Transcript of class discussion, Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2006
Students listened to a story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189892), first aired Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2006 on "All Things Considered:" EPA Paper Faults Agency for Thousands of Deaths by
T: So, we had fine particle pollution and how the EPA recently set standards for fine particle emissions from factories... standards released Sept. 21, 2006. [The] article was about how scientists (from across the political spectrum) who had advised the EPA about the standards were disappointed with the director of the EPA going against their recommendation. First off, is that a social justice issue, and why?
JM (shook head yes): Well, because if people are going to suffer and die, there is something that could be taken into consideration that was not taken into consideration.
KO: It involves people making decisions that affect lots of other people
MG: If they're making decisions that affect others in a bad way, whereas [something] then it's a social justice idea. They have some sort of obligation given that it affects other people.
KS: Also the fact that it affects groups of people, like not just a large number, but [others named older people, asthmatics]... makes it a social justice issue.
T: But, a contrarian might argue that before Sept. 21, there were no standards on particulate matter emission, so the fact that the EPA has established guidelines protects more people than [were protected by] the lack of guidelines before that time.
KS: But we could be doing a lot better.
JM: Yeah, they had information to do better but for some reason aren't doing it. I mean, it's like, if there's a volcano explosion, and you protect half the city and let the other half of the city get burnt out. Sure, you protected half of it, but what about all the other people who just died?
KO: It's like if you're going to make a nature preserve, and you set aside 10 trees that you're going to protect, but you're not going to protect the rest even if you know they will be harmed if you don't protect them.
T: So, we're in a unit on probability, and the article we heard didn't mention probability at all. But they did mention numerical predictions, like "5,000 - 10,000 more people would die each year because the recommended restrictions were relaxed." Where do you think these numbers came from? How does probability play into such a prediction? Do they just pull numbers out of the ether?
KO: Well, they really calculated the probability that say, 1 person would die in a certain amount of time...
T: Do you think that probability is empirical or theoretical?
IC: I expect empirical. They probably have some study regarding particulate matter and its effect on people
MG: Maybe they took the average of what the standards were before, without a rule, and then saw how many people died then, then looked how much more relaxed it was under the new guidelines and re-calculated...
IC: Maybe they compare different areas of the country.
MG: Right
KS: But the new guidelines are very recent, aren't they?
T: Sept. 21
KS: Yeah. So they haven't had time yet to decide exactly what the effects are going to be.
T: And they didn't know the exact effects beforehand, except in looking at health statistics from the CDC to see what sort of asthma and other deaths are attributed to particulate matter. They talked in the article about how cigarette smoke is probably the single most visible public health threat, but particulate matter, in terms of scope, is almost as bad as cigarette smoke. That puts a frame on what the situation is. You're right, they haven't had time to respond one way or the other [with new studies], but they based recommendations on public health data they had, projecting on the difference between the proposed restrictions and the restrictions that were passed.
[Period ended when bell rang].