Ignoring Science on Clean Air

New York Times, January 17, 2006: Every five years, the Clean Air Act requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise federal air quality standards for smog and soot. It is a stressful moment. When Carol Browner, President Bill Clinton's administraator, tightened standards in 1997, industry and its friends in Congess erupted in protest, and a federal appeals court said the rules were unconstitutional. The regulations did not actually take effect until Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in 2001 that Ms. Browner had the right to issue them and had done so properly.

Now it is the turn of Stephen Johnson at the EPA, only this time it is the scientists and environmentalists who are upset, and not without reason. Last month, Mr. Johnson proposed new rules governing fine particulate matter, known as soot. The most dangerous of these are microscopic specks that can cause significant inflammation and arterial damage in the bloodstream and the lungs.

At best, Mr. Johnson's proposed rules represent only a modest tightening of the Browner rules - despite considerable additional researchover the last few years, some 2,000 studies altogether, expanding the list of adverse health effects associated with fine particles (especially among children) and, collectively, pointing to the need for stronger standards.

Industry has complained.... for the full story, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/opinion/17tue3.html?th&emc=th