Comments about ‘Utah has battled bad-air problems for many decades’

And the mojority complain about Seattle's crisp drizzly winters,humm? Where's the humsn ingenuity when it comes to weather modification? Can anyone say H.A.R.R.P.?

There is SO MUCH MORE that The state could be doing to improve the air quality. Where is E85 fuel? I'd use it if it were available (I have a flex fuel vehicle). Where are tax rebates for converting wood fireplaces/stoves to gas or electric? Some electric companies in other states offer a reduced rate on off peak electric to encourage people to install an electric plenum on their furnaces. etc. Even a small tax rebate would encourage people to switch to alternative fuels in vehicles and homes and get the public thinking about the pollution more. NOTE I said 'pollution' not 'red air', not 'inversion'-lets start by calling it what it is!!!

Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states "An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable." Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.

Just three of the nasty chronic illnesses caused by the toxic air.

You cleverly neglected to mention the important point. Do inversions now occur more often, last longer, and trap more pollutants than those of years past? Also, calling the bad stuff "fog" is being truly generous. Smog? Unhealthy air?

The chamber of commerce loves you, but you do no favors for people concerned about their health.

Just like I keep saying,

The only way to get rid of our pollution is to move the mountains to a different location.

It isn't going to happen.

The most amazing revelation to me from this article was that, at least according to the 2nd quote (on my birthday no less), airplanes were able to "hover" back in 1965!

And I always thought I was pretty knowledgeable about aviation. :o)

You apparently spent some time doing historic research to prove that the "fog" has been an issue since the 1800s. What is your position on the issue? Should we continue to walk/drive around with our heads in the fog in a bubble of denial and do nothing about it? What will happen when the population doubles?

If you don't like it you can always move to Evanston

Utahns let their crooked legislators get away with murder ("subject to kings, presidents, magistrates,") when it comes to doing something about the chemicals in the air.
These ignorant people get what they deserve.

Aren't people from Utah (with their polluting ways( supposed to be packing up and heading to someplace in Missouri?
What's keeping them here?

Mormons own Utah........and will for 100's of years

Smog/fog has been here since I went to elementary School in the 60's.......

I am more concerned about the NO MOS that pollute the GENE POOL!

If it weren't for those dang liberals and their dang liberal media there wouldn't even be any pollution!

Patooey!

I agree with "ggeezer" who implied that what is of interest now is whether pollution is worse. I also agree with the comment that states we should be looking at ways of resolving the issue instead of whining about it.

So, we have established that Utah has had pollution problems for a long, long, LONG time!

Now, the only question is if our legislature is going to do something about it BEFORE we vote them out...

or after?