Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
President
Scientific Integrity Institute Los Angeles jenstrom@ucla.edu US SBA Environmental Roundtable September 16, 2011
a relative risk of 1.0 [RR = 1.00] means that the agent has no effect on the incidence of disease. When the relative risk reaches 2.0 [RR = 2.00], the agent is responsible for an equal number of cases of disease as all other background causes. . . . A relative risk greater than 2.0 [RR > 2.00] would permit an inference that an individual plaintiffs disease was more likely than not caused by the implicated agent. A substantial number of courts in a variety of toxic substances cases have 4 accepted this reasoning.
Final Report Integrative Overview Figure 2-2 December 2009 & Mary A. Ross PPT at February 26, 2010 CARB PM Symposium, which was facilitated by CASAC Chair Jonathan M. Samet Enstrom 2005 RR = 1.04 (1.01-1.07)
6
Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC
26 February 2010
Integrated Review Plan Identify key policyrelevant issues that will frame the science, risk, and policy assessments Draft Final
Rulemaking Notices: Agency decision making Interagency review Proposed Rule Public hearings/comment Agency decision making Interagency review Final Rule
Risk/exposure Assessment Reports Concise quantitative risk/exposure assessments Plan 1st Draft 2nd Draft Final
CASAC review and public comment on all draft science, risk/exposure, and policy assessment documents
Causality Determination
Causal Likely to be Causal Suggestive Suggestive Causal Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate
99
11
US EPA Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Enstrom 2005 Relative Risk [RR (95% CI)] for PM2.5 and Total (All Cause) Mortality in California First External Review Draft Figure 2-1 March 2010 Enstrom 2005 RR = 1.04 (1.01-1.07) Second External Review Draft Figure 2-4 June 2010 Enstrom 2005 Entirely Omitted Reviewed by August 25, 2010 CASAC Teleconference: Enstrom gave verbal & written comments on omission Final Report Figure 2-4 April 18, 2011 Enstrom 2005 Entirely OmittedNO Change
11
(4 MSAs)
Krewski 2010
CA CPS II
(7 MSAs)
Table 33 in 2009 HEI Research Report 140: Extended Follow-up and Spatial Analysis of Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality (1982-2000 ACS CPS II Cohort)
Daniel Krewski, Michael Jerrett, Richard T. Burnett, C. Arden Pope III, George Thurston, Michael J. Thun, et al.
Results shown in Table Pope 1995 equivalent Pope 2002 equivalent Krewski 2009
Enstrom analysis of Table Pope 1995 equivalent Pope 2002 latest years Krewski 2009 latest years
RR (95% CI) 1.048 (1.022 - 1.076) 1.031 (1.015 - 1.047) 1.028 (1.014 - 1.043)
RR (95% CI) 1.048 (1.022 - 1.076) 1.021 (1.002 - 1.041) 1.014 (0.980 - 1.049) 13
August 31, 2010 Letter from Daniel Krewski to HEI President Greenbaum
Special Analysis of California Subjects in Krewski 2009 HEI Research Report 140 (resulting from repeated requests to HEI by Ad Hoc Trucking Group during 2010)
15
Analysis of Relative Risk (RR) by City Associated with PM2.5 Level in 2000 HEI Reanalysis Report Based on Figures 5 and 21 and Appendix D: Cities Sorted by US Region & CA PM2.5 Level Rank Table D.1 City Number Table D.1 City Table D.1 State Table D.1 PM2.5 Level (Annual g/m) PM2.5 10.3 12.2 12.4 21.8 9.0 9.4 10.3 11.8 11.9 13.1 13.4 13.6 14.7 15.2 15.4 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.5 PM2.5 12.9 14.8 17.3 17.9 18.8 20.1 20.2 21.1 21.4 23.1 23.1 23.5 24.6 24.6 25.2 33.4 11.4 13.7 15.7 16.6 16.8 16.9 17.8 20.3 20.5 20.9 21.0 22.5 22.6 24.5 Appendix D US Region Figure 5 RR (Ruler Measure) RR 0.680 0.890 0.885 0.760 0.710 0.810 0.830 0.670 0.780 0.880 0.700 0.890 0.830 0.855 1.025 0.910 0.985 0.925 0.850 RR 0.890 0.845 0.810 1.005 0.980 1.005 1.060 0.970 0.910 0.980 1.145 0.960 1.060 0.980 0.995 1.020 0.845 0.815 0.930 0.840 1.000 0.910 0.870 0.840 0.845 0.950 0.945 0.850 0.835 0.760 Figure 21 PM2.5 Rank (Low,Med,High) L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M M M M M M M M M M M M H H L L L L L L M M M M M M M M Figure 21 RR Rank (Low,Med,High) L M M M M M M L M M M-->L M M M H M H H M M M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H M M H M H M M M M H H M M M RR Level Rank
3 8 9 39 1 2 4 6 7 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 10 16 27 29 30 31 32 37 38 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 5 14 20 24 25 26 28 33 34 35 36 40 41 45
8 13 14 9 83 150 44 85 149 70 138 45 109 5 144 136 107 16 135 124 21 79 110 100 157 106 37 117 97 104 87 95 98 36 158 28 63 66 129 73 146 4 29 132 3 33 23 71 1
Fresno San Francisco San Jose Los Angeles Albuquerque Spokane Topeka Reno Seattle Omaha Houston Wichita Portland Phoenix Salt Lake City El Paso Oklahoma City Denver Dallas Providence Hartford Jersey City Allentown Dayton Charleston Youngstown Indianapolis Philadephia Cincinnati Steubenville Buffalo Akron Cleveland Gary Huntington Tampa Minneapolis Jackson Chattanooga Raleigh Norfolk Little Rock Atlanta Nashville Mobile Chicago Washington Charlotte Brimingham
CA CA CA CA NM WA KS NV WA NB TX KS OR AZ UT TX OK CO TX RI CT NJ PA OH WV OH IN PA OH OH NY OH OH IN WV FL MN MS TN NC VA AR GA TN AL IL DC NC AL
W/CA W/CA W/CA W/CA W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE OV/NE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
2 25 24 5 4 8 11 1 7 23 3 27 12 21 46 28 40 31 19 26 17 9 43 37 44 47 36 30 38 49 35 48 39 41 45 16 10 32 14 42 29 22 15 18 34 33 20 13 6
Appendix D US Region
Excel Least Squares Regression RR = Intercept + Coefficent * PM2.5 Intercept Coefficent 95% CI
95% CI LL 95% CI UL
Average for 4 California Cities (Fresno, LA, SF, San Jose) Average for 16 Cities in Western States (see Appendix D) Average for 19 Cities in Ohio Valley States (see Appendix D) Average for 14 Cities in Eastern States (see Appendix D)
CA Average West Average OV/NE Average East Average AllEast=East+OV/NE Total Average Median City
0.834 0.674
-0.00210 0.01177
0.05763 0.02724
0.766 0.697
0.00808 0.01108
(0.001,0.015) (0.006,0.016)
0.00093 0.00606
0.01523 0.01610
Average for all 49 US Cities Median for all 49 US Cities (City 25)
Average for 13 Cities west of and including Denver, CO Average for 36 Cities east of Denver, CO
0.825 0.916
Figure 21 Definition of Levels of Fine Particles (PM2.5 in g/m) and Relative Risk of Mortality (RR) Interval Classifications for Fine Particles (PM2.5 in g/m): Low (L) = 8.99 - 17.03; Medium (M) = 17.03 - 25.07; High (H) = 25.07 - 33 [or 33.4] Interval Classifications for Relative Risk of Mortality (RR): Low (L) = 0.502 - 0.711; Medium (M) = 0.711- 0.919; High (H) = 0.919-1.128 [or 1.145]
Appendix D Definition of US Regions: West (W), East (E), Ohio Valley/Northeast (OV/NE) Note: California (CA or W/CA) is one state within the West
September 30, 2010 Special Analysis by James Enstrom of Figures 5 and 21 in 2000 HEI Reanalysis Report
Mortality Risk from all causes of death (MR) during 1982-1989 among CPS II subjects in 49 cities was determined by manual analysis using Figures 5 and 21 and Appendix D Fresno had 2nd Lowest MR of the 49 cities Los Angeles had 5th Lowest MR of the 49 cities The average MR for the 4 CA cities in CPS II was 90% of the average MR for the 49 cities
20
21
Investigation Finds Lack of Impartiality, Financial Conflicts of Interest in US EPA Science Boards
August 4, 2011 Letter from US Senator James Inhofe to US EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins: EPA Report due September 19, 2011 - Lack of Impartiality: EPA has violated its own Peer Review Handbook - Failure to Balance Perspectives: EPA has violated the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act - Failure to Rotate Members: EPA has disregarded Administration policy to rotate membership on panels
- Financial Conflict of Interest: EPA has repeatedly selected panel members with EPA research grants
24
Recommendations
1) US EPA should conduct new, accurate, objective ISA of PM and eliminate errors and omissions 2) US EPA should withhold all regulations justified by PM2.5-related premature deaths until an accurate and objective reassessment is done
3) CASAC members should have minimal conflicts of interest and should serve limited terms 4) US EPA & CARB need to fund all legitimate researchers, including critics, and need to commit to objective air pollution epidemiology
26