|
EPA Soot Standards Put Public Health at Risk New Air Standards Merely Token Effort to Reduce Hazardous Pollution Washington D.C.: The EPA announced new air standards for particulate matter pollution, or soot, today. The weak standards give polluting industries excessive freedom at the cost of public health. Though the EPA has lowered the daily soot emission standards by a minimal amount, it ignored scientific evidence showing that it needed to go lower and also update the annual standard. Instead of protecting public health as required by law, the EPA seems to have sided with Big Polluters, who lobbied against tougher standards. The EPA’s weak standards will leave 77 million Americans vulnerable to potentially deadly pollution, according to a recent study by the American Lung Association. "We know that soot can cause significant harm, especially to children and senior citizens, at levels well below this standard," said Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club’s environmental quality program. "By choosing politics over science, EPA is jeopardizing the health of our communities." In the wake of federal inaction, it falls to the states to enact more stringent regulations to protect their citizens from the dangers of particle pollution. As they have with mercury pollution and global warming, states can take the lead in protecting the health and well-being of our communities. Soot, the deadliest of widespread air pollutants, comes from sources like smokestacks, power plants, automobiles and industrial plants and can be inhaled deep into the lungs, sometimes crossing directly into the blood stream. Numerous scientific studies, including some preformed by the EPA, have shown that exposure to soot can cause asthma, heart attacks and even premature death. "It’s disappointing that the EPA has once again put industry before public health," said Alice McKeown, air analyst for the Sierra Club. "This decision goes against the combined recommendations of over 2,000 peer-reviewed studies, medical and health groups and the EPA’s own independent science advisers. It was clearly based on political science, not medical science."
### |
