, 16 tweets, 13 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
1. Here’s a thread on some of the alarming views held by @EPA science advisors appointed by disgraced former EPA head, Scott Pruitt; these advisors are playing a big role in determining whether you & your family will breathe safe or unsafe levels of air pollution.

It's bad.
@EPA 2. The Clean Air Act tasks @EPA’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) & @EPAAWheeler with setting health standards for air pollutants like ground-level ozone, a key component of smog, & deadly fine particle pollution, PM2.5.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 3. The Clean Air Act says these clean air health standards must be ‘requisite to protect the public health, with an adequate margin of safety’ to protect especially vulnerable groups like the elderly, children & asthmatics.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 4. Pruitt-appointed advisors are evaluating the health standards for ozone & deadly fine particle pollution, now.

Here are some of the views held & advanced by two Pruitt appointees, to give you a sense of the coming majority willingness to accept unprotective health standards.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 5. Here’s one Pruitt appointee arguing that health hazards associated with decreased lung functions (FEV1 effects) caused by ozone pollution should be ignored if they are “temporary” & “reversible.” insideepa.com/sites/insideep…
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 6. Ponder that mindset: many adverse lung & respiratory impacts caused by air pollution—from asthma attacks to lung inflammation to respiratory symptoms—may be ‘temporary & reversible,’ but doctors & EPA long have considered them, well, adverse & concerning health impacts.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 7. Death is not temporary & reversible; some other health hazards may not be, either.

But is that *really* the test we want to govern whether the government sets protective or unprotective health standards for dangerous air pollution?
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 8. The Pruitt appointee defines what he considers a “truly adverse health effect”: “nonhealing, injurious inflammatory response.”

Put aside circular “injurious”: he thinks Americans only should be protected against levels of air pollution that cause “nonhealing” health hazards.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 9. Any health hazards less than “nonhealing,” in this view, would present a “tenable rationale for classifying them as natural, organism-specific margin-of-safety benchmark indicators.” IOW, ignoring the hazards for purposes of setting population-wide clean air health standards.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 10. The Pruitt appointee pulls another extreme maneuver in arguing WHO clean air health standards should protect: only “most healthy adults.”

Not unhealthy adults, the vulnerable elderly, children, asthmatics, regularly exposed outdoor workers.
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 11. This, too, marks a radical departure from longstanding @EPA & legal practices to guarantee ALL Americans are protected against unsafe levels of air pollution, not just “most healthy adults.” Here’s what @EPA said in 2013, ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.…:
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 12. Consider these outlier views of a 2nd Pruitt appointee on CASAC: she opposed @EPA’s *current* ozone health standard of 70 parts per billion because, she said, ‘Americans spend little time outdoors’ & “so they will often not be exposed to ozone.” energyindepth.org/wp-content/upl…
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 13. Incredibly, the Pruitt appointee carried her argument to even more offensive extremes, arguing seniors who are days away from dying are “even less likely to be outdoors,” so why bother setting a health standard protective of vulnerable populations like the elderly?

@EPA @EPAAWheeler 14. The Pruitt appointee asked: “Were all of the 100,000s of people in epidemiology studies outside for 8 hours the day immediately before their deaths?”

Are THESE the types of questions you want governing whether you, your kids, parents & grandparents breathe unsafe air?
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 15. Lest you think these are the isolated view of just some Trump @EPA science appointees, realize a co-author of this same article w/ its extreme (even, offensive) views is a man that Pruitt appointed to *chair* @EPA’s prestigious Science Advisory Board. texasobserver.org/texas-toxicolo…
@EPA @EPAAWheeler 16. I predict Americans will not be protected against unsafe levels of particle or ozone pollution by @EPAAWheeler or Pruitt’s hand-picked science advisors. eenews.net/greenwire/stor…
Protections will need to await a new @EPA & new set of advisors, ones who follow the science. End.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with John Walke

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!