But the industries that will have to shell out for cleaner fuels or new pollution controls are not so convinced about the benefits of the new regulations. In fact, they are mobilizing against them. Owen Drey, associate director of environmental quality policy at the National Association of Manufacturers didn't return our phone calls, but he did say, through a press release, "The link between air quality and health is a serious concern and needs to be addressed, but while reports of respiratory illness are on the rise, the air is actually cleaner, and levels of pollutants the EPA says are causing illness are falling...."
"The EPA's proposal isn't based on sound scientific research," Drey added.
That's a charge that rankles those who see them as based very much on science. "It's surprising that they want to attack the science," says Paul Billings of the Lung Association. "This has been based on extensive science, it's been peer reviewed (defined) on top of peer review, and for industry to charge that it's not scientific is just wrong. False."
Billings says industry is mounting "a disinformation campaign," not a reasoned attempt to find a solution, and that the EPA properly based its proposal on science, not hysteria.
Dockery, who has studied health effects of air pollution since 1974, says the science is conclusive enough to act now. "The toxicology, physiological, and epidemiology all suggest that it's the fine, not the coarse, particles that are causing the health effects. Therefore, if we are going to protect public health, the most efficient way is to focus on the specific particles that are causing that effect."
Want to know how bad particulate are in your area? Then choose from county or state maps for PM-10 data from 1994.
Up in the ozone? Then learn to distinguish unhealthy ground-level ozone from friendly stratospheric ozone.
