This book presents challenges for some readers. The author can be irreverent or hostile about environmental topics or about the Federal entity, the USEPA. Author Steve Milloy defines himself as a confrontational intervenor against unjustified scares.
Does tone or affiliation negate his criticisms? For many, values, causes, or affiliations can be given more heed than technical substance. There is a frequent human tendency to listen to someone of similar sympathies, whereas to distrust opponents. Should this happen, if the topics involve technical disciplines (like statistics, biology, or economics)? How to separate technical arguments from tribal sympathies? Can this be done?
Milloy discusses particulate matter (PM) 2.5. The USEPA issued air pollution regulations that required costly societal investments to reduce emissions of small airborne particulates. Lower levels of PM 2.5 would save thousands because PM 2.5 kills, at low doses, according to the USEPA. This was premised on extrapolations from two epidemiological studies that compared outcomes for high versus low exposures across several cities.
Reported correlations between PM 2.5 and deaths were modest, 0.26 and 0.17. A principle of statistics is correlations do not establish causality, they may instead owe to co-incidence or unknown causative factors. The detailed data underpinning the two studies was not disclosed by study investigators to enable independent review.
Milloy disagrees that fine particulate matter causes mortality at concentrations commonly inhaled, offering counter-evidence:
-- one cigarette supplies 10,000 times the prevailing dose of 2.5 PM in air, yet smokers do not die owing just to a single cigarette.
• States are legalizing marijuana, providing a four-fold higher dose of 2.5 PM, because joints do not have filters as do cigarettes. Abundant evidence about smoking does not support inhalation of PM 2.5 as a mortal threat. (Set aside Milloy as an annoying satirist of Big Government, do governments allow smokers to kill themselves? Clearly governments authorizing smoking do not regard 2.5 as a threat to the same degree as EPA.)
• Occupational health data about underground miners does not support PM 2.5 as a threat.
• Death data from California showed no correlation with PM2.5 levels in ambient air.
• Surprisingly, EPA funded experiments of people inhaling high doses of PM 2.5 that EPA considered fatal. EPA attorneys argued high doses were safe in the context of individuals undergoing tests, however harmful when lower doses are experienced across large populations.
To suggest low doses (of any substance) are more dangerous than high flunks pharmacology.
The doubletalk idea that individuals are invulnerable to effects only experienced within groups might tickle George Orwell.
Educated in biostatistics, Milloy recognizes unpersuasive reasoning. Unless educated and motivated people like Milloy have the self-assurance to ask annoying questions, weakly justified regulations can go unchallenged. This can in turn injure productive sectors of the economy and degrade the framing of public policy choices.
On the other hand, to consider the possibility of extenuating benefits, even if the evidence justifying PM 2.5 regulations was uncertain, it is still possible air quality may have improved in other ways owing to these regulations. There might be supplementary health benefits provided by cleaner air that are not captured by the PM 2.5 metric? Americans would generally not like to breathe the highly polluted air of China (containing higher levels of PM 2.5 and other airborne substances), even if residents of Beijing are reported to have longer life expectancy.
Nonetheless, regulatory choices are well served to be based on fuller information, incorporating discordant evidence, such as presented by Milloy. This is a nicely readable, concise book. Milloy uses the example of PM 2.5 to offer ideas about how to improve environmental regulations in future. Recommendations include ending the practice of withholding raw data from public scrutiny and accountability.
Buying Options
| Print List Price: | $15.95 |
| Kindle Price: |
$9.99
Save $5.96 (37%) |
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA Kindle Edition
by
Steve Milloy
(Author)
Format: Kindle Edition
|
Steve Milloy
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
-
LanguageEnglish
-
Publication dateDecember 21, 2016
-
File size474 KB
Nolyn: The Rise and Fall, Book 1
In the depths of an unforgiving jungle, a legend is about to be born. Listen now
Customers who read this book also read
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms EverybodyHelen PluckroseKindle Edition$9.99$9.99& Free Shipping
The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common SenseKindle Edition$14.99$14.99& Free Shipping
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Amazon Business: Make the most of your Amazon Business account with exclusive tools and savings. Login now
Product details
- ASIN : B01NALP1HX
- Publisher : Bench Press Inc (December 21, 2016)
- Publication date : December 21, 2016
- Language : English
- File size : 474 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Print length : 280 pages
- Lending : Enabled
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,113,064 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
4.6 out of 5
60 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on July 2, 2018
Report abuse
Verified Purchase
9 people found this helpful
Helpful
Reviewed in the United States on February 24, 2018
Verified Purchase
This a great read. I really liked it. Shows the great lengths (and costs to the American people) that the EPA will go to increase their power, without any equivalent value to the American people. It is one thing to clean the air. I like that, but to demand absolute purity, even beyond natural air quality at so great a price is just absurd.
6 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on April 8, 2018
Verified Purchase
So refreshing to be presented with information in context and with data in scale. One of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century is the turning of science into a propaganda tool for certain misanthropic strains of political belief.
6 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on August 14, 2017
Verified Purchase
Well written history of how the EPA operated as a regulatory body. Milloy has been following their activities closely from day 1. Didn't realize the amount of collusion between government bodies was so serpentine, The statistical "tweaking" of small sample studies to provide evidence on the effect of PM2.5 was particularly disturbing.
4 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on February 1, 2018
Verified Purchase
Steve Milloy Was reporting on the "Deep State" long before anyone knew what that was. Great, informative read Steve! Thanks for the insight!
5 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on May 30, 2018
Verified Purchase
Powerful expose of junk science of air pollution scares by the left used to cripple industry and progress in general.
5 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on October 4, 2017
Verified Purchase
EPA is Atlas Shrugged in the flesh. Science should be open and verifiable, unless you are a bureaucrat.
5 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on July 23, 2019
Verified Purchase
Great book exposing the fake science of the EPA. It’s time for a total review of the EPA .
Top reviews from other countries
O. G. M. Morgan
5.0 out of 5 stars
What "Environmental Protection" really means.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on March 5, 2017Verified Purchase
This is an astounding exposure of the corrupt behaviour of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and associated agencies in the United States. It is about regulatory overreach by an agency which has, in essence, been granted the power to invent its own laws. The EPA is founded on a myth and sustains itself on pseudo-science. It pays its own fake scientists to produce fake science and they reliably oblige. The myth was that the atmosphere in the United States was so toxic, circa 1970, that only a federal agency could remedy the situation.
In reality, massive bureaucracies do nothing to improve the environment. A pretty good example would be the Baltic States, far cleaner countries today than when provinces of the Soviet empire. For all its many evils, I don't imagine many apparatchiks in the USSR went out of their way to poison Latvia, but they managed it, regardless. In the United States, as elsewhere in the West, cleaning up the environment didn't need an "agency". It was something the public wanted and to which the public was prepared to contribute money and effort. Businesses, too, embraced the Zeitgeist.
Which meant that, from the start, the EPA was chasing shadows. Far from being responsible for bringing down pollution, as it constantly claims, it simply happened to be around when pollution was being eradicated by capitalists and ordinary individuals. Well, the EPA is chock-full of collectivist activists, who hate both capitalism and the very concept of the "individual". Accordingly, with the supine acquiescence of the Bush administration, but then with overt cheer-leading from Obama's grotesque parody of government, the EPA went on a crusade against fossil-fuel producers and users.
Steve Milloy's very lucidly written book concerns the EPA's sudden decision to change the standard for controlling particulate matter ("PM") to PM 2.5, which is basically the same as banning dust, i.e. not just pointless and unnecessary, but completely impossible. The EPA activists were trying to put whole swathes of American industry out of business. To this end, the then administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, testified to Congress that exposure to PM 2.5 was not just bad for one, but would ("would", not "could") be lethal within hours. This, about the kind of stuff everyone, everywhere in the world, breathes in, all of the time.
Steve Milloy smelled a rat. At a time when the state of the environment was constantly improving and the bloated EPA could claim no legitimate credit, the EPA was trying to crush unfashionable industries. President Obama had actually promised to put up the cost of motoring and to put the coal industry out of business (as Hillary Clinton also did, in her doomed 2016 election campaign). What was so dangerous about PM 2.5?
Well, Administrator Jackson (who went by the name "Richard Windsor", when she wanted her e-mails to remain secret) claimed PM 2.5 would kill within hours, that it was America's biggest killer, worse than cancer. Pretty big claims. Armed with this explosive information, what did the EPA do? It conducted tests on forty-one people, exposing them to high levels of PM 2.5, which Lisa Jackson had already declared to be capable of ending life.
Milloy took the bait. He doesn't believe PM 2.5 is remotely lethal and provides umpteen reasons to support his thinking, but he played along with the EPA: why, after the EPA had already declared minimal levels of PM 2.5 lethal, were pseudo-scientists, sponsored by the EPA, deliberately exposing people to levels of PM 2.5 far higher than those supposedly already confirmed as deadly? Not surprisingly, an entity whose chief wrote her e-mails under a false name wasn't in a big hurry to cooperate. Much of Milloy's story is about the circling of wagons by the EPA and other DC agencies. Every time Steve Milloy tried to draw attention to the nefarious practices of the EPA, other agencies refused to see anything wrong.
In a sense, Milloy's book, completed very recently, recounts his failure. He presented his case, immaculately, and the eco-establishment laughed it off. They reckoned they were untouchable. Then they lost the election. There is a chance for the EPA to be overthrown.
While Milloy's text could benefit from a bit of editing, he is always lucid, always supports his claims with footnotes. He's not the first writer to expose the EPA's outrageous, politically motivated assaults on liberty, but I think he is the best informed and the most articulate.
In reality, massive bureaucracies do nothing to improve the environment. A pretty good example would be the Baltic States, far cleaner countries today than when provinces of the Soviet empire. For all its many evils, I don't imagine many apparatchiks in the USSR went out of their way to poison Latvia, but they managed it, regardless. In the United States, as elsewhere in the West, cleaning up the environment didn't need an "agency". It was something the public wanted and to which the public was prepared to contribute money and effort. Businesses, too, embraced the Zeitgeist.
Which meant that, from the start, the EPA was chasing shadows. Far from being responsible for bringing down pollution, as it constantly claims, it simply happened to be around when pollution was being eradicated by capitalists and ordinary individuals. Well, the EPA is chock-full of collectivist activists, who hate both capitalism and the very concept of the "individual". Accordingly, with the supine acquiescence of the Bush administration, but then with overt cheer-leading from Obama's grotesque parody of government, the EPA went on a crusade against fossil-fuel producers and users.
Steve Milloy's very lucidly written book concerns the EPA's sudden decision to change the standard for controlling particulate matter ("PM") to PM 2.5, which is basically the same as banning dust, i.e. not just pointless and unnecessary, but completely impossible. The EPA activists were trying to put whole swathes of American industry out of business. To this end, the then administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, testified to Congress that exposure to PM 2.5 was not just bad for one, but would ("would", not "could") be lethal within hours. This, about the kind of stuff everyone, everywhere in the world, breathes in, all of the time.
Steve Milloy smelled a rat. At a time when the state of the environment was constantly improving and the bloated EPA could claim no legitimate credit, the EPA was trying to crush unfashionable industries. President Obama had actually promised to put up the cost of motoring and to put the coal industry out of business (as Hillary Clinton also did, in her doomed 2016 election campaign). What was so dangerous about PM 2.5?
Well, Administrator Jackson (who went by the name "Richard Windsor", when she wanted her e-mails to remain secret) claimed PM 2.5 would kill within hours, that it was America's biggest killer, worse than cancer. Pretty big claims. Armed with this explosive information, what did the EPA do? It conducted tests on forty-one people, exposing them to high levels of PM 2.5, which Lisa Jackson had already declared to be capable of ending life.
Milloy took the bait. He doesn't believe PM 2.5 is remotely lethal and provides umpteen reasons to support his thinking, but he played along with the EPA: why, after the EPA had already declared minimal levels of PM 2.5 lethal, were pseudo-scientists, sponsored by the EPA, deliberately exposing people to levels of PM 2.5 far higher than those supposedly already confirmed as deadly? Not surprisingly, an entity whose chief wrote her e-mails under a false name wasn't in a big hurry to cooperate. Much of Milloy's story is about the circling of wagons by the EPA and other DC agencies. Every time Steve Milloy tried to draw attention to the nefarious practices of the EPA, other agencies refused to see anything wrong.
In a sense, Milloy's book, completed very recently, recounts his failure. He presented his case, immaculately, and the eco-establishment laughed it off. They reckoned they were untouchable. Then they lost the election. There is a chance for the EPA to be overthrown.
While Milloy's text could benefit from a bit of editing, he is always lucid, always supports his claims with footnotes. He's not the first writer to expose the EPA's outrageous, politically motivated assaults on liberty, but I think he is the best informed and the most articulate.
4 people found this helpful
Report abuse
R. Schneider
5.0 out of 5 stars
Critical Thinking at its Best on a Hugely Important Issue for the world.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 23, 2017Verified Purchase
This is an important book. It demonstrates, yet again, the value of critical thinking and followup. Sadly, it seems to be increasingly important to ask more questions of those who "govern" us; while at the same time critical thinking seems to be a lost art, no longer taught in schools, nor valued when executed.
Mr. Milloy's book first focuses on the science and statistics purportedly to be used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support their declaration of compliance standards for particulate matter in the atmosphere. He found none. Their stated goal is to reduce/eliminate "air pollution". Millie demonstrates how there is no science behind these standards and from his numerous interactions with the EPA via the media, via Freedom of Information requests, and court cases, the EPA's motives and reasons for these standards are matters of speculation. The cost of compliance is high, imposes great risks on our society, with no clear purpose. Perhaps the purpose is wealth transfer and turning societal risks into real issues--not just risks. Time will tell. Meantime, it's clear the world standards for particular matter in the atmosphere have no real basis.
Mr. Milloy tells his story pursing all this with engaging and thoughtful writing. His thinking and analysis processes, including critical thinking, is explained and visible. He has proven is point succinctly stated in the title to show how this is is "scare pollution" (not real pollution) and why and how to fix the EPA. Given that the entire world follows the EPA lead (erroneously, perhaps), the entire world must read this book.
Mr. Milloy's book first focuses on the science and statistics purportedly to be used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support their declaration of compliance standards for particulate matter in the atmosphere. He found none. Their stated goal is to reduce/eliminate "air pollution". Millie demonstrates how there is no science behind these standards and from his numerous interactions with the EPA via the media, via Freedom of Information requests, and court cases, the EPA's motives and reasons for these standards are matters of speculation. The cost of compliance is high, imposes great risks on our society, with no clear purpose. Perhaps the purpose is wealth transfer and turning societal risks into real issues--not just risks. Time will tell. Meantime, it's clear the world standards for particular matter in the atmosphere have no real basis.
Mr. Milloy tells his story pursing all this with engaging and thoughtful writing. His thinking and analysis processes, including critical thinking, is explained and visible. He has proven is point succinctly stated in the title to show how this is is "scare pollution" (not real pollution) and why and how to fix the EPA. Given that the entire world follows the EPA lead (erroneously, perhaps), the entire world must read this book.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Prof Wade W. Allison
4.0 out of 5 stars
An important well written account that should be read and discussed by everybody, in Europe as well as the USA
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 24, 2017Verified Purchase
I was not expecting to be impressed by this book. I am not a supporter of coal, oil, gas or biofuels. Any release of carbon is undesirable - it should be buried. However I became increasingly persuaded by Milloy's case which is well argued with extensive quotations. He only lost a 5th star from me because of his reluctance to give numerical data in a scientifically digestible form. A few simple tables would have been welcome. He leaves us thinking that the EPA never gave any, so he should not have made the same error. Since I am aware that the US EPA/NRC is guilty of exactly the same kind of abuse of science in their regulation of radiation/radioactivity, I was quite convinced of his message by the time I reached the end of the book.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
M. Pawelek
5.0 out of 5 stars
Only book to expose close collusion between regulators and scientists to ban the world
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 19, 2020Verified Purchase
This describes the half billion dollar waste by the US EPA who funded research to prove particulate matter is a killer. They failed. Despite funding study after study, the EPA weren't able to show particulate matter (AKA PM10, PM2.5) is a pollutant or a killer.
C P WERNHAM
5.0 out of 5 stars
EPA amorality and deception
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 5, 2017Verified Purchase
An excellent account of EPA amorality and deception. Quite jaw dropping what the EPA did. Claiming lethality of short term exposure to particulate matter, whilst conducting experiments exposing adults and children to this pollution.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse






