Smog II

Many so called "environmental crises" have turned out to be minor problems or not to exist at all. The list includes acid rain, Alar, the endless winter that was going to produce another ice age, biotechnology induced plagues and the world hunger riots predicted for the 1970's and then for the 1980's. No sooner does one crisis prove false than another is predicted, always on the basis of weak or nonexistent evidence plus the opinion of some "expert". The current fads are the ozone hole, the "population bomb", global warming, and "pollution". There are new additions, such as environmental estrogen poisoning, nearly every month.

Those who promote these crises take the normal ups and downs of nature, or small changes that are slowly occurring, and inflate them into a catastrophic crisesthat they claim are going to produce an imminent environmental disaster. They proclaim that to be saved we must abdicate individual rights and follow the course of action that they dictate.

These promoters of ecoterror are not restrained by truth. Even apparently reputable scientists have engaged in what is essentially scientific fraud in order to support their claims. Legitimate, honest scientific data simply does not support a theory of catastrophic global warming (greenhouse effect), nor is the ozone layer disappearing. The other fads are just as unreal. Yet we continue to be subjected to new demands and regulations. Smog II is part of this deception.

Smog II and reformulated gasoline are essentially based on one scientific study that was published in the Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. This study proported to show that people in high smog areas were more likely to suffer lung ailments, including lung cancer, than people in low smog areas. The increase in risk was about 17%. But stated another way, the most that the study could claim was that a nonsmoker in a low smog area has a 99.4% chance of not getting lung cancer while a nonsmoker in a high smog area has a 99.3% of not getting lung cancer. Further, in some cases measuring the same smog by two different methods gave opposite results! For example, nonsmokers in high smog areas have an increased risk of lung cancer by one measure of smog and a decreased risk of lung cancer by the other measure of smog. These conflicting results suggest that the study was measuring the small random ups and downs of nature and that there really is no difference between the risks in the high and low smog areas. Clearly we need much more data before we accept the study conclusions and submit to draconian new regulations. These and other problems with the study data were pointed out and ignored during internal EPA discussions.

I propose that we delete Smog II and file suit against the federal government demanding that regulations must be based on sound scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates a significant risk. I also propose that we legislate, at the state level, minimum requirements for scientific evidence. I propose that scientific evidence and so called "experts" must meet these requirements before being considered by government at any level.

Last modified on Tuesday, October 15, 1996