Image Courtesy of http://pdpics.com/photo/2320-research/
Intrepid Insight has just released the final report for our second client, Dr. James Enstrom of the Scientific Integrity Institute. The report and all details are available here:
As a quick summary, Dr. Enstrom requested we perform a statistical review of the methods and criticisms presented in his 2017 article “Fine Particulate Matter and Total Mortality in Cancer Prevention Study Cohort Reanalysis”, the subsequent response by Dr. Arden Pope et al., and the latest response by Dr. Enstrom. He also requested we verify past meta-analyses results and perform a series of new meta-analyses measuring the pooled relative risk of PM 2.5 pollution on total mortality.
Even though we do not take a position on the politics of the underlying issue, it is worth acknowledging the importance of the question being debated. The relationship between PM 2.5 and mortality is used to justify air pollution regulations. In a 2014 regulatory impact report, in a discussion assessing the benefits of the Clean Air Act, the EPA states “Avoided premature deaths account for 98 percent of monetized PM-related co-benefits and over 90 percent of monetized ozone-related cobenefits.” Because regulations are never cost-less, it is important to balance the cost and the benefits. This is why the EPA and other regulatory bodies release reports, like the one quoted above, analyzing the net economic and health impact.