tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post114545641521255742..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: The Truth About OzoneHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145473827596869892006-04-19T15:10:00.000-04:002006-04-19T15:10:00.000-04:00That was by no means the only example of distortio...That was by no means the only example of distortion cited in Joel Schwartz's article, and the health researchers in question did indeed cite the ozone study, so both Mr. Schwartz's observation and its implications remain corrct.<BR/><BR/>Once again, I should like to point out that neither Joel nor I debunks all efforts to reduce air pollution. The question is what policies are worth the costs. In the case of ozone, they are definitely not so.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145473567230851602006-04-19T15:06:00.000-04:002006-04-19T15:06:00.000-04:00"the reports...suppressed contradictory evidence t..."the reports...suppressed contradictory evidence the study found showing that high ozone levels were associated with a 30 percent lower risk of asthma in children, which should certainly have been the main point that people took from it."<BR/><BR/>Heheh. If I recall, the seminal study on second-hand smoke showed that kids regularly exposed to it grew up with lower incidences of lung cancer.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145473466034959702006-04-19T15:04:00.000-04:002006-04-19T15:04:00.000-04:00Even if we accept the premise as complete and irre...Even if we accept the premise as complete and irrefutable (which no self-respecting student of intellectual honesty should on the strength of one meta-analysis), the conclusions are more far-reaching than the data calls for. Ozone has far more deleterious environmental effects (see warming, global) than just possible effects on human biology. Questioning one aspect of the conclusions drawn about ozone does not debunk all of them, nor does the conclusion drawn at the end of the paper take these other factors into account.<BR/><BR/>While Schwartz correctly points out that it is always useful to challenge consensus and status quo and to continually question them, he hardly serves up a silver bullet for all concerns related to ozone, or air pollution in general.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145473054493960972006-04-19T14:57:00.000-04:002006-04-19T14:57:00.000-04:00No?"In a recent commentary on air pollution and as...No?<BR/><BR/>"In a recent commentary on air pollution and asthma in the Journal of the American Medical Association, two prominent air pollution health researchers state, "Evidence exists that air pollution may have contributed to the increasing prevalence of asthma." The evidence they cite is the CHS asthma study."<BR/><BR/>This is especially telling because the CHS report did not use ozone levels as the sole measure of air pollution. Distortion by omission is much like a lie.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145472112358462122006-04-19T14:41:00.000-04:002006-04-19T14:41:00.000-04:00Neither Joel nor I debunks all efforts to halt air...Neither Joel nor I debunks all efforts to halt air pollution. On the contrary, we both gratefully acknowledge that the Clean Air Act has done a great job of cleaning up the nation's air, especially in urban areas where it was most needed. What we both object to, and which you too should decry, are policies that are costly, intrusive, unnecessary, and, most of all, do not achieve appreciably cleaner air. Ozone limitations are one of many such policies, and ozone is indeed nothing more than a Boogie Man for Luddites.<BR/><BR/>The places most successful at curbing pollution are those that are most technologically advanced. Suppressing economic growth and concomitant technological advance is a surefire way to make pollution problems worse. No one should want that.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145471665194112532006-04-19T14:34:00.000-04:002006-04-19T14:34:00.000-04:00"Unfortunately, medical experts are often key play..."Unfortunately, medical experts are often key players in the exaggeration of air pollution's health effects."<BR/><BR/>There's one problem with Schwartz's article and your analysis: Ozone makes up only a small portion of the particulate matter in air pollution. Is ozone a convenient boogie man? Absolutely. Just listen to the sound of the word. It's easy and sloppy to use ozone as shorthand for all air pollution, but it is equally sloppy to use "debunking" of ozone-specific concerns as refutations for air pollution.<BR/><BR/>Of course, what matters intellectual honesty when you can throw in zingers about people supporting scientific, evidence-based conclusions because they are Luddites and... wait for it... HATE FREEDOM. DUN DUN DUHHHH!James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1145467757689144452006-04-19T13:29:00.000-04:002006-04-19T13:29:00.000-04:00"It is simply a Boogie Man used by Luddites and ot..."It is simply a Boogie Man used by Luddites and other enemies of freedom to demonize modern technology."<BR/><BR/>Um, hyperbolic, much?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com