Discussion for 'Are Fine Particulates Killing Californians?'
Michael E. Ginevan
The Great London Smog of 1952 is estimated to have killed 12,000 and made another 100,000 ill, so severe air pollution can dramatically affect human health. However, in the last 50 years air quality in the industrialized world has dramatically improved. Marginal increases in air quality can still be had, but at high costs, which raises the question of how many statistical lives might be saved by more stringent regulations? For example, the California Air Resources Board, in an effort to further reduce airborne particulate levels, has proposed diesel truck regulations at projected direct cost of $10B. This might be a small price to pay for substantial public health benefits. But are there presently measurable air quality effects on California disease or mortality rates? The question hinges on statistical analysis. That is, do current statistical analyses suggest particulate mediated health effects that could be avoided by further reduction in particulate levels? While some workers believe such effects can be demonstrated, others point to issues such as selective use of epidemiologic studies and data, multiple testing, and multiple modeling and conclude that such health effects are not demonstrated. This session will address the statistical questions inherent in this debate and will try to also address the central question: Are current levels of particulate air pollution killing Californians?
