TheBakersfieldCalifornian.com

Forgive me for saying I told you so, but I did.

I've been plaguing you with stories about a California-specific air pollution study by Michael Jerrett of U.C. Berkeley on the supposedly deadly effects of PM2.5 since May 2010.

Some of you are probably sick of hearing about this obscure, egghead study. But this is where regulations that affect your daily lives are conceived. So pay attention!

The California Air Resources Board solicited and paid for the Jerrett study and, despite numerous criticisms of its methods and conclusions, it was rubber stamped by CARB's Research Screening Committee in October.

Then right on cue, CARB put out a press release late last week touting the Jerrett study and two other CARB-funded studies as proof that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) "elevates the risk for premature deaths from heart disease in older adults."

"We've long known particulate matter is a major component of California's air pollution problem," CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols said in the release. "These new studies underscore the need to eliminate the threat from California's air."

Follow along: The regulatory agency seeks the study, it pays for the study and, whaddayaknow, the study's results come back saying the regulatory agency needs to do more regulatin'. How's that for convenience?

Anyhoo, two things about Nichols' absurd statement.

Number one, there's no way to eliminate particulate matter from the atmosphere. Even if all us horrible, rotten humans and our evil emissions suddenly fell off the face of the earth, there would still be dust and soot in the air naturally.

Number two, using CARB's own rules, the studies she touts do not show any threat from PM2.5.

The Jerrett study only shows essentially no elevated risk of premature death from "all causes," which is the only category CARB can use for regulations. The one model out of nine in Jerret's study that showed any blip of risk at all has margins of error that take the risk down the zero, by the way.

The same is true for the "all cause" category in the other study cited in the CARB release, one by Michael Lipsett of the California Department of Public Health.

"All cause" is important because, as Jerrett himself told me several months ago, it's too difficult to pin a specific cause of death on air pollution. The numbers become too small to show a link.

Not only that, but CARB is supposed to weigh the cost of its regulations against the supposed benefits, lives saved and reduced medical costs.

It's the "all cause" death category that's used to calculate the premature deaths supposedly from PM2.5 exposure.

CARB has had wide swings in the number of deaths it says are caused by PM2.5 and, more specifically, diesel PM2.5. It currently claims its pending truck and heavy equipment rules will save 291 lives per year. (By the way, about 250,000 Californians die each year.)

So, it was very interesting to me that CARB's press release focused on the supposed risk of death "from heart disease in older adults" caused by PM2.5, rather than "all cause."

Makes me wonder if the rules of the game are about to shift. Stay tuned.

Aside from that, the timing of CARB's press release on its studies is impeccable.

The CARB board will meet Dec. 16 and representatives of the trucking and heavy equipment industries plan a last-ditch effort to convince board members to delay or scrap pending rules, slated to go into effect Jan. 1, 2012.

Obviously, popping out several "we're-all-gonna-die" studies right about now is useful to the alarmist community, Nichols chief among them.

The third study mentioned in CARB's release was actually the most interesting to me. It was a study by Fern Tablin, UC Davis, looking at what happens to mice exposed to concentrated levels of PM2.5 and smaller.

Of course, any such study opens an argument that humans don't ingest or inhale anywhere near such concentrations.

But I was interested in Tablin's examination of exactly how fine particles may affect the body, possibly leading to heart disease and other problems.

I'm hoping such studies open the door to more exacting science that drills down to what it is in fossil fuel emissions that harms human health.

Perhaps if we were able to figure that out, CARB could create truly economically feasible regulations for just those harmful constituents. Instead of the hamfisted, non accountable way we're going about it now.

For years, diesel fuel has been cleaner, truck engines made to vastly lower-emitting standards and some companies have already been adding filters on top of that. And for what?

"I don't have a problem doing all this if they can prove what I'm doing actually works," said Jim Ganduglia, owner of Ganduglia Trucking in Fresno. He's been upgrading and retrofitting his fleet of 15 trucks since 2006.

His question is a fair one: Are the rules actually saving lives?

"But they (CARB) never want to discuss that."

Hey, maybe CARB could spend some or our tax dollars studying THAT.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com