I suppose 40-150% is "close to" 200-400%, which is what most tobacco studies show as increased risk from smoking. A few though, purport to show as much as 2500% increased risk. So which numbers should I use? Hmmm, I believe I will use 150% for particulate pollution and 200% for smoking.
Anyway, only 10% of the particulates in the atmosphere are from all human sources, of which automobile exhaust is only 1 source. Natural sources are wind blown dust, volcanoes, and forest fires.
I believe you will get your wish for more automobile restrictions. After all, there is nothing a liberal hates more than individuality, and nothing represents individual freedom more than the automobile. So whatever excuse is available will be used, for now it's global warming, soon second hand exhaust fumes will be added.

>challenged by an angry commenter who used some profanities to question my statements (I love the civility of Internet discourse!).<

I'm not angry, and sorry for the profanity. With blog entries such as "I Can Still Call Her a Cunt" and "Senator McCoy Needs a Dick in His Mouth", I didn't realize it was frowned upon.
kaptain kirk | 02.02.07 - 8:10 pm | #

Believe it or not, kaptain kirk, I am an environmentalist. I wash my saran wrap and use it again.

Thank you for not using four-letter words against me in your last comment as I believe that dialog is important and civility is key if we are to get anywhere.
Leonardo | 02.02.07 - 9:47 pm | #

there's a very obese woman in my neighborhood in seattle who hassles me for smoking on the sidewalk--even when i am complying with the 25 ft law; not often--and the other day i finally said to her: "you are overweight and i am concerned about your diabetes risk. when you look after your weight, i'll watch where i smoke.' i've really gotten sick of these nazis who go after things they don't like but cloak it in science. get after the fat people nazis!
Philip Dawdy | Homepage | 02.02.07 - 10:44 pm | #

Phil, why do you smoke on the sidewalk when your own residence is steps away?
kaptain kirk | 02.03.07 - 12:20 am | #

That's kind of misleading. Take a look at this chart from the study. The 150% increased risk applies only to people at the far right of the distribution. But the distribution has a very thin right tail, so only a tiny minority have exposure even close to that level.

The inccreased risk is closer to 70% for people at what appears to be roughly the 95th percentile.
Brandon Berg | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:52 am | #