EPA's new report "America's Children and the Environment" notes that air pollution declined, but asthma prevalence continues to rise. One possible conclusion from this is that air pollution is not actually a cause of asthma. In fact, that's the most plausible conclusion. Every pollutant we measure has been dropping for decades pretty much everywhere, while asthma prevalence has been rising pretty much everywhere. This is true throughout the entire western world, not just the U.S. In fact, asthma incidence is highest in countries with the lowest levels of air pollution. Asthma is rare in developing countries with much more polluted air. Asthma incidence is simply unrelated to air pollution. Asthma attacks are probably unrelated as well. But even if air pollution can cause asthma attacks, it is a minor cause, responsible for less than 1% of all asthma attacks. EPA's own published estimates implicitly say this, but EPA never makes the percentage explicit, because that would undermine one of the agency's most potent weapons for creating unwarranted public fear.

Instead EPA continues to publish reports on children's health and the environment. It almost doesn't matter what the reports say. The very fact that EPA publishes health reports at all creates the false appearance that the trace levels of air pollution in the environments of western countries are an important factor in children's health. After all, if air pollutants weren't a significant factor in people’s health, EPA certainly wouldn't publish reports about them, would it?

A report by E&E News (subscription required) makes it clear that what’s in EPA health reports doesn't actually matter. The story opens with "While the number of children living in areas violating ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards has declined in recent years, adolescent asthma that results from exposure to such pollutants continues to rise, according to new U.S. EPA statistics." The journalistic goal is to raise health alarms, whether warranted or not. Thus, the news story itself says air pollution, the presumptive cause of asthma, went down and yet asthma prevalence went up. However, the reporter claims air pollution is responsible for rising asthma just the same.

The story then goes on to say that "the agency recently thwarted recommendations from a science advisory panel that called for the health standard to be strengthened." This creates the appearance that EPA didn't tighten the PM2.5 standard. In reality, EPA tightened the standard enough to increase the number of metropolitan areas violating the standard by 80% (from 15% of metro areas up to 27%).

Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch is quoted as calling the EPA report "breathtaking hypocrisy." Presumably he objects to EPA pointing out that air pollution has declined while asthma has gone up. You see, we all know air pollution causes asthma, so any evidence that it doesn't is hypocrisy. And we all know George Bush has rolled back the Clean Air Act, so any evidence that air pollution has declined must be hypocrisy also.

The news story closes by saying "While the [EPA] report notes the pollution can be a contributing factor to asthma and other health conditions in children, 'other factors may be more important, such as family history, nutrition, and socioeconomic factors.'" Why would the reporter quote EPA for the statement that "other factors may be more important" in causing asthma, rather than merely stating it as a fact. It is a fact. Actually, the real fact is that "other factors" not only "may" but actually do account for almost all asthma incidence and exacerbations, while air pollution accounts for virtually none. But by quoting EPA for the statement about non-pollution causes of asthma, the reporter creates the impression that this is just what EPA says in order to deflect attention from the real cause of asthma, which we all know is air pollution.

Do I sound dejected? Where's that bottle of bourbon...