Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
YOU CAN TAKE ACTION TOO: Send a message to the EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2010
Lisa Jackson
EPA Administrator
Subject: SUPPORT CLEANER AIR
EPA proposal of new rules to lower the amount of harmful ozone, or smog, in our air
Dear Ms. Jackson:
Thank you for examining this serious issue and proposing protections from smog.
In December 2009, we buried a long-time family friend who grew up in the Los Angeles area and died of lung cancer. A non-smoking, woman under 40 (she was 34) who left behind three children, her husband and a lifetime of giving (she was a teacher). As we researched the condition in an attempt to understand how and why this could happen, we found that there was a near "epidemic" of cases just like hers, non-smoking, women under 40, dying of lung cancer.
Just recently I watched the updated version of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" that very briefly talks of a study conducted when the smog alerts in California were very serious in the late 1980s that found a high percentage of youth in the Los Angeles area had lesions on their lungs. This is where my friend grew up and lived her entire life.
A recent study in my community in California where we have made many strides to improving smog standards (but still have very poor air quality) showed that the youth in our area have a significantly decreased lung capacity and have a higher than average rate of asthma. What will the story be in 20-30 years as these kids become adults? Will friends and family members be mourning their loss from what is clearly a causal effect of poor air quality and pollution like ozone and smog?
Science tells us, in more than 1,000 studies, that the current smog standards fail to protect the health of millions of Americans. Strengthening these standards is vital, and I'm pleased that the new proposed standards fall within the range recommended by scientists and health professionals.
I urge you to set the primary standard at the more protective limit of 60 parts per billion. Smog is harmful even at very low levels, and this lower level will do the most to protect public health, especially for people suffering from illnesses like asthma.
The environment deserves no less. Please set the secondary standard, aimed at lessening the environmental impacts of smog, at the lower level of 7 ppm-hours to help ensure that our natural places -- and the economies that rely on them -- are protected.
For too long the science and the impacts on American communities have been ignored. Please set things right by issuing strong ozone standards.
Sincerely,
Bobbi Jo Chavarria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 17, 2010
Lisa Jackson
EPA Administrator
Subject: SUPPORT CLEANER AIR
EPA proposal of new rules to lower the amount of harmful ozone, or smog, in our air
Dear Ms. Jackson:
Thank you for examining this serious issue and proposing protections from smog.
In December 2009, we buried a long-time family friend who grew up in the Los Angeles area and died of lung cancer. A non-smoking, woman under 40 (she was 34) who left behind three children, her husband and a lifetime of giving (she was a teacher). As we researched the condition in an attempt to understand how and why this could happen, we found that there was a near "epidemic" of cases just like hers, non-smoking, women under 40, dying of lung cancer.
Just recently I watched the updated version of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" that very briefly talks of a study conducted when the smog alerts in California were very serious in the late 1980s that found a high percentage of youth in the Los Angeles area had lesions on their lungs. This is where my friend grew up and lived her entire life.
A recent study in my community in California where we have made many strides to improving smog standards (but still have very poor air quality) showed that the youth in our area have a significantly decreased lung capacity and have a higher than average rate of asthma. What will the story be in 20-30 years as these kids become adults? Will friends and family members be mourning their loss from what is clearly a causal effect of poor air quality and pollution like ozone and smog?
Science tells us, in more than 1,000 studies, that the current smog standards fail to protect the health of millions of Americans. Strengthening these standards is vital, and I'm pleased that the new proposed standards fall within the range recommended by scientists and health professionals.
I urge you to set the primary standard at the more protective limit of 60 parts per billion. Smog is harmful even at very low levels, and this lower level will do the most to protect public health, especially for people suffering from illnesses like asthma.
The environment deserves no less. Please set the secondary standard, aimed at lessening the environmental impacts of smog, at the lower level of 7 ppm-hours to help ensure that our natural places -- and the economies that rely on them -- are protected.
For too long the science and the impacts on American communities have been ignored. Please set things right by issuing strong ozone standards.
Sincerely,
Bobbi Jo Chavarria
Comments