factors to air pollution, the massive number of trucks going through, dust from farming operations, millions of people from Mexico coming through with older cars, etc. etc.
um, is anyone willing to step forward and assert the following two claims:
1. No one in California dies from respiratory illness or asthma, especially not children.
2. People with respiratory illness or heart disease do not die earlier as the result of fine particulate.
anyone? If you can’t cite a study on either side of the issue, then you’re guessing or trolling.
ok, then, we’re just debating what percentage of deaths and what percentage of lifespan are cut short by particulate.
Norman
For those interested in actually seeing what evidence exists, might I suggest you start with American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
You may need to use your library card to log into your library’s databases of journal articles to get the full text, this stuff is sometimes hard to find with Google.
Does anyone want to dispute the following statement? Stats experts?
“There’s no death certificate that says specifically someone died of air pollution, but cities with higher rates of air pollution have much greater ratios of death from cardiovascular diseases.” he said (Bart Croes, chief researcher for the California Air Resources Board). Californians exposed to high levels of fine particulates had their lives cut short, on average by l0 years, the board staff found.
A USC study on this topic is tracking 23,000 Southern Californians, so you guys hiding behind general critiques of stats should be feeling quite a breeze through your gauzy hospital gown.
CNN: “Children are more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution because their lungs don’t fully form until they are adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted.”
CNN: How air pollution hurts your kids lungs
Why the denial that some people’s livelihoods and avocations on the coast kill other people’s children in Riverside? Own it.
Also, I note that studies are published. This one was published Wednesday. If someone here promises to read it and get back to us on their critique of the methodology, I will endeavor to find the full text for you.
Norman
hitguy – Prop1A did pass this time around, by the way.
Agree with you that the air in the San Joaquin Valley is terrible, and is why I will never live there. I have family that live in Coalinga, and they all suffer from ongoing allergies and asthma. Not to mention a case of Valley Fever.
A Pulmonary Specialist’s Paradise.
norman,
Move outside the city if you don’t like the air. It’s a free country. If that’s not enough for you, then lobby congress to do something that will actually work – tax air pollution directly or indirectly.
No cap and trade nonsense, no billions on public projects, no telling people what to drive, etc. None of that has ever worked, or will. CAFE is a complete screw up.
Lastly, everyone needs to move out of their imaginary paradise where other people don’t do the things which bother them, but allow the things that they value. Everything you do affects others, there has to be a limit to the limits.
Landcrusher,
My comments didn’t advocate any government regulation. My comments expressed no complaints other than people failing to acknowledge evidence based reasoning. I am an empiricist. You are welcome to use some other form of reasoning. It is indeed a free country a lot of the time.
Since you mention it, in my imaginary paradise, people try to minimize the number of children killed unnecessarily by economic activity.
Also, in my imaginary paradise, people are accountable for their behavior.
I’ll make a deal with you: You stop using products shipped and trucked through the port of Los Angeles, and I won’t attribute any fractional child deaths to your economic choices.
Norman
Hey, don’t work up a sweat empiricising and attributing now. The folks that really are trying to do something that’s good for the kids might need that ac to cool themselves off. We don’t want to waste it.
Could it be that safer cars are messing up this “ratio”?
Remove the air bags, median barriers and speed limits. Stop safety inspections on all commercial vehicles. Put bicycle and pedestrian lanes on the freeways.
In a few years nature should straighten things out for the few that are left.
Seriously, I can’t believe somebody was paid to do a study that shows us something everybody already knows. LA has air pollution? What a shock!