Wow, Lois Henry would argue with a stop sign!  I have always thought that many reporter/journalists had incredible egos and did not take to correction well but Lois Henry takes the prize. Is there nothing that our Lois doesn't know and can't defend?

I see today that there are more layoffs being accomplished by the Bakersfield Californian and I think I have a suggestion for their cost cutting knife. Is there any doubt why newspapers across the land are shrinking daily?  Not to me...

Lois Henry, in a recent blog post, apparently believes one cat can turn into 420,000 in seven years because she read it somewhere on a web page but she has no respect for scientific, peer reviewed, studies.  Nor is she showing any respect for the tens of thousands who suffer health problems in this valley because of our poor air quality.  I don't think we have to take Lois and her cheap cigars too seriously.

I hardly agree with Lois, who is jealous of my writing skills, but I think that I need to defend her against a bunch of liberal wackos who are pulling numbers out of thin air to justify their highly exaggerated claims about whatever pet project this blog refers to.  Yes, as you can tell I didn't read it, but I don't have to - I'm not after facts I'm after results to further my own crackpot agenda.

Based solely on her letter, I'm real glad that Mary D. Nichols is chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board

 Lois, you have BILLIONAIREBARTLEY agreeing with you!  You see Lois, air pollution is nothing but a pinko liberal, Marxist, fake issue. LOL  Lois, you may have established a group of true believers who still believe the earth is flat and you can be their spokesperson!

The State Bus and Truck Regulation, adopted in December after exhaustive research and peer review, and which Ms. Henry would like to “redo,” will prevent 9,400 deaths between 2011 and 2025; greatly reduce days of missed work, school and hospitalization; and lower health care costs by billions of dollars

well now...maybe she needs to post how carb arrived at this.....and peer review......sitting around a bar at happy hour could be considered peer review.......

Over its lifetime, the rule will prevent at least 4,000 premature deaths statewide and avoid $18 billion to $26 billion in premature death and health costs.

again....where is she getting her information from?? are these studies secret?  do i have to know the secret eco-nazi handshake to see them?  i could type a bunch of crap i believe to be true without any backup as well

It is very important to CARB that we scrutinize economic as well as health impacts during the rule development process

that entire response is flawed imo....

ha hahaaa   Lois got called out by the code pink eco-nazi feminists   wink wink

i still think youre right lois.   i cant even get carb to return my phone calls or e-mails

Wow, Lois Henry would argue with a stop sign!  I have always thought that many reporter/journalists had incredible egos and did not take to correction well but Lois Henry takes the prize. Is there nothing that our Lois doesn't know and can't defend?

I see today that there are more layoffs being accomplished by the Bakersfield Californian and I think I have a suggestion for their cost cutting knife. Is there any doubt why newspapers across the land are shrinking daily?  Not to me...

me neither...notice its all the left agenda pushing papers?  maybe if they would write what their buyers wanted to read........

Lois Henry, in a recent blog post, apparently believes one cat can turn into 420,000 in seven years because she read it somewhere on a web page but she has no respect for scientific, peer reviewed, studies.  Nor is she showing any respect for the tens of thousands who suffer health problems in this valley because of our poor air quality.  I don't think we have to take Lois and her cheap cigars too seriously.

aqg...please post a link to these studies you speak of.....i am interested in reading them

 me neither...notice its all the left agenda pushing papers?  maybe if they would write what their buyers wanted to read........

You mean the stuff that begins "once upon a time..."

Here is a link for you to purvey the CARB site for yourself and read the studies - something which takes time and attention.

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regac...

The show down between Mary Nichols, appointed by (republican) Gov. Schwarzenegger, and Lois Henry is telling in numerous ways. Ms .Nichols is affirming a task set for CARB as she writes, "  It is very important to CARB that we scrutinize economic as well as health impacts during the rule development process."  This is not just about the cost of retrofit to trucks and other diesel equipment. It is about making the jobs safer for the people that are breathing the diesel fumes day in and day out at close range.

Both CARB and SJVUAPCD have been able to facilitate funding to help cover costs of retrofits. This process will surely continue.  Lois, anyone and I mean anyone, can lie with statistics. It takes dedication to be the one to review and call out the discrepancies. And not on this blog but in the public record. Make a difference in the lives of others. Step outside the box (or the bar!) and join the people that actually make the rules in making them better.

By the way - CARB has meeting all over the State - you can attend one too!

Newspaper circulation is down because advertising revenue has plummeted...people aren't renewing subscriptions because they can't afford them...younger readers aren't newspaper consumers. It's not because newspapers aren't meeting the needs and wants of most of their readers.

Younger consumers have little to no clue of how the news business works. There's a whole generation that has been able to access, for free (or so it seems), a world of information that dwarfs what my generation was able to get.

The Californian and other papers missed the boat by not becoming Internet providers. The only folks making money on this stuff are the ones controlling the pipelines. Brighthouse makes money by giving people access to the Californian. Maybe the paper needs to start charging for access...Brighthouse and other cable providers pay to get channels on their cable TV offerings. Why shouldn't other media companies?

learnem

How did you ever figure out how to use this blog?  Below is a link that will take you to almost all the studies linking air pollution and health.  There are a few too many for me to begin a list.  Feel free to pick them apart, one by one. 

http://www.google.com/

How did you ever figure out how to use this blog?  Below is a link that will take you to almost all the studies linking air pollution and health.  There are a few too many for me to begin a list.  Feel free to pick them apart, one by one. 

not so fast AQG...i want to see the ones YOU RANT AND RAVE ABOUT.....

if you cant link them, then you shouldnt talk so openly about them, like you are very familiar with them.

indeed, give me the link to google....makes me think your blowin smoke.  if you cant link them, then in future posts from you on air quality, carb, whatever, i will automatically discredit you

how dare you come on this board, with a  name like that, bash people for not knowing studies you RAVE about, the give a google link.

prolly some punk liberal sittin behind a keyboard delivering pizzas for rusty's

you got caught talking out the side of your behind

POWN3D

NEXT

Here is a link for you to purvey the CARB site for yourself and read the studies - something which takes time and attention.

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regac...

The show down between Mary Nichols, appointed by (republican) Gov. Schwarzenegger, and Lois Henry is telling in numerous ways. Ms .Nichols is affirming a task set for CARB as she writes, "  It is very important to CARB that we scrutinize economic as well as health impacts during the rule development process."  This is not just about the cost of retrofit to trucks and other diesel equipment. It is about making the jobs safer for the people that are breathing the diesel fumes day in and day out at close range.

Both CARB and SJVUAPCD have been able to facilitate funding to help cover costs of retrofits. This process will surely continue.  Lois, anyone and I mean anyone, can lie with statistics. It takes dedication to be the one to review and call out the discrepancies. And not on this blog but in the public record. Make a difference in the lives of others. Step outside the box (or the bar!) and join the people that actually make the rules in making them better.

By the way - CARB has meeting all over the State - you can attend one too!

FUNNY, i used your link to your own website (kinda self-serving, isnt it) and the data i looks at said that within the last decade, the bad air quality days has been cut by over 75%

also..what jobs are you referring to where people breathe diesel fumes in and out all day at close range?  do they work right next to an exhaust pipe?

and just where do you come up with how many deaths all this nonsense you call progress will stop, due to better air quality??

i couldnt find that information on your self-serving site

how about a link to tests done independently of yours?  scientists other than ones used by you?  do you have studies like that that are done seperately that reach the exact same conclusions that yours do?

if not, then yours should be discounted, as the would be highly suspicious of being agenda driven.  thats like budweiser doing studies on alcohol consumption and coming to the conclusion that it is good for you...highly suspicious

 btw...i like the way you assume i dont have the time, nor can i pay attention long enough to read the studies on your website

let me give you some advice sweetie....taking money from taxpayers, like me, and basically talking down to me, like that, doesnt score you any brownie points....after all it was MY money.....your spending of it DESERVES to be scrutinized by me and other taxpayers.

dont like it? quit using taxpayer funds to institute your gestapo tactics

that diesel exhaust is an insidious and pervasive enemy, responsible for 70 percent of the known cancer risk that comes from air pollution.  It can and does kill. 

how on gods green earth did you come up with that??  when a person dies from cancer, how did you determine where the cancer came from?  

my mother died of cancer andthe best doctors from UCLA couldnt determine where her cancer came from, or what it was caused by.

How did you figure that out???

ok learnem, go ahead and automatically discredit everything I say in the future....What else is new? 

While you are nit picking about epidemiology, you are going to lose the war.  My daily work on air quality issues is far removed from these obscure blog pages occupied by [edit.] like you.

learnem said: "that diesel exhaust is an insidious and pervasive enemy, responsible for 70 percent of the known cancer risk that comes from air pollution.  It can and does kill. 

how on gods green earth did you come up with that??  when a person dies from cancer, how did you determine where the cancer came from?  

my mother died of cancer andthe best doctors from UCLA couldnt determine where her cancer came from, or what it was caused by.

How did you figure that out???"

You are right on the cusp of figuring this out. Congratulations.

I have cancer. I have spoken to my doctors and they have told me the same thing: 'we don't know where it came from or what it was caused by."

By which they mean: cancer is a disease of cells. What caused some of my cells to decide to reproduce with wild, unregulated abandon? We can't know because we didn't have  the cells in question under a microscope when it happened.

However, we DO know that an awful lot of guys who smoked and chewed tobacco got cancer. We know this from epidemiological studies. These are statistical arguments and that fact is what kept the tobacco companies afloat for lots of years. It is still used against coal miners, many of whom develop black lung. It was used against people exposed to high levels of asbestos.

How do you come up with a number of increased death risk? You notice that members of the exposed population die 70% more often of cancer.

A lot of people are pre-disposed to developing cancer.  It runs in my family and has killed my youngest aunt and uncle.  To suggest it came from the air though - I think I have a better chance of dying of cancer from second hand smoke than simply breathing the valley air.  Has there been a definitive study of how many people actually die from air pollution?  If 1% of all cancer patients are determined to have been caused by polluted air, and disel emissions represent 50% of that 1%, then just how important is this, really?  How do we know it's not the particles from our fireplace causing the cancer, or emissions from cows?  What about cell phones or other electromagnetic fields?  How do I not know it's in the water we all drink?  The pesticides in the food we eat?  The radiation from the sun?  I think many of these groups skew data to suit their interpretation and agenda, and when you question it they start throwing one pamphlet, dissertation or book after another at you until you finally give up and say you win.

Forget whether or not air pollution causes cancer, answer me this - even if this entire country did reduce air pollution what's to say the rest of the world will follow suit?  What's to keep their air pollution from blowing over here?  Every time there is a volcanic eruption somewhere you hear about its effects here so obviously particles in the air travel and respect no borders.  To assume that emissions from vehicles here in the valley are soley to blame for air pollution cancer-related deaths is being a bit too narrow, both in your approach and in your perspective.

ok learnem, go ahead and automatically discredit everything I say in the future....What else is new? 

While you are nit picking about epidemiology, you are going to lose the war.  My daily work on air quality issues is far removed from these obscure blog pages occupied by [edit.] like you.

still skirting your way around posting all these "wonderful" studies you constantly whine about...i see.   Just post them.  I see you also  have stooped down a couple notches and reverted to name calling......not surprising.

indeed , a google link...clue up AQG

btw...ive done my homework on this issue....obviously you havent, or you would have some studies, that werent done by CARB, or paid to do by CARB to link up here.....

obviously they dont exist

James Enstrom, an epidimeological scientist who disagrees with the CARB rule and who has done his own study on elderly Californains showing NO increased death rate due to PM2.5, asked me to post a link to his comments to CARB.

Scientific Reasons to Postpone Adoption of Proposed STATEWIDE TRUCK AND BUS REGULATIONS by James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H."
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists...

It will take you to a PDF which has numerous links that give a better view of the concern many scientists have for how this rule was created and the science on which it was based.

AQG:

It is patently unfair of you to say you don't want to "nit pick" epidemiology and yet you throw out nameless epidemiological studies to try and bolster the idea that PM2.5 is actually killing people.

My position has been that the studies and how they were done and whether the results have been independently replicated is the very heart of this issue.

If the science is flawed, then our beliefs are flawed and the rule is flawed. The studies are the foundation so understanding them and the concerns surrounding them is very important. And simply saying "peer reviewed" is not enough. Peer reviewed doesn't mean scientists independently examined the data (which has never happened in any of the studies used) nor that the results were replicated (again, has never been done on any of those studies).

DirtyShirt:

You're right that the connection between smoking and lung cancer was determined largely through epidemiological studies. But those were much more direct. As in you take 1000 people who don't smoke and compare them to 1000 who do over some period of time and see that the smokers come up with lung cancer far more often than the non smokers.

You can't make such direct comparisons with air quality. Also, I only know of one study that directly linked PM2.5 exposure to a specific type of ailment and that was heart disease, not lung cancer and not even asthma, though people like Nichols will often say pollution exacerbates asthma symptoms.

P.S.

CheshireCat:

If I thought the stopsign was wrongheaded, I'd probably have a few words for it. Blame my family, it's genetic.

By the way, I'd like to thank you for your sensitivity about our layoffs as I and the remaining newsroom employees watched helplessly  while 14 hardworking, smart, talented and just flat out good people were walked out the door this week.

I'll pass on your sentiments to my bosses that I be the next to go.

Lois,

Scientists never proved smoking killed anyone.  They will never prove that pm 2.5 killed anyone either.   The idea that one set of associations may be stronger in correlating a cause and effect does not mean the conclusion from the weaker set of associations is wrong.  The difference between .99 degree of certainty and .95 is huge when it comes to launching the space shuttle but not so in other cases.  When it comes to epidemiology it is dishonest to accept the stronger result totally and throw out the slightly weaker one as not proving anything.  That is what you are doing in my opinion.  The science is not flawed just because the degree of certainty is not as high as you would like to see.  If you don't like the implications of the result it is easy to find fault in the methodology.

AQG:

If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I never said scientists proved anything about smoking and lung cancer. I do understand the nature of associations.

The associations are monumentally weaker re: PM2.5 and increased death rates than the smoking epi studies.

What you seem to want to ignore and I continue to point out is that the PM2.5 studies have never had their results independently verified and replicated. It doesn't matter whether I like the implications of the results or not, I'd just like to see the results verified.

We're dealing with extremely weak associations from untested studies. That amounts to a THEORY in my view.

 It seems like a pretty simple thing for the scientists who did those studies to open up their data sets (which they have NEVER done) and if the science is good, the results will be replicated and that will be that.

Why is everyone so resistant to verification?

Ms. Henry,

Please put this up on your blog.

Folks should not insist on attacking individuals and their motivations for criticisms of the CARB's science and policy making.  Many people have a personal commitment to defending government expansion and intimidation, and the blog is no place for personal attacks.  People who resist and oppose government expansion have legitimate reasons to be concerned about fascism.

Ms. Nichols, an attorney who has little expertise on science, but is a layperson, cannot speak to the science that the CARB depends on in any perceptive way, but she would be well advised to review the rules of evidence for admissibility in the REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that is published by the Federal Judicial Center.  The rule is that the small effects that Ms. Nichols insists are proof of the effect of air pollution are studies that don't prove anything at all.

The rules are pretty simple.  

1.  If a study is observational--a study of a population that is not controlled--then the finding must overcome the uncertainties.

2.  The uncertainties are the lack of reliability of a study on a population that cannot be controlled or properly analyzed.

3.  The rules on what must be found to make the finding convincing and credible are that the evidence must show a 100 percent effect at least.

4.  The effect shown must be 100 percent at least, or a Relative Risk of 2 or more.

5.  Since the studies Ms. Nichols relies on never, ever show a 100 percent effect, she needs to suck it up and stop blowing smoke and admit that the CARB is working with non proof studies.  

6.  Ms. Nichols would, if political considerations were not so severe, be forced to admit she has no proof of anything that would provide her the right to impose all kinds of new regulations on California citizens.

Ms. Nichols has the confidence of an individual who doesn't know the weakness of her evidence.  She is a propagandist, not a scientist, and she is not committed to the concept of science in the public service and for the public welfare, with a proper concern for the idea that bad regulations create burdens too.  She is committee to control, regulations and expansion of government power.

The people who submit notes to your site need to get a grip and stick to science.  The personal attacks and all the noise about who works for who is a distraction from the scientific debate.

The people who are committed to the state position have a conflict.  The people who work or are funded by the government are conflicted.

John Dale Dunn MD JD

Consultant-Emergency Services

Peer Review/Mediation

401 Rocky Hill Road

Brownwood, Texas 76801

325 784-6697

cell  642-5073

"Why is everyone so resistant to verification?"

That's what the peer review process is for.

More from John Dale Dunn, Lois? I thought we figured out his interest in this last time you posted on this topic.

Dr. Dunn passes himself off as an expert and you allow him to use your blog to do so, even while dragging the phrase 'real Ph.D.' through your last blog at every turn. Lois, I really think you should do some self-analysis over this issue.

This time Dunn quotes the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence published by the Federal Judicial Center. The sound of it supports Dunn's purported expert status, but he might be just another blogger. This manual is available online, and I daresay that's where he found it. We have already established his financial ties to polluters, etc.. Will you tire of his use of your blog as an ill-gotten soapbox? I hope so.

At any rate, the bottom line about his reference is here, on page vi of the referenced volume (http://www.fjc.gov/public/p...

"We continue to caution judges regarding the proper use of the reference guides. They are not intended to instruct judges concerning what evidence should be admissible or to establish minimum standards for acceptable scientific testimony. Rather, the guides can assist judges in identifying the issues most commonly in dispute in these selected areas and in reaching an informed and reasoned assessment concerning the basis of expert evidence. They are designed to facilitate the process of identifying and narrowing issues concerning scientific evidence by outlining for judges the pivotal issues in the areas of science that are often subject to dispute. Citations in the reference guides identify cases in which specific issues were raised; they are examples of other instances in which judges were faced with similar problems. By identifying scientific areas commonly in dispute, the guides should improve the quality of the dialogue between the judges and the parties concerning the basis of expert evidence."

Clearly, the judicial use of the word 'reference' on a book implies a different status than the same word would in science.

DirtyShirt:

Mr. Dunn is free to express himself on this blog as are you and anyone else. I'm not letting him use the blog for any greater share of expression or credibility than you or anyone else. He's asked me to post his comments because he doesn't want to fuss w/creating a user profile through our site and I'm just giving him a hand.

And, AGAIN, peer reviewed does NOT mean verified. Peer reviewed only means other scientists have looked at the finished product and agree that the best practices and methods were used to do the study.

It doesn't mean they're vouching for the results. For that to happen, a scientist or group of scientists would have to be given the original data used and be allowed to conduct their on study on that data to see if the same results could be found. And that's really the only way to trust a lot of this stuff.

MORE FROM JOHN DUNN

In response to an inquiry, I am a physician of 38 years and a lawyer of 29 years.  I don't blog as a habit, but the issues in California are important for the citizens of the state and I spent the last year trying to get some sense into the conduct of affairs at CARB.  So I provide some commentary to this blog because CARB will not listen to good sense and insist on crippling the California economy with excessive air pollution and enviro regulations. 
 
I deal with state and federal agency regulatory matters as a citizen and scientist knowledgeable in medicine, the law and epidemiology and toxicology in the public sphere.
 
I do not sit around in my jammies, I practice and teach emergency medicine at the busiest emergency department in the Army as a civilian contractor.  I know the rules of evidence.  I know the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence because it is the most important guide on scientific evidence published by the Federal Courts. 
 
The quote provided ignores the intent of the Reference Manual, which is to guide Judges on what is admissible evidence.  Judgment is required to use any reference manual.  Judgment doesn't allow one to break the rules and ignore the guidance. 
 
Ms. Nichols is an attorney and is well aware of what I mean when I say that CARB ignores basic rules of epidemiology and toxicology as set out in the reference manual by internationally prominent scientists and attorneys. . 
 
People don't die from air pollution, it is below toxic levels and the CARB is chasing a phantom menace that is a product of overactive researchers trying to create environmental scares so they can get another round of funding and feel good that they are important and saving the world. 
 
The result of their phony panicmongering is that the  public is misled and deceived and the result is tremendous anxiety and economic disruption for no good purpose.  The welfare of Californians and Americans depends on responsible science. 
 
Ms. Nichols is well advised to use science in the public interest that follows the rules.  I didn't write the rules on epidemiology, but the reference manual goes into depth and the misconduct of CARB researchers and policy makers is best revealed by reference to authoritative scientists who don't have a dog in the enviro panic movement.  Researchers funded by CARB and EPA don't obey the rules on toxicology and epidemiology because they know the research doesn't support their claims that air is killing people.  Their small effects research would not be published except as research that supports a political agenda. 
 
That's why I point to the reference manual.  The Manual is intended to set out the rules. 
 
Incidentally, not only do I not blog in my jammies, I don't get any money from anybody interested in the enviro fight.  I write for Heartland and anyone else who will publish my opinions, but I am too old and too independent to sell my opinion.  I abhor the conflicts displayed by mainstream, publicly funded scientists on the enviro panic side because people are too easily influenced when presented with phantom menaces.
 
People need to get a life and realize we live in a great world that is pretty safe and friendly to the human organism, as long as we keep it between the lines and avoid real risk and real dangers.  Smoking kills, air pollution at current levels doesn't.  Period.  All nasty bloggers, put on your clothes and get out and make a living and have some fun before the enviros take over and make us all slaves to regulations.  Liberty is precious and, as Reagan said, it can be lost in one generation.  Too many of the people who blog are part of the movement to lose liberty.  Liberty is more than the freedom to sit around and try to think up clever arguments to present anonymously on a blog in Bakersfield.
 
One last thing.  If the enviro anxious movement eventually kills the California economy for good, please stay home, don't be coming to Texas trying to tell us you've got the answers.  We know better, and that's why California is leading the way to perdition.  Too bad, such a beautiful place with so many nice people.  
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Consultant-Emergency Services
Peer Review/Mediation
401 Rocky Hill Road
Brownwood, Texas 76801
325 784-6697
 

Lois:

I never questioned Dr. Dunn's freedoms. If he wants to post on equal footing with everyone else, then he should truly get an id and do so.

You can't pretend that his emails to you and his hand waving at credentials that don't really apply to the subject at hand are the same thing as my posts here.

He says, this time, "So I provide some commentary to this blog because CARB will not listen to good sense and insist on crippling the California economy with excessive air pollution and enviro regulations."

So his financial ties are trumped by his just all around good-samaritan ways?

How nice of him. Its a wonder that other folks from out of state don't email you with their opinions. Surely Dr. Dunn isn't the only highly motivated good samaritian in the U.S.?

When your original blog comments were forwarded to me by several indidviduals and organizations and I tried to sign up for you blog I too was confused by the process, extremely busy and told folks I just didn't have time to play.  After seeing your response to Mary Nichol's, and knowing the background of one of the "scientist's" you referenced, I felt obligated to plow through it.  I still haven't seen my response posted on your blog including an actual peer reviewed medical study reference.  It was a little lengthy but since you were so accomodating to Dr. Dunn I thought I might receive the same courtesy.  I don't believe I violated any of your rules.  Maybe you just misplaced it.

Dr. Dunn is obviousely prejudiced by is own beliefs.  His closing comment suggesting we are all being led to "perdition" says it all.

I am not sure who the good doctor thinks should fund scientific studies.  If he had any experience in research funding he would know that the government places the least restrictions on how and when you use the results of your work.  Only the private sector exercises the "right" to any work they fund and will stop you from publishiing if your results do not fit their agenda.  By the way, this applies across the business and political spectrum.  What are we as practitioners supposed to base our practice on?  In fact, the cirriculum under which the good doctor recieved his credentialing was created by years of government and foundation funded research.  I'm suprised he would question one while continuing to reference and silently support the other every time he signs his name with MD at the suffix.  

Did you really have to go all the way to Texas to get an MD to speak out against this?  I have always thought we have all the talent we need right here in the good old Central Valley.  Perhaps UC Merced, no they support the rules, UC Davis-ditto, UCSF Medical Program in Fresno? No, they agree also.  Hmm...Texas it is then.