Laws on pollution in Toronto – failing? Pollution levels haven’t changed despite efforts as indicated by this University of Toronto study.
Looking over the last decade, there has been no overall reduction in smog in the GTA, despite best efforts to control some of the contributing factors,
However, claims of health impacts due to pollution in Toronto and other Canadian cities are up according to some other studies. Ross McKitrick says in a new peer reviewed study that the models and claims don’t add up.
Study Questions Link Between Air Pollution, Serious Health Effects
University of Guelph News Release
Challenging accepted wisdom, a University of Guelph professor says claims about the health effects of air pollution are not supported by data from Canadian cities.
Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, along with Gary Koop of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow and Lise Tole of the University of Edinburgh, analyzed a new database from 11 Canadian cities over a 20-year period. Unlike most earlier studies, this one included controls for effects of smoking and income.
They found no evidence that air pollution affected either hospital admission rates or time spent in hospitals. However, they did determine that both smoking and income levels directly affect respiratory health. Their findings appear this week in the journal Environmental Modelling and Software.
The researchers compared monthly hospital admission rates between 1974 and 1994 for all lung ailments to ambient levels of five common air contaminants. “We were looking for predictable, common physical effects from standardized exposure levels,” McKitrick said, adding the researchers examined data over a longer time span than most previous studies, and used advanced econometric methods called Bayesian Model Averaging to ensure they considered all possible combinations of effects.
“Our examination of data back to the early 1970s was motivated in part by the fact that air pollution was much higher compared to today,” he said. “If today’s air pollution levels are causing thousands of hospitalizations, the effects should have been even stronger in the 1970s when air quality was much worse.”
“But the data showed no evidence of changing health effects at the pollution levels observed in Canada over recent decades.”
The findings contradict hundreds of studies that have connected urban air pollution levels and respiratory health problems. Such studies have resulted in calls for tighter air pollution regulations and more stringent emission standards.
McKitrick said the discrepancies between this study and earlier research stem from the common practice of not examining long enough data sets and not controlling for model uncertainty, smoking rates and socioeconomic variables. He added that their study drew data samples from the 1970s, when many Canadian cities had high pollution levels, through the 1980s, when steady reductions began, and into the 1990s, when pollution levels were historically low.
“It’s important to get accurate measures of the potential benefits of air pollution regulations, namely improved quality of life and reduced health-care costs, in order to guide regulatory decision-making,” McKitrick said.
“We did find consistent evidence that lower smoking rates lead to fewer hospital admissions and shorter stays,” he said. The researchers also found evidence that, all else being equal, regions with larger economies tend to have higher hospital admission rates. This may indicate more hospitals and longer patient treatment regimens, McKitrick said.
===============================
See the paper and supporting data here in Dr. McKitricks web page.
===============================
Models that predict thousands of smog-related hospitalizations in Toronto don’t hold up
By Ross McKitrick
For many years we have heard that air pollution in Canada is responsible for thousands of annual deaths and hospitalizations. In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution. The Ontario Medical Association, provincial and federal governments, lung associations and other groups regularly cite these kinds of figures in support of calls for new regulatory initiatives. These death and hospitalization rates are astonishing. It is like suffering a 9/11-sized terrorist attack every 10 months.
But is it really true? The estimates are derived by taking correlations in the epidemiological literature between observed pollution levels and health indicators, like hospital admission rates, and then extrapolating across populations to estimate how many deaths and illness diagnoses can, in theory, be attributed to pollution. In other words, the numbers come from statistical models, not from direct observations. That means we need to pay close attention to how the statistical modeling is done.
Together with my coauthors Gary Koop of Strathclyde University and Lise Tole of the University of Edinburgh, I have just published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Modelling and Software that does just that. What we found gives us reason to believe that the kind of statistical modeling behind common claims about air pollution may need a careful second look.
There are hundreds of studies in the epidemiological literature that have reported correlations between air pollution and health measures. But there are some common weaknesses to this literature. First, the results are not consistent across studies. Some studies find particulate matter (PM) affects health, but not sulphur dioxide (SO2) or carbon monoxide (CO). Others reported SO2 has an effect, but not PM. Another reports CO has an effect but not ozone (O3), while another finds O3 matters in some cities but not others. One large U.S. study found PM increased mortality risk a little bit across the U.S., except in 20 out of 88 cities in which it actually reduced mortality risk. These kinds of inconsistencies should not occur if the health effect is based on a real physiological response. This is a second puzzling aspect of the literature: Despite decades of testing, clinical investigations have not found experimental support for the idea that current ambient air pollution levels cause lung disease or mortality.
…
We found, not surprisingly, that smoking is bad for lung health. We found that regions with higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP) tend to have higher hospital admission rates, depending on the model specification, which may indicate that those regions have more hospital services. And we found evidence that hot days with high air pressure tend to produce more hospital admissions.
What we did not find was any evidence that increases in air pollution levels are associated with increased rates of hospital admissions. We looked at the data every which way imaginable. If we were to cherry pick, by looking only at a sub-sample of the time or by picking just the right form of the model, we could find evidence that CO or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) have positive effects on lung disease, but those results do not get strong support in the data. The models that get consistent support either show no pollution effects or — paradoxically — negative effects. In other words, in some cases as air pollution rises, hospital admissions go down. As odd as that sounds, we are by no means the first to report negative coefficients in the literature. Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.
Based on our analysis, we could estimate what the effect on hospital admissions would be if all the pollution currently observed in Toronto air were to disappear. Toronto Public Health claims about 6,000 fewer hospitalizations would occur. But this claim gets no support in the data. We found that there would be no reduction in lung-related hospitalizations. If anything there might be somewhere between 20 and 200 more admissions, if we apply the statistical results in a mechanical fashion.
Very few studies over the past decade have controlled for socioeconomic covariates (including smoking), fewer still have looked at long data panels back to the 1970s and fewer still have dealt with model uncertainty. Those that have addressed one or more of these issues typically find the effect of air pollution shrinks or disappears outright. Thus our results are actually quite consistent with the relevant group of previous studies. The popular idea that current ambient air pollution has a powerful effect on lung health might look like it is based on a large empirical foundation, but on closer inspection the pile contains a lot of weak results.
So the bottom line is that, for the purpose of assessing the link between air pollution levels and hospital admissions, one needs to look closely at the kinds of studies being done and how they did the statistical modeling. More studies need to be done using long time series that go back to the 1970s or earlier, more studies need to control for socioeconomic covariates and more studies need to take account of model uncertainty. Based on evidence to date, as these things begin to happen, we should not be surprised if current estimates of the health effects of air pollution turn out to be in need of major revision.
Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph.
Read complete article: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/17/where-are-the-bodies.aspx#ixzz0in3quaUy
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT: Now the journal Science is saying that damned WATER VAPOR is the reason we’re currently not seeing Global Warming!
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/03/21/climategate-shameless-science/
Any Greenie out there got a good idea on how to stop that relentless water vapor from fouling up your dire predictions? Stop watering your lawn, perhaps? Empty your swimming pool? Stop buying bottled water?
Doh.
I surmise Global Warming is on hold until that problem is fixed!
Funny thing… McKitrick’s demonstrated correlations (that repiratory health is linked to socioecnomic status and smoking) pass statistical tests for correlation (not just putting two graphs up and saying, “[yup looks like they both move in the same direction]”) because in Economics any theory claiming correlation HAS to pass this test.
CO2 and temperature do not pass the first level test to prove (real) correlation, which is a requirement before causation can be established. There is, it sounds like at least, a professional econometrician (VS) around making comments about it on various blogs.
Anthony,
A guest post from VS would be really, really cool!
We assume that actual figures for regional hospital admissions are on record, including diagnosis of respiratory disease, if any, in each case. If such long-term data-sets, adjusted for socio-economic factors such as income/education levels, absolute levels of cigarette consumption (two packs a day, etc.), show stable or declining rates of lung infections, fancy statistical correlations merely ice the cake: “Pollution” as defined by taxaholic regulatory bureaucracies is prima facie a non-issue.
If not predictive within (say) 95% confidence intervals, abstruse models correlating air quality with respiratory debilities are self-evidently flawed. Spurious input-data, specious statistical evaluation, conclusions manifestly agenda-driven Green Gang propaganda, render the vast majority of such lumpen-academic exercises worse than useless. The sooner researchers of integrity expose this drivel, providing cross-discipline real-world verifications, the better for long-suffering polities worldwide.
Jan Pompe (03:55:34) :
Pingo (00:19:47) :
“Now the pollution doesn’t seem to matter perhaps I can have a few extra minutes in bed and walk that way again!”
I don’t think so you should read carefully:
“Nobody is trying to argue that air pollution is good for you: this is either just noise in the data, or it might be an effect from “averting” behaviour, where people who are susceptible to lung problems stay indoors on days with bad air quality.”
If it smells bad or makes you cough it’s better to avoid it.
=====
Some posters seem to be saying air pollution doesn’t hurt you much, if at all.
GASP……CHOKE…… WHEEZ….. COUGH !
It seems they know that the jig on AGW is up, and so they’re scrabbling around for something else to use as an excuse to beat us up and lighten our wallets.
Outstanding work !!
Good to see that it is peer reviewed.
Is it robust?????
More alarmist models need to be fixed !!!
“Mike Haseler (05:43:12) :
I heard a suggestion on the radio that the rise in allergies could be a result of the lack of dirt in our present lives. The theory is that the body’s immune system expects a certain level of activity, and in the absence of any pathogens to fight, it ups the sensitivity in a kind of self-correcting control.”
Well it’s not a theory but a fact that the human body (and other animals) does adapt well to pollution as long as it also receives adequate nutrition and creature comforts. I lived in Mumbai for almost two years and saw the communities who live on the streets. They sleep in between traffic inhaling exhaust fumes from very old vehicles yet many of these people live long relative to the amount of nutrition, vaccines and medical attention they receive (which is very little).
Likewise for the dogs who live on every corner of India’s city streets. I see some of them with gaping holes in their flesh and insides exposed, and those same dogs were there month after month after month. One dog was many years old. Same goes for urban pigeons who are completely adapted to high pollution environments.
That’s not to say we want pollution around, but that those who are exaggerating modern pollution’s effect on our longevity are simply making up the figures. It’s impossible to know how long someone is “supposed to live” in the absence of current conditions. That requires faith, belief and psychic powers.
same question me and Larry Wahl asked when Chico City Council discussed banning woodstoves – where’s the bodies? Scott Gruendl and Mark Lundberg tried to tell us they had death certificates, but ended up admitting it was just statistical information that had been extrapolated from somewhere.
You know, my family gave up our woodstoves to move into a smaller house – and now, I look out across the valley, and I see nothing but gunk. Well, it’s not my woodsmoke, I’ll tell you that. And, get aload of this – our PG&E bill actually went up, even though we moved out of an 1800 sq ft house into a brand new, insulated, 750 sq ft apartment. Go figure.
you have a good one Anthony, keep it up.
REPLY: Welcome, Juanita, on your first comment here. Yes I’m going to bring this one close to home. – Anthony
——-
And similar to this:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/article_view?searchterm=michael%20mann&b_start:int=0
The visible component of smog is sub-micron sulfuric acid aerosol. Unlike gases, sub-micron particles are not trapped in the air ways and are absorbed in the lungs. Sulfuric acid aerosol is not a well measured pollutant and is not well controlled. People are constantly warned to reduce their outdoor activity on smog days. I don’t think the economists considered these factors in designing their study. They would both tend to bias the results.
pft (00:52:54) :
“If you have never lived in Shanghai or Hong Kong maybe you will believe this story. I developed a chronic cough that did not leave until I left the area after 5 years, who knows what will happen in 10 years.”
Here we go…health effects of pure oxygen.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521213022.htm
Everything is harmful at some concentration. The question is ‘what concentration’.
Oxygen is harmful at 100% concentration. Is it also harmful at 20% concentration? What about 22% or 19%?
OT but sad.
First we were told 10 years ago by the Independent about the virtual end of snow in the UK. Now the BBC reports:
I hope that they can now appreciate that cold is deadlier than the slight warming the UK experienced.
Sorry, forgot the BBC link”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8575537.stm
Duncan (00:49:53) :
Why stop 16 years ago?
To hide the decline
Ot: Update on the Icelandic eruption http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/
Nature has it’s own SO2/ CO2 problems….
NickB. (07:44:23) :
Funny thing… McKitrick’s demonstrated correlations (that repiratory health is linked to socioecnomic status and smoking) pass statistical tests for correlation (not just putting two graphs up and saying, “[yup looks like they both move in the same direction]“) because in Economics any theory claiming correlation HAS to pass this test.
CO2 and temperature do not pass the first level test to prove (real) correlation, which is a requirement before causation can be established. There is, it sounds like at least, a professional econometrician (VS) around making comments about it on various blogs.
====
I have noticed a lack of correlation between the temperature in my house and the temperature outside.
I just know there’s a connection between Alaskan volcanoes and Totonto SMOG. Gotta be! How about Icelandic Volcanoes and London FOG? Gotta be! Anyone in London (England) see any fog lately? Say in the past 12 hours? Let us know if you do.
http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/03/eruption_started_at_eyjafjalla.php#comments
DirkH (04:50:37) :
McCitrick doesn’t “deny” a possible health effect of air pollution. What he does find astonishing though are the alleged effects in Toronto: “In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution.”
These are incredibly high numbers. The city has 2.5 Million inhabitants. So that’s on the order of 30K naturally occuring deaths per year given Canadas high life expectancy. So what they’re saying is more than 5% of all deaths are caused by outdoor pollution….
======
I’m not sure that’s exactly what they are saying. The “1,700 premature deaths” due to air pollution suggests 1,700 would have lived longer if not for the pollution.
I would be curious to control in this study for genetic background. I have a theory that people with northern European vs. African genetics have a disparate rate of cancer from smoking, because the Europeans spent more time in smokey caves. This weeded out the weaker lung genetics in the Europeans, so they have lower cancer rates from smoking.
In-so-far as hospitalization rates haven’t dropped, bombarding people with hysteria about pollution and their toxic environment via the MSM will have a psychosomatic response, esp. coupled with socialized medicine, i.e. no financial inhibition to seeking care.
Ross’ paper couldn’t come at a better time. Mark Jacobson at Stanford just published a model study, using his regional GCM, to predict that the increased “CO2 dome” over cities, due to fossil fuel burning, will increase the number of deaths from pollution.
As usual, his study includes no physical uncertainty limits on the predictions, but he’s offering the results as supporting a policy of _local_ regulation of CO2 emissions, based on the purported health costs.
The predicted increase in mortalities is very small — 50 to 100 per year in all of California (pop. ~35 million) — which would almost certainly be lost in the noise if a true uncertainty were calculated. No one in AGW-driven climate science seems to have heard of physical uncertainty limits, though, and politicians are apparently too ignorant to ask for them.
The press release is here
The Canadian Mc-Brothers strike again! Well done.
I can see the smooth, moisturized, never-picked-up-shovel handwringing now:
“Yes….but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop air pollution.”
[Wring wring….pull on collar…..blink blink….wring wring.]
THAT’S NOT THE POINT!
The point is that bogus scientific or statistical claims should NOT be used to set policy….as they have….time and time again.
This is also at the heart of the CAGW agenda for those of us who see right through it.
It is ashamed because everyone I know wants to breathe clean air, drink clean water, swim in healthy oceans, observe healthy natural habitats, etc….its just that they don’t want disingenuous public policy shoved down their throats.
In regards to this peer-reviewed study [which, indirectly, is another exposé on the broad brush technique of climate fraud], one wonders how many other similar studies will surface in the coming years.
I think if Climate Audit and Dr. McKitrick ever wanted to do an “audit” on the scientific “policies” that shape the US EPA, they could end their careers there…not because their findings will be controversial [because they will be] but because they will have so much work to do.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
roger samson — On the wealth issue, obesity is the third biggest killer in North america, there just might be a link there with affluence.
Speaking of shibboleths.
This is yet another statistical lie. First they redefined “obese” to mean anything more than a few lbs over an ideal. Then it turns out that said ideal is based on BMI, which as far as I can tell is poorly done; e.g. women after child bearing age are *supposed* to put on weight naturally, usually around 10-20 lbs or so, and BMI is based on an ideal setup for age 25 with sliding scales that don’t work. What this means is that this woman who is perfectly healthy and whose body has added weight as commanded by nature is now flagged by the BMI scale as overweight and/or obese. If she goes into the hospital for anything (we all have to die os *something*) then of course her weight is then recorded and statistically misapplied to the wrong row or column, skewing data like crazy. Rinse/lather/repeat for everyone.
Next thing you know, some guy on a message board says something to the effect of an obesity crisis.
As per the earlier statistical abuse article, I for one am simply sick and tired of this sort of abuse. Rather than using information for understanding anything, it’s being (ab)used by insurance companies as an excuse for them to artificially raise rates or deny payment, for governments to impose all manner of taxes, and so on.
And this is only obesity. It’s the same problem EVERYWHERE.
I’m not the only one who’s sick and tired of it. Frankly everyone else is too, so how does this opposition to abuse get registered? Very simply. Statistics show that N Americans have trust issue with the science community, hence Judith Curry will suggest scientists need better communications, and statisticians everywhere will be convinced that Americans need more education and less food.
Pat Frank (10:09:16) :
Also….look at the opening and closing lines of the press release.
OPENING: “Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem.”
CLOSING: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NASA provided financial support for this research.”
Uh-huh. Yawn…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
David Suzuki (06:41:23) :
London Ontario has not had one single smog warning in over 2 years although the fear mongering local health unit and the fear mongering local media always like to issue plenty of smog alerts, just in case.
————————-
A few years ago (but since “Green” McGuinty became premier of Ontario) the levels of airborne particles and ozone etc. that had to be reached to constitute a smog day were lowered. Therefore, as pollution levels went down, so too did the levels necessary to trigger health alerts and to set in motion various measures created to help the vulnerable in the event of smog. Even with that, Toronto had, I believe, only two or three smog days last year, down from the usual 30+, due to the unusually cold summer.
OT but just for kicks check out the University of Arkanasas webcam…
Now this is the “South” ya’ll…..and ya’ll know how hard it is to get accumulating snow with the sun angle so high in the sky…being Spring and all.
http://www.uark.edu/home/11136.php
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA