IN F0CUS

The new regulations proposed by
the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air
Act have kicked up a storm.
Although few of its earlier targets
have been achieved, the agency has
1@roposed even more difficult regulations. EPA itself predicts that the
cost of new regulations will fhr
exceed the benefits. Besides, scientific evidence points out that reducing ground-level ozone will make
no significant impact on the public
health, instead it will have an
adverse effect.

Ground-level ozone is the main
constituent of urban smog and it is
believed to cause respiratory problems. But ozone also filters out
harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays.
Reducing ozone levels would
increase malignant skin cancers
and cataracts, as well as other UV-
B-related health risks. Critics say
that EPA has chosen to ignore the
health benefits of the ozone's
impact on UV radiation.

Studies conducted by the
agency indicate that these gains
could be much higher than the benefits likely to be derived from the
proposed ground-level ozone standard. According to a survey done
by the department of energy, the
reduction in ozone level could give
rise to 25 to 50 new deaths caused
by melanoma annually. In terms of
money, the cost of negative health
effect will exceed the EPA's most
optimistic health benefits by more
than US $300 million.

The proposed cuts would also
mean that the public will have to
pay more for goods and services
and consequently have less money
to spend on health. EPA's
claim that the new standards
will benefit people suffering from
asthma an@ other respiratory
diseases, is also being debated.
Poverty is rated as a higher risk
factor than air pollution for caus-
ing asthma. Even EPA's figures
suggest that the potential benefits
for asthma patients is very small
compared to the huge cost of
implementing the regulations.