Per their study. Maybe more?
I didn’t notice in the “study” the names of the 1,400 people.
So are you saying that adding more pollutants in the air will have 0 impact?
I will also add These are Trump’s EPA numbers (on lives lost). Obama’s EPA was in lives saved. Then there is that quality of life thing for some folks.
You’re joking, right?
Not at all. I’m saying an arbitrary number intended to push a political POV is disingenuous.
If they know it will be 1,400 people, name them.
No, I’m not joking. Who are they? Be specific. Maybe we can help them in advance.
I see, you don’t understand statistics. Never mind. Good luck finding a verifiable psychic.
Oh, I understand statistics. I also understand how progressives regularly manipulate them to create a false narrative, a disingenuous reason for their desire to impose greater government power over individuals.
Of course they can’t name people. They also can’t prove that 1,400 people will die.
Since you understand statistics read section 4.
Did you actually READ it?
This is the key sentence:
"EPA does not have sufficient information to assess HRI potential on a unit-by-unit basis".
In other words … they made it all up.
All assumptions and wild guesses.
A POS, in other words.
“Per their study” this is actually not what was said (does this surprise anyone?) MSN (and like minded “news” sources) simply plucked one of the biggest numbers from the estimate and ran with it. More reasonable estimates are typically less than the annual number of murders in Chicago. Given that the entire study is a SWAG of questionable accuracy this is really just another in a long line of “the sky is falling” articles.
No, I really do think you don’t understand statistics
They can’t possibly know how many deaths will be attributed to a particular thing that they can’t actually measure. John dies of COPD, for instance. He lives five miles from a coal-fired plant. Do we really know that the plant caused the COPD? Might it have been an unrecognized case of histoplasmosis when he was 12 with the effects just now reducing his lung redundancy to zero?
But there is probably an unknown cost to everything. Wonder what all the new and improved batteries have done to increase heavy metals in the environment. How many people are going to die of cadmium poisoning? Nobody knows, but somebody can guess.
I think this is the point to keep in mind. It is likely that everything the EPA does like this comes with the requirement of including an impact study, and every study is going to find some impact. The EPA has estimates of what amount of lead is safe in drinking water, but as lead causes known health problems, is it possible to say that any amount of lead is safe for everyone? If one did a statistical evaluation of anything it is unlikely the answer will be zero. Ho hum.
So lets all pretend that there is no significant health impact of rules permitting more pollution.
This is a nonsense complaint and you know it. It makes perfect sense to state a reliable estimate of a statistical result without knowing the names of the specific “extra” deaths, or even which ones were the “extra” ones and which ones would have died anyway.
This is also a nonsense complaint. Statistics consequences of additional pollutants are a real thing, and trying to apply them to individual cases is a misapplication of the statistic.
If the study said that there would be about 5 additional deaths from increasing pollutants that would be a significantly different statement from saying it would be 1,400 or 140,000. When it comes to public policy, the quantities matter.
There was a study done a few years ago, where they actually added in UPWIND deaths!