by Trisell on 8/5/23, 1:17 PM with 19 comments
by MostlyStable on 8/5/23, 2:45 PM
The agency assumed, for instance, that every plane at an airport would be idling on a runway burning an entire tank of fuel, that the cancer-causing components would be present in the exhaust and that residents nearby would breathe that exhaust every day over their lifetime.
This seems to support their assertion that the modeled risk is unreasonable. But that unfortunately doesn't tell us what it actually is. Also, I'd love to know: was it EPA scientists making these assumptions in their models? If so, then why? The cynical part of me wants to say that it's to create exactly this scenario: They can dismiss the results as unreasonable, and since that's the only version they ran, they don't have reasonable numbers to give us.
by EAtmULFO on 8/5/23, 2:09 PM
by sneilan1 on 8/5/23, 2:11 PM
by gruez on 8/5/23, 2:15 PM
That's not how probabilities work. The average person might be expected to get 1.3 cancers over their lifetime (assuming they don't die early), but that doesn't guarantee that every person exposed to it will get cancer.
by hanniabu on 8/5/23, 1:55 PM
Edit, actually it's a full screen ad that's really difficult to get around
by midhhhthrow on 8/5/23, 2:21 PM