We spend 85% of our time indoors, and air conditioning can provide relief when and where we need it. Nevertheless, regulatory agencies continue to press for tighter outdoor emission controls. Their mantra is that lives can be shortened by long-term (years) exposure, no matter how trivial. This is the linear, no-threshold hypothesis currently promulgated by EPA.
ambient air quality standards
Ambient air quality standards have been established by testing animals and evaluating adverse health effects in populations. To maintain ambient concentrations within those standards, emissions are controlled based on statistical relationships with ambient exposures known as dose-response functions (DRFs).
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) today opposed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposed changes to ambient air quality standards for ozone and its adoption of a standard for "fine" particulate matter (referred to as "PM2.5"). ACSH President Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan declared that "there is no public health benefit to be gained from the proposed stricter standards. Furthermore, adoption of the proposed standards will place severe economic burdens on hundreds of counties throughout the U.S. and on U.S. industry burdens that will be passed on in the form of higher costs to consumers without any identifiable benefit in return."