New climate regulations will save lots of imaginary people

By |2015-10-06T16:02:12+00:00October 6th, 2015|CFACT Insights, Guest Insights|13 Comments

epaginaThe Environmental Protection Agency, an aggressive arm of the nanny government, has just issued new air quality standards that mandate that the new “safe” level of ozone in the air we breathe shall be lowered from the current 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb.  I feel better already, perhaps.

I also feel better for all the theoretical lives that will be saved, according to EPA sponsored studies such as this one.  However, my joy is tempered by the realization that  those are not real lives saved – rather, they are “estimated deaths saved,” as in —

We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration–response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature.

Thus, the fewer ozone deaths will be taking place in a computer-generated fantasy world, where epidemiological data-torturing takes place by bits and bytes, not in the hospital admission records for real-life patients.  The referenced paper concludes:

We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1, 410 to 2, 480 at 75 ppb to 2, 450 to 4, 130 at 70 ppb, and 5, 210 to 7, 990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70–60 ppb) had been met.

As a physician (see photo), I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.”  How am I to know that that unfortunate battigpatient, who has just died, died prematurely?  If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause.  All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively.  The answer lies within the all-knowing, EPA-sponsored computers, as in “health assessment methodology” that claim the ability to define who died before their time….

The EPA computers have spoken, and theoretical “premature deaths” will be averted.  In the real world, energy prices will likely increase and impact the least advantaged the hardest as they struggle to pay for the air-conditioning and heating by which modern technology protects us from the reality of nature’s health impacts.

NOTE: Excerpted from a longer article in American Thinker.  For the full article, please go to —


  1. Dano2 October 6, 2015 at 6:28 PM

    Shorter Battig:

    Pollution is good for us, everybody!



    • Brin Jenkins October 9, 2015 at 3:21 AM

      Up to your usual rhetoric without substance, of course pollution is bad, first identify what a pollutant is? It is not C02 in 400 parts per million.

      • Dano2 October 9, 2015 at 9:02 AM

        Massachusetts v. EPA.

        And dishonest assertion to state usual rhetoric without substance.



        • Brin Jenkins October 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM

          No, the exact link has still not been proven. Only a flawed theory that you are still unable to explain in your one words.

          • Dano2 October 10, 2015 at 12:18 PM

            CO2 is a pollutant. Deal with it.



            • Brin Jenkins October 12, 2015 at 8:36 AM

              40.000 repetitions equal one truth eh?

              • Brin Jenkins October 12, 2015 at 8:37 AM

                Most pollutants might be described as just another resource in the wrong place.

                • Dano2 October 12, 2015 at 9:57 AM

                  Yup. Too many GHGs in the wrong place and the planet warms. Basic physics.



              • Dano2 October 12, 2015 at 9:28 AM

                Until you understand it, it will be repeated.



  2. Ian5 October 6, 2015 at 9:59 PM

    I don’t suppose that it makes a difference that the American Lung Association and a host of medical organizations have advocated for an even stricter standard.

    Groups like the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

    • Brin Jenkins October 9, 2015 at 3:27 AM

      Why would you suppose that?

      We all want clean air, clean water and good food. Non of us wish to see wastage preferring conservation. What is unacceptable is intellectual bullying by those unable to explain the flawed theory of Global Warming. Cherry picking events over a short term in long cycles never worked out well, try increasing your wealth on any stock market with this technique.

      • Ian5 October 10, 2015 at 12:38 AM

        Just a little sarcasm in response to Battig’s alarmist views. He tries to discredit the EPA by using his credentials as a retired physician, all the while completely avoiding any reference to the conclusions of key medical and research organizations. Misleading and disingenuous.

        I’m glad to see we share common values like clean air, water, food and a conservation ethic. Sorry if you feel intellectually bullied. I think you are being too sensitive. Unlike many others on this site, I don’t call people names or use coarse language. I just don’t have much time for ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family.

      • Dano2 October 10, 2015 at 12:56 PM

        What is unacceptable is intellectual bullying by those unable to explain the flawed theory of Global Warming.

        Telling you about the science that is over 150 years but not down to the most intricate detail is pretending to be a victim bully bullying. A random commenter on The Internets not able to tell you the spin rate means them theory is flawed.

        Big thinkin!



Comments are closed.