,
12 tweets,
13 min read
Read on Twitter
My new @sciencemagazine piece with @HarvardChanSPH's @francescadomin8 calls out EPA leaders and science advisors for taking science out of air pollution standards. A THREAD: science.sciencemag.org/content/early/…
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 The EPA is chipping away at the scientific foundation for its ambient air pollutant protections on multiple fronts. My @sciam piece today is a good rundown: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/w…
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam Back in October, the EPA disbanded the particulate matter review panel, a key source of science advise to ensure EPA sets health-based standards. I wrote a thread on why that was bad here:
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam At the same time the review panel was disbanded, the EPA kicked independent scientists off its Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. Together, these changes mean the EPA is getting far less science advice for the science-based decision it has to make about air pollution policy. 
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam The EPA has also fast-tracked the timeline for updating the particulate and ozone standards. So we now have less science advice and less opportunity for public comment for the two air pollutants responsible for the most death and sickness in the US.
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam Now, the chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee Dr Tony Cox is asking the EPA to upend the time-tested and scientifically backed process it uses to set air pollutant standards that protect public health. This is where our Science piece focuses: science.sciencemag.org/content/early/…
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam The EPA's process for updating air pollution standards has been developed and approved by 11 previous committees with 138 top experts over many years. Cox' proposal goes against that. These are not mainstream views. latimes.com/local/californ…
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam The EPA uses the weight of the evidence approach to set health-based air pollution standards, drawing on diverse scientific fields from epidemiology to clinical medicine to atmospheric physics and systematically reviewing all relevant science.
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam Cox is proposing that EPA instead focus only on studies that follow a specific narrow approach called manipulative causality, that is, studies must show direct evidence that a reduction in pollution or tighter standard leads to health benefit. Sounds reasonable, right?
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam In reality, this is unworkable. When we study environmental pollutants, we must use observational data. It is not possible (or ethical) to design experiments where large populations are exposed to harmful air pollutant levels.
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam Cox's proposal places an unattainable burden of proof on the scientific community. This is in direct conflict with the Clean Air Act's requirement that the EPA protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
@sciencemagazine @HarvardChanSPH @francescadomin8 @sciam The Clean Air Act requires that air pollutant standards protect sensitive populations like children, the elderly and those with lung diseases. We don't protect people by ignoring evidence and setting an unattainable bar for the scientific community to clear.
