Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12th, 2023 at 6:10pm:Cancer-causing pollution
Air pollution causes millions of deaths worldwide each year, including more than 250,000 from a type of lung cancer called adenocarcinoma. But it has been difficult to investigate how air pollution triggers cancer, in part because its effects are less pronounced than those of better-studied carcinogens such as tobacco smoke or ultraviolet light, says Nik-Zainal.
To unpick the mechanism, cancer researcher Charles Swanton at the Francis Crick Institute in London and his colleagues mined environmental and
epidemiological data from the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea and Taiwan. To diminish the contribution of tobacco smoke to the data, the team focused on lung cancers that carried mutations in a gene called EGFR. These mutations are more common in lung cancers in people who have never smoked than in those in smokers.
The team found that lung cancers bearing EGFR mutations were associated with exposure to air pollution in the form of inhalable particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less — less than one-tenth the width of the average grain of pollen. Such pollution is emitted by internal combustion engines, coal-fired power stations and burning wood. |
|
Now let's have a look at pm2.5 -
"In 1996, the EPA’s CASAC concluded that the agency had not demonstrated that PM2.5 kills anyone. Over the next 23 years, the EPA rigged the CASAC review process so that such a conclusion wouldn’t be drawn again. But it did happen again. In 2019 after CASAC had be purged of its political bias, CASAC concluded that EPA’s health claims from PM2.5 were without a scientific basis."
...
"In 2012, a group with which I am affiliated, sued EPA for conducting illegal human clinical research experiments involving PM2.5. By the early 2000s, EPA had concluded that any exposure to PM2.5 could kill in a matter of hours and that elderly and sick people were most at risk. To prove its point, conducted numerous experiments on elderly and sick people in which diesel exhaust from a truck was pipelined into an actual gas chamber where the human guinea pigs inhaled very high levels of PM2.5 for hours at a time.This was illegal because researchers are not allowed to conduct Nazi-like experiments where the purpose is to cause harm, especially without the informed consent of the human guinea pigs.
In its defense to our lawsuit, the EPA stated that it conducted the PM2.5 experiments because the PM2.5 epidemiology was only statistics, and as all researchers know, statistics only demonstrate correlation and correlation is not the same as causation. "
"Despite exposing hundreds of elderly (as old as 80) and sick people (with asthma and heart disease) to extraordinary levels of PM2.5 (as high as 75 times the level in average US outdoor air), not so much as a gasp, wheeze or cough, much less any death, was reported. The clinical research, in fact, provided not an ounce of biological plausibility to the (dubious) epidemiology."
"Although PM2.5 levels in Chinese and Indian cities can reach quite high levels e.g., 100 times average outdoor levels in the US no actual deaths are ever reported. The reason for this is that the level of acidic gases always remains in a safe range. Simply inhaling PM2.5 alone kills no one.
Coal miners don’t die earlier"
"When smokers inhale, they inhale a lot of PM2.5. If you live in the US and inhale average air, you will inhale about 240 millionths of a gram of PM2.5 every day. And EPA claims that is a potentially deadly dose of PM2.5.
Now if you are a smoker, not only will you inhale that 240 millionths-of-a-gram every 24 hours, but for every filtered cigarette you smoke, you will inhale and astounding 8,000 to 10,000 millionths-of-a-gram in the five minutes or so it takes to smoke a cigarette. But no one dies from smoking a single cigarette. "
"The EPA invented PM2.5 as the most toxic substance known to man that is, any inhalation can result in death as soon as hours. Or, alternatively, PM2.5 may kill you after a lifetime of (unavoidably) inhaling it. No other substance known to man works this way and there is no body of science to support these claims. The EPA’s own courtroom admission undercuts its claims about the epidemiology and its own human experiments fail to provide any support to the motion that PM2.5 causes adverse health impact, let alone kills.
The EPA has refused for decades to produce the data so independent scientists can try to replicate its epidemiologic studies. The agency has essentially ignored the results of a large well-conducted epidemiologic study that directly contradicts its own. All real-world data contradict EPA’s claims and the smoking epidemiology demonstrates quite clearly just how ludicrous EPA’s claims are."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1678438132;start=2;action=threadpagedrop;reversetopic=0
