Comments about ‘Clean air may mean a longer life’

Only 5 months of increased life expectancy? Over a 20-year period?

That's the rewards of completely destroying America's industrial base?

No one doubts that reducing air pollution would have some positive effect on life expectancy. But after losing millions of jobs nationwide in the refining and manufacturing industries one would have expected something a little more dramatic.

I see this guy must enjoy breathing that beautiful brown-orange air that smells a bit like paint thinner.

Capitalism uber alles, eh, That's all?

LOL!

When cigarette smoking shortens someone's life by a matter of months or years, society proclaims that smoking "killed" that person. Applying the same standard here, should we not be saying that most Americans are killed by pollution?

So, have you given up your automobile yet? After all, using your automobile not only exposes you to a significantly-higher chance of dying in an accident, the pollution it produces can lower your life expectacy by FIVE MONTHS!!!

What's that you say? You're going to keep your car because you NEED it to get to your job and go to the store and drive to Moab for vacation?

So, in other words, you're willing to put up with a little extra risk in order to enjoy the benefits an automobile provides. And here I thought clean air was priceless.

The comment above concerning giving up one's automobile is very poorly informed. The study concerns particulate air pollution, almost none of which comes from automobiles. Gasoline fuel produces very few particulates according to EPA data and emissions equipment on cars captures it effectively. Heavy diesel trucks produce more than cars, but the main sources of particulates are not transportation related.

From the Department of Environmental Quality's "Choose Clean Air" website:

"During the winter months, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality issues advisories through the news media. An "Air Action" advisory warns that pollution levels are beginning to build up and residents are asked to reduce driving by combining trips, carpooling, or using mass transit; residents are also encouraged to not use wood burning devices. An "Air Alert" advisory indicates that pollution levels are high and residents should limit driving by combining trips, carpooling, or using mass transit; in addition, wood burning is prohibited. The Department also asks industry to take proper steps during an "Air Action" and "Air Alert" periods."

It would be very interesting to find out that cars do not actually contribute to particulate pollution, because then that would call into question the rationale for telling people not to drive them.

Perhaps William's comment shows why many people think industries such as the Holly refinery and not them are solely responsible for air pollution.

There was also a study that showed cleaner air contributes to global warming! Of course those who are now experiencing the ice storms' effects would say that's a good thing!1

So what is the total cost for our five extra months' of life with more environmental regulation? That we are to be good stewards is a personal responsibility, not a government responsibility.

As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death. I'd rather have a premature death by five months than to have more government regulation.

Academia has lost sight of what it ought to be teaching our young people. Among the basics ought to be what makes people free.

Our taxes are too high already and it is not governments role. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.