Mr. Bender states very clearly his purpose for writing his February 18 letter in
his last paragraph. Here are his own words."The only real point
I am trying to make is that we need to stop going to the government to try to
solve our problems. The real problems come when the government gets involved. In
about 99 percent of the cases, when government becomes involved, things get
worse."Air pollution for Mr. Bender comes in a poor second. It
is just a means to state his ongoing thesis that government is thus:1. "...we need to stop going to the government..."2.
"The real problems come when government gets involved."3.
"...99 percent of the..." time government makes "...things get
worse."What a distortion of the real world. I assume that Mr.
Bender includes the government of the USA and the state of Utah.If
the result of government action is almost always bad then the foundation must be
very suspect also. Major foundations of state and national governments are their
Constitutions. They may need some additional changes here and there. But they
should and do produce basically good “fruits”. Not 99 percent worse
Re: "Scientific medical studies confirm that death rates from many diseases
literally rise as air pollution rises."Hmmmm.So,
since Utah air quality is much, MUCH better today than it was 50 years ago, and
these diseases are still on the rise, why are we straining so hard to divine
some cause related to air quality?I suspect it has less to do with
real concern for human health, and more to do with advocacy of one or another
disingenuous liberal "crisis."
As bad as Salt Lake Valley air is thank heaven for the federal government air
pollution standards. Can you imagine our air if cars were still burning leaded
procuradorfiscal,Still grappling with facts that don't fit your world
view? There are many scientific studies examining the effects of particulate
pollution on human health. You are going to have to do more than provide snide
remarks about your liberal conspiracy du jour if you want to refute those. We all know that the air quality is better now than half a century ago.
But if the current air is still harmful to some of us, why would you want to
just throw up your hands and quit? Why not work towards solutions that
don't cripple our economy?
Ya gotta love the use of bad science by well-meaning but highly biased
professionals. The claims about autism, asthma, and leukemia are not supported
by valid research. They appeal to the good doctor, however, because they seem
like "common sense" and they support the field in which he makes his
living. They just aren't true.
And then there are all those instant experts posting here whose scientific
knowledge is based entirely upon what they've read in some
anti-environmental piece of propaganda.
Dear moderator, please ignore this comment if it is a duplicate. I tried, twice,
to enter it without apparent success:Power plants save lives and
provide far more benefits than harm. Energy use is a simple matter of
trade-offs. Would the eco-nuts really argue that we'd be better off without
coal fired power? Would they argue that wind or solar can meet our current
energy requirements? Have they given up driving cars? Our air is continuously
getting cleaner. Ohio State U is developing a process by which energy is
extracted from coal by a chemical process that virtually eliminates pollutants.
I'm guessing the earth-firsters will find something to whine about with
this process as they have resisting movement toward nuclear energy.
Dr. G.H. Ross should know by now that to many Utah Republicans - Doctors,
Scientists and Universities are fools and liars who pander to the political
left, and that only college drop-outs on AM radio speak the truth.
Dr. G.H. Ross is neither a fool nor a liar, and is right-wing. Credible
medical scientific publications 'back up' what I have stated,
to refute 'Sensible Scientist', who states about points I
have writen: "They just aren't true." The ARE
true, and he is wrong and arrogant. See the articles from PUBMED
about Autism, Asthma, and Leukemia. Sensible Scientist is either very
poorly MEDICALLY educated or delights in telling untruths about
people who might disagree with his political agenda. He is proven WRONG.
LOOK IT UP, 'SCIENTIST'.---------------------------------------Environmental mercury
release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological
study of Texas. Health Place. 2006 Jun;12(2):203-9.Palmer RF
et al.-----------------------------------Asthma exacerbation
and proximity of residence to major roads: a population-based
matched case-control study among the pediatric Medicaid population in Detroit, Michigan. Environ Health. 2011 Apr 23;10:34. doi:
10.1186/1476-069X-10-34.Li S, et al---------------------------------------Road traffic and childhood
leukemia: the ESCALE study (SFCE). Environ Health Perspect. 2011
Apr;119(4):566-72. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002429. Epub 2010 Dec 8.
Amigou A et al.'Sensible Scientist' SHOULD DO HIS RESEARCH and apologize to all.
Re: ". . . if the current air is still harmful to some of us, why would you
want to just throw up your hands and quit?"I wouldn't.But step one in that process is to show that current air IS "still
harmful to some of us."Disingenuous liberals lurch from one
manufactured crisis to the next in their neverending quest to justify their
demand that we surrender to them our freedoms and prosperity. But real people,
sensible people, will demand they meet their burden of proving a crisis actually
exists, before we get overly exorcised about it.If the good Doc, or
his patients, actually had proof that industry, cars, whatever, caused their
asthma, autism, or luekemia, they and their trial lawyers would be rich.In the real world, however, only Docs and lawyers are rich -- not the
sufferers.We all can -- and should -- empathize with sufferers from
these terrible diseases. But, notwithstanding the assertions of cynical liberal
activists, who exploit their suffering for political purposes, suffering does
not entitle them to our freedoms or civilization.
To "Emajor" what "procuradorfiscal" does have significant
merit.If you look at the pollution levels in Utah over the past 30
years or so, the pollution levels are decreasing. See the report titled
"Air Quality Newsletter—2008" from the Wasatch Front Regional
Council. They show that since the 1980's that pollution is going down.
That does validate the question. If pollution levels are decreasing, and the
claim is that pollution causes the health problems, why are the pollution
related health problems increasing?The other problem with the
studies that people use to say that Utah needs to clean up its air are all based
on year-round pollution. Utah's pollution problems are short term, and are
not like LA and other areas that have high pollution levels all the time.The bigger question that I don't think has been answered is what
are the effects of short term pollution exposure? Think of it like somebody who
exposed to second hand smoke 2 times per month, is their risk of lung cancer
greater than somebody who has no exposure?
Now that the good Doctor has dared to put up his proof of
"pseudo-science" on the table, I think it is time to hear back from
"sensible scientist" with his proof that exposes the Dr. as a liar and a
dupe of the left. We all should stand ready to be impressed by some good old
home cooked Idaho science. While it is true that noy all intelligent people
have degrees after their name, it would be nice to see "sense" show some
and prove that his opinion is not just more partisan blather.
Chilly, that's just plain silly.We have a problem that can be
solved without creating another disaster. We have made a lot of good progress,
but there is a long way to go.Should we simply stop trying?
IRONY OF THE DAY: In a debate between Russell Bender of Nephi and the large
group of credentialed medical professionals who are now speaking out on our air
quality, Russell Bender WINS! (that is, in the bizarro world of RedShirt, the
FiscalProcurer, and their witless "ilk.")
Redshirt,Your comment has significant merit. Procuradorfiscal's does
not. You are using a rational argument and have looked into the issue.
Procuradorfiscal's responses are fueled by rhetoric and he has never given
me specifics when I press him on it. Your point about the effects
of short term exposure is certainly a valid one. There have been a large number
of studies on the effects of PM2.5 particulate pollution on human health,
ranging from observational studies of large areas to cellular level research,
but I haven't read in enough detail to know about length of exposure.
I'll give that air quality newsletter you referenced a read.I
would love to see a multipage article from the Deseret News on what medical
research can definitively prove about PM2.5's effect on health. Amy Joi
O'Donoghue seems like the perfect candidate for this.
To "Emajor" if somebody was to do some searches into the effects of
PM2.5 on our health, if you are to apply it to Utah, you would have to look at
the effects of short term exposure, not the typical long term year round
Re: "IRONY OF THE DAY"Not sure if I'm included in I.
Ron's "witless 'ilk,'" but I still have enough wits about
me to insist that, before I agree to heave enormous amounts of national
treasure, our civilized lifestyle, and the precious freedoms I swore to defend
against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, into that giant liberal toilet, I
should insist on proof of both safety and efficacy.The burden of
coming forward with that extraordinary proof rests on the tree huggers.
They're the ones making all the extraordinary claims.I've
also got wits enough to recognize that there are platoons of tree-hugging
activists out there who, if they had any such proof, they'd gladly produce
it, rather than rely on the unsupported "consensus" of this "group
of credentialed medical professionals," -- which is not, of course, nearly
as large as disingenuous liberals hope we'll believe.The
failure of sufficient proof, while not dispositive of absence of proof, should
certainly give us pause, at least unless and until it is produced.
Re: "I would love to see a multipage article from the Deseret News on what
medical research can definitively prove about PM2.5's effect on
health."Wouldn't we all?But it would, of
course, be incomplete without discussion of the role of sea salt aerosols -- the
primary source, worldwide, of airborne particulates -- on local
concentrations.And, of course, information on that issue would be
hard to find, since studies on the contribution of harmless sea salt aerosols to
Valley particulate concentrations would likely disprove the disingenuous
"crisis" that true-believing liberal "consensus" academics are
so eager to support.
procuradorfiscal,If our pollution problem is brought on by stagnant,
temperature-inverted air, how on earth are sea salt aerosols finding their way
into the inversion layer and causing the problem? During winter inversions here,
the PM2.5 comes from automobiles and industry. And airborne
particulate salts and sediments are not harmless. Read up on Owens Lake for that
one. BTW, what's your source for the sea salt aerosol claim?
If you think the air in an inversion is killing you, put on some kind of a
respirator to filter the air. Besides, most of the inversion air is simply fog
wrz,Raw sewage is mostly liquid water. Would you drink it?
It is not just the quantity of pollutants but the "ingredients" in the
"fog"/pollution that is the issue.While the smog may have looked
bad years ago - industry, etc has changed , as had the mix of what is currently
being trapped in the valley.
wrzOgden, UTIf you think the air in an inversion is killing you, put
on some kind of a respirator to filter the air. Besides, most of the inversion
air is simply fog (moisture).10:07 p.m. Feb. 21, 2013=============Some already do -- and it's called
"Chemical Warfare" for the exact same reason.[...simply fog
(moisture) - which capture and retain all those particulants. .i.e., like
breathing in dirty snow]...what a fine way of mocking God of the
intelligence he gave us.