Letter to the Editor: Urge EPA to take further measures to clean air in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Misericordia baseball wins NCAA opener

The American Lung Association&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Air&#8221; report paints a scary but misleading picture of heavily polluted air.The association is using this report to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency to dramatically cut the current ozone standard. But the science on ozone and public health is dubious at best.A peer-reviewed paper by Dr. William Adams, one of the key studies relied upon by the EPA (and Lung Association) to justify lower ozone standards, found no statistically significant difference in lung function in humans exposed to ozone at 80 parts per billion (5 ppb above the current standard) or 60 ppb (the low end of the EPA&#8217;s proposed new standard). Rather than accept Dr. Adams&#8217; conclusions, the EPA performed an unpublished &#8220;reanalysis&#8221; so his data would support the agency&#8217;s political agenda &#8211; a reanalysis Dr. Adams has thoroughly rejected.Additionally, research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine found no statistical difference in lung function at 60 ppb compared to higher levels. And a recent peer-reviewed study from researchers at Johns Hopkins Children&#8217;s Center found no link between outdoor air pollution and childhood asthma rates.We all want to breathe clean air, and as the American Lung Association&#8217;s report shows, our air is steadily improving. Contrary to the association&#8217;s assertions, however, slashing the EPA&#8217;s ozone limits isn&#8217;t supported by sound scientific evidence.Joseph PerroneChief science officerCenter for Accountability in ScienceWashington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor: EPA’s proposed ozone limits go too far, defying ‘sound scientific evidence’