EXHIBIT 20 2045 20a

Document Sample
EXHIBIT 20 2045 20a Powered By Docstoc
					                                   SI-Exhibit 45a
Per the request of Hearing Officer Crudele, the original SI Exhibit 45 compilation
of research done by Mrs. Bridget Rapoza has been augmented to demonstrate
the qualification of the authors and studies cited. Notes are at the end of the

[Note1-1: author Rapoza]

Research findings from health organizations around the world including Harvard, the Renewable
Energy Labs and other reputable sources discussing the harmful health effects of power plant
pollutants , including biomass plants, on the nearby community residents. All sources cited for

[Note 1-2: author National Renewable Energy Labs]

Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass Power Plants – a report prepared
for the National Renewable Energy Labs
As realtors say, ―Location, location, location!‖ Biomass residues and wastes are local
fuels, with very low energy densities compared to fossil fuels. Transport costs become
very significant after about 20 mil, and usually prohibitive beyond 100 or 200 mil. The
ability to have the waste generators deliver the fuel to the plant site at their own expense
requires a location very close to the sources of waste. There are also other considerations,
such as the proximity to residential neighborhoods. For example:
          primary lesson learned from the McNeil plant experience in Burlington,
         Vermont, is careful attention to the siting of a biomass-fueled plant. Siting the plant
         in a residential neighborhood of a small city has caused a number of problems and
         extra expenses over the years: a permit requirement to use trains for fuel supply,
         high taxes, high labor rates, local political involvement, and neighborhood
         complaints about odors and noise.
          Colmac plant shows that urban wood waste can be a comparatively expensive
         fuel (~$1.50/MBtu) if the plant is located far outside the urban area. The
         transportation cost is significant. An urban biomass plant can derive income from
         its fuel with a location and tipping fees that attract wood waste generators with
         loads to dump.
(at page 6 of the report, in the executive summary)

Lessons Learned
John Irving, the station superintendent, believes that the primary lesson learned from the
McNeil plant experience is careful attention to the siting of a biomass-fueled plant. The
plant's site has caused a number of problems and extra expenses over the years: a permit
requirement to use trains for fuel supply, high taxes, high labor rates, local political

                                                         Page 1 of 37
involvement, and neighborhood complaints about odors and noise. There are advantages of
an urban setting, such as the ability to obtain urban wood wastes. Although Burlington‘s
urban wood waste supply is a small fraction of the plant‘s fuel requirement, it effectively
lowers the average cost of fuel and avoids costly and environmentally poorer choices for disposing of this
material. Linking the plant‘s steam output to a district heating system has
been studied, but has not yet been implemented because of low alternative energy costs
causing marginal economic benefits. Generally speaking, it is best to site a biomass plant
as close as possible to the center of its fuel supply, and far from residential neighborhoods.
(at page 34 of the report)


[Note 2-1: energyjustice.net ; webmaster Mike Ewall]
From the Energy Justice website:

Biomass Basics
Bioenergy is an umbrella term for "biomass" (incinerating for electricity production) and "biofuels"
(converting to liquids for burning as transportation or heating fuels). The biomass term has meant burning
of: municipal solid waste (trash), tires1, construction/demolition wood waste, crop and animal wastes,
energy crops, trees, gas from digestion of sewage sludge or animal wastes, and landfill gas.2 Biomass can
include any non-fossil fuel that is arguably "organic."

"Green" biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that
start off burning "clean wood chips" can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be
cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures
encourage use of these dirtier fuels.3

"Alternative" vs. "Renewable" vs. "Clean & Green"

All of the above terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean different things. Just the term
"renewable" can mean different things in various state or federal energy bills, laws and programs. Non-
profit groups and private energy certification programs all have their own definitions as well. While these
terms generally mean "not fossil fuels and not nuclear," even coal technologies have been included in
state and federal "alternative" and "renewable" energy policies.4 Almost universally, many sorts of
incineration schemes have been included in the various renewable energy laws, usually in the guide of
"biomass" and landfill gas. "Clean" and "green" are rarely, if ever, defined and are terms of general
environmental benefit with no generally accepted meaning.5

Renewability does not usually mean clean or green. It's only used to describe whether an energy source is
replenishable and replenished on some reasonably short time scale.6 Renewables aren't necessarily cleaner
than other fuels. Since biomass incinerators are considered renewable, they are given an advantage over
cleaner (but still quite polluting) fossil fuels like natural gas.7 Since all of these words have been abused
to include polluting smokestack industries, no combination of these words can be counted on to convey
only zero-emission technologies like wind and solar.

Renewable energy policies support incineration. There are five main advantages available to
technologies that are labeled "renewable": tax credits, subsidies, research grants, renewable portfolio
standards, and green pricing programs.

                                                        Page 2 of 37
Biomass competes with wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal for the renewables market. Wind is
becoming one of the cheapest energy sources altogether and is about 10 times cheaper than solar. Biomass
(especially landfill gas) is the cheapest except for where there are good wind sites. We are likely to see
many more biomass burners because they can be built in many more places than good wind sites can be
found. Since there is already a market for incinerators (based on the economics of the waste industry),
biomass competes most directly with wind, the cleanest and most promising power source. Eliminating
biomass from renewables definitions means wind would get better funding.

Biomass = Combustion = Pollution
All biomass combustion technologies put pollution in the air in order to make "green energy." Even with
the best air pollution controls, a single plant can still release millions of pounds of regulated pollutants
each year.8 Environmental regulations are surprisingly weak and air pollution permits fail to require that
any toxic emissions be monitored on a continuous basis.9 Air pollution controls only effectively transfer
toxins from the air to the ash, which will eventually pollute soil and water where it is dumped. Most of the
biomass wastes/fuels contain chlorine, creating dioxins10 (the most toxic chemicals known to science)
when burned.

Anything that creates pollution in the course of producing electricity shouldn't be
considered clean, green or renewable. Wind and solar, even though they have some
environmental impacts in their construction don't have to keep polluting in order to make electricity. Even
though environmentalists tend to think of "biomass" as grass and trees, the vast majority of what is
actually proposed by industry (and of what is already benefiting from pro-biomass renewable policies) is
trash incineration, construction & demolition wood waste incineration and landfill gas burning.

The Fuels: …

Agriculture wastes include, but are not limited to, orchard tree crops, vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar,
and other crop byproducts or residues as well as nuts, shells, hulls, and other food processing wastes.
Crop wastes should be tilled back into the soil to promote soil health, tilth, fertility, and nurturing of the
organisms remaining within the soil. Where this is impractical, crop residues ought to be composted or
recycled into paper products, not destroyed in incinerators.…..

Energy crops are typically fast growing trees (like poplar or willow) or grasses like switchgrass. These
are prime targets for genetic engineering. Biotech grass seed has been found to contaminate native grass
as far as 13 miles away.36 Switchgrass has been found to have 7 times as much chlorine as coal in an Iowa
study.37 Chlorine in wheat straw has been found to have so much chlorine as to be corrosive to boilers.38
There are no organic requirements for these crops. Toxic herbicides and wastes used as fertilizers have
introduced contaminants to switchgrass crops,39 that can be taken up by the crops. In phytoremediation
schemes, plants suck up toxins from contaminated sites.40 Contaminants are released when these trees and
grasses are later burned.


                                                        Page 3 of 37
[ Note 4-1: author Environmental Protection Agency]

EPA brochure on Children’s Health Risk from Air Pollution: Protect Children,
Protect Our Future (September 2003/PDF)
Outdoor air pollution may affect children more than adults.
Outdoor activity is part of a healthy lifestyle, but when air pollution levels are high,
adverse health effects may result. Outdoor air pollutants that have been shown to
be particularly harmful to children include ozone and fine particulate matter.
Other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and toxic
air pollutants, also may affect children’s health. Ground-level ozone (a
component of smog) is formed when NOx and other air pollutants react in the
presence of heat and sunlight. Smog can cause coughing, throat irritation, and
chest pain. It can reduce lung function, inflame the linings of the lungs, and trigger
asthma attacks, even the day after ozone levels are high. Repeated inflammation
over time may permanently scar lung tissue.

Children and teenagers who are active outdoors–especially those with asthma or
other respiratory illnesses–are particularly vulnerable to smog. Some fine
particles are emitted directly into the air from combustion sources such as cars,
trucks, buses, construction and farming equipment, and electric utilities. Fine
particles in urban air also result from chemical reactions of SO2 and NOx with
other chemicals in the atmosphere. Exposures to fine particles have been linked
to a number of children’s health problems, including bronchitis and asthma.
Diesel exhaust is a source of fine particles and is also a likely human carcinogen.
SO2 is formed when fuel containing sulfur–mainly coal, oil, and diesel–is burned,
and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. The majority of SO2
released into the air comes from electric utilities and refineries, particularly those
that burn coal. SO2 contributes to respiratory disease, and may aggravate existing
heart and lung disease.

NOx refers to a group of highly reactive gases emitted by motor vehicles, electric
utilities, and other fuel-burning industrial and commercial sources. NOx gases can
contribute to respiratory illnesses especially in children, and as noted above, both
SO2 and NOx can react to form harmful particles in the air.

Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are emitted from
combustion sources, such as motor vehicles and power plants, and industrial
activities. A number of commonly occurring toxic air pollutants, including solvents,
organic chemicals, and heavy metals, have been shown to harm the developing
nervous system, reproductive organs, and immune system–all of which grow and
develop rapidly during the first months and years of life. Long-term exposure to
some toxic air pollutants may cause cancer.

                                          Page 4 of 37

[Note 5-1: author Clean Air Task Force, Senior Scientist Dr. Hill ]
Children’s Health affected by power plants:
“Aging power plants are the chief sources of many of the pollutants that affect
children in the U.S. For example, two thirds of the sulfur dioxide gas emitted in the
U.S. comes from power plants. Sulfur dioxide, itself a potential health risk near
smokestacks, converts into harmful sulfate particulate matter and sulfuric acid
downwind of the plant.

Global warming, driven by our dependence on fossil fuels to generate electricity,
presents different risks to children. In a recent health effects analysis 1 , my co-
investigators and I found that substantial public health gains will result in the
nations that mitigate carbon dioxide emissions by switching from carbon intensive
energy sources to cleaner technologies due to the associated reductions in
particulate matter and ozone smog. The primary beneficiaries of these policies will
be children.

In summary, numerous risk analyses have linked power plants to pollutants that
can harm children. Considering these potential health risks, Congress should take
action now to provide relief to our children by closing the Clean Air Act loophole
that still allows hundreds of power plants to avoid modern pollution standards
some 30 years after the Act was made law and by requiring steep cuts in mercury
and carbon dioxide emissions.”
(Children At Risk: How Air Pollution From Power Plants Threatens The Health Of
America’s Children U.S. PIRG, May 2002 )


[Note 5-2: author American Lung Association]
―Particulate matter (PM) from cigarette smoke and air pollution, including smoke from
poorly ventilated wood stoves and the burning of biomass, are related to lung damage.
Particles that have a diameter of 2.5 to 10 microns, or less than 1/7 the diameter of a
human hair, are called coarse particles and are of special concern. Larger particles are
more easily trapped in the nose or throat, while smaller particles can be drawn into the
small air passages. Fine particles, with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) represent
the most serious threat. Particles this small easily reach deep into the lung and may even
pass into the bloodstream. Once they have penetrated the lungs, fine particles can cause
inflammation and impair immune responses.‖
(Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: American Lung Association Lung Disease Data: 2008 )


                                                        Page 5 of 37
[Note 6-1: author Environmental Protection Agency]
Research Programs
Particulate Matter (PM) Health Effects
EPA's Goal for 'Clean Air'
"Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced."

Research indicates that air pollution in the form of particulate matter, or PM, at
concentrations currently allowed by national standards (the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, or NAAQS) is linked to thousands of excess deaths and widespread health
problems. Part of EPA's mission is to protect human health by strengthening the scientific
basis of air quality regulations. Through its PM health effects research program, EPA is
working to more clearly understand the characteristics of PM that produce adverse health
effects, how PM induces these effects, and who is most at risk. EPA scientists conduct
research related to the health effects of PM by conducting clinical studies and using the
methods of epidemiology and toxicology.



[Note 6-2: author Environmental Protection Agency]

Research Programs: Particulate Matter (PM) Health Effects
Research Highlights
EPA's research into the health effects of PM has produced a wealth of information. Highlights of the key
accomplishments of the past six years include the following:

Validation of PM-associated health effects
Studies showing that exposure to ambient PM can adversely affect human health have been replicated and
validated many times in a number of locations throughout the U.S. and the world. Research has shown
that exposure to PM is associated with morbidity and mortality independent of the effects of other
pollutants in the atmosphere. Recent studies have also underscored that the elderly with pre-existing
cardiopulmonary disease are most at risk. In addition, other groups such as the very young, asthmatics,
and diabetics may also be susceptible to the effects of PM. Even more striking are the findings that
suggest that extended exposure to PM can lead to chronic disease and/or a shortened life span.

Credibility of exposure measures
Details about the relationship between PM measurements taken outdoors and the concentrations to which
people were actually exposed was not known until quite recently. Results from exposure studies have
verified that centrally located monitors can provide adequate measures of the amount of pollution to
which people are exposed when they are used in community-based epidemiological studies. Exposure

                                                        Page 6 of 37
studies have also shown that gaseous co-pollutants such as ozone and nitrogen dioxide are not likely to
interfere significantly with estimates of PM-associated health risks.

Advances in dosimetry
Clinical studies conducted in the past few years have shown that inhaled PM is distributed unevenly in the
respiratory tract of people with lung disease. These studies also showed that as much as ten times more
PM deposition can occur in local regions in the lungs of people with pulmonary disease. This may
indicate that their increased susceptibility is due to what is, in effect, exposure to a higher dose of PM
than is experienced by those whose lungs are not impaired.

Plausible biological mechanisms:
While only a few years ago scientists could not explain the trends in health effects observed through
epidemiological studies from a biological basis, there are now multiple hypotheses to describe the
mechanisms by which very small concentrations of inhaled PM can induce negative effects. Clinical
studies and animal models that mimic human disease have produced several theories about how the
physical and chemical properties of PM can produce the cardiovascular and pulmonary changes that
contribute to increased illness and death. Somewhat surprisingly, there appears to be no single attribute
that makes PM toxic, but size and certain chemical components (e.g., metals) appear to be involved.


[Note 7-1: author S. Balakrishna & S. Lomnicki]

Environmentally persistent free radicals amplify ultrafine particle
mediated cellular oxidative stress and cytotoxicity
Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2009, 6:11doi:10.1186/1743-8977-6-11

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:


Combustion generated particulate matter is deposited in the respiratory tract and pose a hazard to the
lungs through their potential to cause oxidative stress and inflammation. We have previously shown that
combustion of fuels and chlorinated hydrocarbons produce semiquinone-type radicals that are stabilized
on particle surfaces (i.e. environmentally persistent free radicals; EPFRs). Because the composition and
properties of actual combustion-generated particles are complex, heterogeneous in origin, and vary from
day-to-day, we have chosen to use surrogate particle systems. In particular, we have chosen to use the
radical of 2-monochlorophenol (MCP230) as the EPFR because we have previously shown that it forms a
EPFR on Cu(II)O surfaces and catalyzes formation of PCDD/F. To understand the physicochemical
properties responsible for the adverse pulmonary effects of combustion by-products, we have exposed
human bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B) to MCP230 or the CuO/silica substrate. Our general
hypothesis was that the EPFR-containing particle would have greater toxicity than the substrate species.

                                                        Page 7 of 37
Exposure of BEAS-2B cells to our combustion generated particle systems significantly increased reactive
oxygen species (ROS) generation and decreased cellular antioxidants resulting in cell death. Resveratrol
treatment reversed the decline in cellular glutathione (GSH), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and
superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels for both types of combustion-generated particle systems.


The enhanced cytotoxicity upon exposure to MCP230 correlated with its ability to generate more cellular
oxidative stress and concurrently reduce the antioxidant defenses of the epithelial cells (i.e. reduced GSH,
SOD activity, and GPx). The EPFRs in MCP230 also seem to be of greater biological concern due to their
ability to induce lipid peroxidation. These results are consistent with the oxidizing nature of the
CuO/silica ultrafine particles and the reducing nature and prolonged environmental and biological
lifetimes of the EPFRs in MCP230.



[Note 8-1: author Environmental Protection Agency. In the preparation of SI Exhibit 45, this
section was inadvertently separated from the section that begins at page 4 above.]
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides

        NOx Home
        Emission Sources
        Causes for Concern
        Health & Enviro Impacts
        EPA Efforts to Reduce NOx
        EPA Offices
        NOx: How nitrogen oxides affect the way we live and breathe (PDF) (4pp, 774k)

Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain
nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless.
However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen
as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas.

Please go to the following website to further research these concerns.

Hu Honua has acknowledged that the nitrous oxides from burning bio-mass will likely be higher than they
were when the plant was burning coal.

Key Facts About….AIR POLLUTION
The lung‘s constant, direct interaction with the environment –the air we breathe – makes
the impact of that environment inescapable.
Outdoor Air Pollution

                                                        Page 8 of 37
The health of 137.2 million Americans – including as many as 29.8 million children
under the age of 14 and close to 2 million children suffering from asthma attacks –
are potentially exposed to unhealthful levels of ozone (smog) air pollution based on
the current 0.08 parts per million federal ozone standard.1
Scientific evidence increasingly shows that air pollution plays a major role as a
trigger for asthma episodes. Specifically, fine particles, sulfur dioxide and ozone have
been linked to increases in patients‘ use of asthma medication, emergency department
visits and hospital admissions.2
Power plant particle pollution is estimated to cause more than 603,000 asthma
episodes per year, 366,000 of which could be avoided by cleaning up the power
Estimates of the annual human health costs of outdoor air pollution range from $14
billion to $55 billion annually.4
Each year, pollution claims 70,000 lives in the United States.5
In 2010, the United States will save a projected $1100 billion in health benefits (i.e.,
avoided illness and death) associated with reductions in air pollution due to
implementation of the federal Clean Air Act.6
Globally, an estimated 200,000 to 570,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution.7
1 American  Lung Association. State of the Air, 2003. May 2003.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smog – Who Does It Hurt? What You Need To Know About
Ozone and Your Health. 1999.
3 Clean Air Task Force. The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions.
October 2000.
4 Ostro, B and Chestnut, L. Assessing the Health Benefits of Reducing Particulate Matter Air Pollution in
the United States. Environmental Research 76:94-106, 1998.
5 Earth Policy Institute. ―Air Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Deaths by 3 to 1.‖ September 2002.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,
1990 to 2010. EPA-410-R-99-001, November 1999.
7 World Resource Institute. Health Effects of Air Pollution, 1998-1999. 2000.

(American Lung Assoc. http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-


[Note 9-1: author RHAMC, citing Harvard School of Public Health, Journal of American Medical
Association, and Environmental Health Prospective]

                                                       Power Plant Pollution Health Facts

Chicago ranks second among all cities in the country adversely affected by power plant pollution. Each
year 855 premature deaths, 848 hospitalizations, 1,519 heart attacks, and 23,650 asthma attacks are
attributable to power plant emissions. (Abt Associates, "Power Plant Emissions: Particulate Matter-
Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios" June 2004)

Fine particulate matter from Chicago's Fisk and Crawford power plants -- located in low income
communities -- contributes to 41 deaths, 550 ER visits and 2800 asthma attacks annually broken down as:

                                                                               Page 9 of 37
                         Mortality                 All-cause ER visits Asthma Attacks                  Minor restricted-
                                                                                                       activity days
Fisk                     15                        200                       1,000                     13,000
Crawford                 26                        350                       1,800                     23,000

(based on Levy, Jonathan I., John D. Spengler, et. al. Using CALPUFF to evaluate the impacts of power
plant emissions in Illinois: model sensitivity and implications. Atmospheric Environment 10 September

        EPA's consultants estimate that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of
         1,356 Illinoisans each year. Fine particle pollution from power plants also cause 195,698 lost work
         days, 1,333 hospitalizations and 33,986 asthma attacks every year, 2,007 of which are so severe
         they require emergency room visits. (Abt Associates, "Power Plant Emissions: Particulate Matter-
         Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios" June

        A recent scientific study by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society found that
         people living in the most polluted cities have approximately a 12 percent increased risk of
         cardiopulmonary death over those living in the cleanest areas of the country. Similarly, for lung
         cancer, there is approximately a 16 percent increased risk for those living in the more polluted
         cities. (C. A. Pope, et. al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to
         Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 287, no 9. -
         March 6, 2002. www.jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/9/1132.)

        Based on EPA data, each year, 156 lung cancer deaths and 2,361 heart attacks in Illinois are
         attributable to power plant pollution. (Abt Associates, "Power Plant Emissions: Particulate Matter-
         Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios" June

        Children are the most susceptible to the detrimental effects posed by power plant air
         pollution. In Illinois, 2,746,764 children live within 30 miles of a power plant, the area in
         which the greatest health impacts are felt. (Clean Air Task Force, Children At Risk, How
         Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America's Children, May 2002.

        Additionally, researchers have found that infants in areas with high levels of particulate
         matter pollution face a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and a 40
         percent increased risk of respiratory death. (Woodruf, T. Grillo, J. and Schoendorf, K. 1997.
         The relationship between selected causes of post-neonatal infant mortality and particulate
         air pollution in the United States. Environmental Health Prospective, vol. 105, p 608-612.)

**For more information, view the Harvard School of Public Health study that found
that air pollution from Fisk and Crawford causes more than 40 deaths, 550 emergency
room visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks annually.


                                                       Page 10 of 37
[Note 11-1: author Dr. Kirk Smith, PhD; this is an excerpt from SI Exhibit 37]

Biomass Pollution Basics:
For an excellent explanation of Particulate Matter and its affect on human health, please see the
World Health Organization’s website presentation

(NOTE that this presentation specifically addresses indoor air quality from wood burning and not
power plant combustion. HOWEVER, the section on Particulate Matter (PM) is a general
explanation describing what it is and how the different sizes of PM affect human health. It has
photos along with an excellent explanation of why PM poses such a serious threat to public
health). As noted above the EPA has an entire research and development section devoted to
Particulate Matter and states at its web site that the current emission control regulations have
failed to keep pace with the current knowledge and research, and therefore the most current
ambient air allowances for Particulate Matter are insufficient to adequately protect human
populations from increased deaths and numerous respiratory and heart incidents caused both
directly and indirectly from the Particulate Matter.

Some highlights of the World Health Organization’s presentation on Biomass
Pollution include:
Biomass burning emits many products of incomplete combustion:
Small particles, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrous Oxide (NO2), Formaldehyde, Acrolein,
Benzene, Toluene,
Styrene, 1,3-Butadiene, etc.
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
One of the Major Sources of Particulate Matter (PM) in Humans is Fuel Combustion (including
biomass burning).

Sources of Particulate Matter
Primary particles: emitted directly into the air
Secondary particles: formed in the atmosphere through chemical and physical reactions –
involving sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and ammonia gases and sunlight

Sizes of Atmospheric Particles
“Coarse” particles (>2.5 μm diameter)
“Fine” particles (<2.5 μm diameter)
“Ultrafine” particles (<0.1 μm diameter)
How do they differ?
– Source origins
– Transformation
– Removal mechanisms from the atmosphere
– Chemical compositions
– Optical properties
    – Respiratory tract deposition

                                          Page 11 of 37
Visualizing Particulate Matter Size

   –   …

Coarse Particles (> 2.5 μm)
Formed from mechanical processes
– weathering, volcanic activities, wind blown soil,
sea salt spray, pollen, grinding operations (mining)
Given their heavy mass, they usually settle
out of the air within a few hours to days

Fine Particles: (< 2.5 μm)
Formed from:
– Combination of smaller particles
– Condensation of vapors onto particles that then grow
Greatest surface area and most of mass concentration
0.1-2.5 μm particles are very hard to remove from the
atmosphere, persisting days to weeks
Precipitation accounts for 80% of removal
Highly visible

Ultrafine Particles (< 0.1 μm)
Formed from:
– condensation of vapors during very high temperature combustion
(motor vehicles, diesel, organic vapors, fly ash)
– combination and growth of atmospheric particles
Greatest number concentration, very little mass concentration due to small size

                                           Page 12 of 37
Short atmospheric residence time due to random motion and collisions (combining with and
forming other particles)
Not visible
Four Major Human Sources of Particulate Matter (PM)
1. Fuel combustion (including biomass burning)
2. Industrial production
3. Non-industrial sources (road dust, cropland wind erosion, construction)
4. Transportation (cars)

How Does PM Effect the Respiratory System?
(1) inhibiting and inactivating mucociliary streaming
(2) killing or neutralizing alveolar macrophages
(3) constricting airways
(4) causing vasodilation and excess mucous secretion
(5) causing changes in alveolar cell wall structure through abscesses and thickening which
causes scar formation
(6) traveling to other parts of the body, e.g., blood and heart
The second major biomass combustion pollutant: Carbon Monoxide (CO)
The Carbon Monoxide Story:
Colorless, odorless, tasteless
Acute effects - poisoning:
Chronic effects – cardiovascular system
CO Emissions
Direct emissions from fossil fuel and biomass burning

For the full presentation “Biomass Pollution Basics”, please go to
www.who.int/indoorair/interventions/kampala21.pdf (presented by Professor Kirk R. Smith and
David Pennise, Environmental Health Sciences; University of California-Berkeley)


[Note 13-1: author Dr. William Sammons; SI Exhibit 141 provides the uploaded link to cleaner
copies of the video files]

For a video of Dr. William Sammons on Health Effects of Biomass
Incineration in which he explains the particulate matter health impacts of
biomass air pollution from a biomass power plant, see the following link:


[Note 13-2: author Dr. Tom Termotto]
From the American Chronicle - http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/167068

                                                       Page 13 of 37
Christiane Tourtet B.A. July 02, 2010

Dr.Tom Termotto, National Coordinator of the Coalition Against Chemical Trespass, in Tallahassee, FL,
has issued a very important and excellent Press Release in regard to serious adverse health effects of
Biomass Incinerators. I am urging everyone to read very carefully what Dr. Tom Termotto wrote as it
concerns all of us.

Press Release 2010


Separating Fact from Fiction

Shall we begin by stating that biomass incinerators are rarely, if ever, factually represented by the many
sales pitches we see issued by the Energy Industry sector that promotes them. In fact, the marketing
language that has now become de rigueur is reminiscent of George Orwell´s 1984. "War is peace.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

To the point, biomass incineration is NOT clean and green, sustainable and renewable, carbon neutral and
cost effective, or environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. It is quite the opposite of these
beautiful and alluring marketing slogans. Biomass incineration is in reality quite polluting, unsustainable
to the extreme and, in some cases, less environmentally friendly than coal burning plants.

Remember the old-fashioned hospital incinerator that nobody ever wanted to live downwind from. Who
would want mercury vapors, and the many other highly toxic aerosols, wafting through their
neighborhood? Well, then, why would a community want a biomass incinerator sited within winds´ reach
of their schools, subdivisions and businesses. The post incineration output of these biomass plants can be
much worse than a hospital´s depending on what is being incinerated.

Let´s not forget the golden rule of energy production: "Garbage in; garbage out". Ultimately the
permitting process for these incinerators often allows for the burning of various types of refuse and other
feedstocks, which will necessarily degrade air quality. A close look at any state air permit application for
these biomass plants will reveal the mix of carcinogens, toxins, pollutants, contaminants and poisons that
is really quite alarming.

As we have evaluated the emission estimates of various pollutants, which have been submitted by the
very biomass companies themselves, we wonder how they make the leap across the chasm to such
environmentally attractive sound bites. Let´s be clear about the assortment and type of contaminants
which will inevitably show up in the surrounding air of these biomass plants. As follows:

(1) Dioxins and Furans (2) Particulate Matter – 10.0, 2.5 and 1.0 microns (3) Hydrogen Chloride (4)
Nitrogen Dioxide (5) Carbon Monoxide (6) Hydrogen Sulfide (7) Sulfur Dioxide (8) Sulfuric Acid
(H2SO4) (9) Mercury, Lead and Arsenic (10) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC´s) such as benzene,
toluene and naphthalene

One can only imagine the harmful effects to human and animal life that these pollutants will cause in

                                               Page 14 of 37
those unfortunate cities and counties that have succumbed to the governmental and energy industry
forces, which routinely foist these schemes on an uninformed public. What follows is a quote from the
Healthcare Professionals For Clean Environment in their letter to Governor Charlie Crist of Florida
regarding a proposed biomass incinerator for Gadsden County, FL.

"As you know full well, biomass incinerators of this type will produce extraordinary amounts of air
pollution to include dioxin, one of the most toxic and carcinogenic organic chemicals released into the
environment by industry. In addition, this incinerator will be 0.3 tons (according to the ADAGE permit
application submitted to DEP) shy of being a major source of a particular hazardous air pollutant
(hydrogen chloride) according to the FL DEP's own regulatory guidance concerning the 10 ton threshold
for any single air pollutant. This incinerator will also significantly contribute to the total particulate matter
volume which already plagues much of North Florida. We are compelled to point out that particulate
matter (PM) concentration directly correlates with a whole host of upper respiratory ailments to include
sinusitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, as well as the common cold. More serious respiratory diseases
such as lung cancer, emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis, pulmonary edema, sarcoidosis, pleurisy and
adult respiratory distress syndrome are all greatly aggravated by the various pollutants emitted from
biomass plants. Chronic respiratory conditions such as COPD, CREST, asthma, bronchitis, reactive
airway disease, as well as numerous inhalant allergies will likewise see an increase wherever these
irritants exist above certain thresholds. Likewise, illnesses such as influenza and its many seasonal
variants will always be exacerbated when the ambient air is fouled by these particulates and chemical

The profound medical repercussions and health impacts of this form of incineration and crude energy
production cannot be understated. Medical organizations from around the country have been weighing in
on this matter for as long as biomass marketeers have been submitting their sales literature to the many
small, economically depressed communities that are vulnerable to such ill-conceived proposals. The
twenty to thirty long-term jobs, which are created by these biomass propositions, will be taken by many
who will inevitably experience dangerous levels of exposure to the aforementioned chemicals. Therefore,
they will suffer adverse health conditions, which will then contribute to the local medical burden, as well
as significantly increase the healthcare costs associated with lifelong remediation.

In an age when the nation is moving toward more enlightened energy platforms concerning production,
dissemination and utilization, it is quite anachronistic that some would have us go back to the Stone Age.
Burning trees and the like is, after all, what was done before there was solar, wind, oil and gas, coal,
nuclear, and hydroelectric power. Why in the world, with a global population approaching 7 billion,
would we want to go back to energy sources that are as primitive as they are downright dirty?!

Dr. Tom Termotto, BCIM

National Coordinator ,


[Note 15-1: author Dr. N. Day, MD]
Power lines double leukaemia
The initial results of the UK Childhood Cancer Study investigating five possible causes of childhood
cancer have been published in the Lancet. The study examined 4,000 children - 2,000 with cancer and

                                                       Page 15 of 37
2,000 controls - over 7 years. The first results to come out suggest that children living near powerlines run
almost double the risk of developing cancer but that there is no association between low-level magnetic
fields and childhood cancer (the results for exposure to electric fields have yet to be released). This
confirms previous findings of other studies that some feature of powerlines other than the magnetic field
is responsible for the association of power lines with childhood cancer.

(Ed.- In a blatant piece of spin doctoring, the UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research led the
press to believe that the study had found 'no link between overhead power cables and childhood cancer').

(6086) Day,N et al. Lancet 1999;354:9125-1931

back to the top


[Note 16-1: author Fews, A.P.]

Power lines concentrate pollution
New experimental data from Bristol University's Professor Denis Henshaw and Dr. Peter Fews reinforces
their hypothesis that the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by power lines attract airborne
pollutants, exposing people living nearby to higher levels of air pollution. The EMFs are thought to give
the particles a charge which enables them, when breathed in, to deposit more readily in the lungs where
they can do the most damage, and thus increase the incidence of cancers. More than 2,000 experimental
observations show that higher levels of particles from vehicle exhaust emissions and from naturally-
occurring radon by-products are present in the vicinity of high-voltage power lines. The researchers
propose that increased exposure to this chemical and radioactive pollution might be the reason for the
observed increase in childhood leukaemia near powerlines seen in the UK Childhood Cancer Study. (See

Chris Busby, Scientific Director of the independent research group Green Audit, reminds us that all dust
in the UK is radioactive and contains beta- and gamma-emitting rays from man-made isotopes like
caesium-137 and strontium-90, and plutonium blown across from the Irish Sea. Levels of radioactivity in
dust near Reading, Newbury and Basingstoke are hundreds of times higher than the safety threshold
levels above which a substance is defined as nuclear waste (Radioactive Substances Act 1993).

(6087) Microwave News 1.11.99 p3 (6088) The Ecologist 1.4.00 p50
Original research: Fews,AP, Henshaw, DL et al. Int. Jnl of Radiation Biology 1999;75,(12): 1505-1521, 1523-1531.


[Note 16-2: author Dockery ]
City air pollution 'shortens life' (By Humphrey Hawksley ; BBC News correspondent )

It has taken a quarter of a century, but US researchers say their work has finally
enabled them to determine to what extent city air pollution impacts on average life

                                                       Page 16 of 37
The project tracked the change of air quality in 51 American cities since the 1980s. During that time
general life expectancy increased by more than two and half years, much due to improved lifestyles, diet
and healthcare. But the researchers calculated more than 15% of that extra time was due to cleaner air.

"We think about five months of that is due to the improvement of air quality," said Dr Douglas Dockery,
head of the Environmental Health Department at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, which
undertook the research. He added that, due to the relatively clean air in the US, the impact was far larger
than anticipated. Dr Dockery said there were many factors which had an impact on life expectancy.

But he added: "Clean or dirty air is something that is being imposed on you. "You do have a choice on
whether you smoke, drink, exercise or what type of food you eat. But you do not have a choice on what
air you breathe." Dr Dockery believes that if his research was transposed onto the heavily polluted cities
of the developing world, such as Beijing or Mexico City, the life expectancy impact would be far greater.

Lung damage

"We would be talking about several years," he said. "Three to four years - a significant change in how
long you live for. We looked at fine particles that penetrate deep in the lungs, those that are not caught in
the nose and the mouth, and directly damage the blood vessels. Most of those come from combustion,
from automobiles, diesel trucks and buses and power plants."

Dr Dockery hopes his findings will encourage governments to work towards making air even cleaner over
the next 25 years.

Even in Boston, which has comparatively clean city air, pollution levels change suddenly from being safe
to highly dangerous.

Bruce Hill, a scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, measured two sets of pollution levels.

One was on a bridge over a highway with only cars and the other over a highway with diesel-powered

"Just now that truck passed and the levels spiked up to five times higher than they were in the rest of the
city," said Hill.

"Now, see, it's gone 25 times higher." From there he went down onto the underground platform of a
commuter train station.

"This is bad," he said. "The monitors can't go any higher, meaning the level here could be a hundred time
higher than the cleaner air outside.

"Some people commute for five per cent of the day, which is the amount of time they're being exposed to
these particles."

Comparable to smoking

Hill describes the damage caused by regularly breathing such air as like living with someone who smokes.

                                                Page 17 of 37
In the long term, he argued, it can cause cancer and cardio-vascular problems. In the short term, it can
create asthma attacks and allergies.

Cait Maas, who already has a respiratory problem, lives in an apartment that looks out on a shipping
terminal, an oil depot and a multi-lane highway.

A main road near her home is a key route for diesel trucks.

"On a bad day, I can taste the particles. I feel them constricting my airways and I have to cover my mouth
so that I can breathe."

Over the next generation, however, it's expected that pollution, especially that created by dangerous diesel
particles, will be cut dramatically.

Standard filters are now being fitted to buses. Bio-fuels and cleaner energy in general, brought about by
climate change pressures, will make the air safer.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2009/04/12 21:41:54 GMT


[Note 18-1: author Dr. Leland Deck, et.al. of Abt Associates]

On April 23, 2002, it was reported that according to a new study by Abt Associates, an air
pollution consultant for the EPA, even after tighter air emissions controls on power plants are
implemented in 2007, pollution from these facilities will result in 5,900 premature deaths in the
U.S. The emissions will also result in 4,300 additional cases of chronic bronchitis and 140,000
asthma attacks annually. Associated Press 4/23/02


[Note 18-2: author NIEHS]

Exposure Assessment. The NIEHS Center has served to bring particular focus to issues of
exposure assessment in childhood cancer. This is a critical issue, made all the more difficult because of
the wide geographic spread of cases and controls in most studies that are conducted.
The impracticality of direct exposure assessment has forced investigators to refine, as much as possible,
the questionnaire tools at their disposal. Where direct measurement of environmental exposures have been
possible, studies have been designed to capitalize on the opportunity. This applies to studies on EMF
exposure (carried out in Los Angeles county by Dr. John Peters and others, and nationally by Dr. Linet, in
collaboration with Dr. Robison and Dr. Buckley), radon exposure (in collaboration with NCI and NIEHS)
and pesticide, PAH, metals and ETS exposure (through house dust sampling).


                                                       Page 18 of 37
[Note 19-1: author Causes of Children’s Cancer Newsletter]

C3 Causes of Childhood Cancer Newsletter
Related Links

Prevention & Etiology Research Program home page

Children's Cancer Research Fund

The C3 bimonthly newsletter is published by the Children's Cancer Research Fund, Epidemiology
Research Unit, Division of Pediatric Epidemiology- Clinical Research, University of Minnesota, 420
Delaware St. SE, MMC 422, Minneapolis, MN 55455, pedsepi@umn.edu.

Stella M. Davies, M.D., Ph.D.
Julie A. Ross, Ph.D.
Logan Spector, Ph.D.


[Note 19-2: author Socha]

Air Pollution Causes and Effects
by Tom Socha

Humans probably first experienced harm from air pollution when they built fires in poorly ventilated
caves. Since then we have gone on to pollute more of the earth's surface. Until recently, environmental
pollution problems have been local and minor because of the Earth's own ability to absorb and purify
minor quantities of pollutants. The industrialization of society, the introduction of motorized vehicles, and
the explosion of the population, are factors contributing toward the growing air pollution problem. At this
time it is urgent that we find methods to clean up the air.

The primary air pollutants found in most urban areas are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,
hydrocarbons, and particulate matter (both solid and liquid). These pollutants are dispersed throughout the
world's atmosphere in concentrations high enough to gradually cause serious health problems. Serious
health problems can occur quickly when air pollutants are concentrated, such as when massive injections
of sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter are emitted by a large volcanic eruption.

Air Pollution in the Home
                                                       Page 19 of 37
You cannot escape air pollution, not even in your own home. "In 1985 the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reported that toxic chemicals found in the air of almost every American home are three
times more likely to cause some type of cancer than outdoor air pollutants". (Miller 488) The health
problems in these buildings are called "sick building syndrome". "An estimated one-fifth to one-third of
all U.S. buildings are now considered "sick". (Miller 489) The EPA has found that the air in some office
buildings is 100 times more polluted than the air outside. Poor ventilation causes about half of the indoor
air pollution problems. The rest come from specific sources such as copying machines, electrical and
telephone cables, mold and microbe-harboring air conditioning systems and ducts, cleaning fluids,
cigarette smoke, carpet, latex caulk and paint, vinyl molding, linoleum tile, and building materials and
furniture that emit air pollutants such as formaldehyde. A major indoor air pollutant is radon-222, a
colorless, odorless, tasteless, naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the radioactive decay of
uranium-238. "According to studies by the EPA and the National Research Council, exposure to radon is
second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer". (Miller 489) Radon enters through pores and cracks
in concrete when indoor air pressure is less than the pressure of gasses in the soil. Indoor air will be
healthier than outdoor air if you use an energy recovery ventilator to provide a consistent supply of fresh
filtered air and then seal air leaks in the shell of your home .

Sources of Pollutants

                                    To enlarge an image, click on it.

The two main sources of pollutants in urban areas are transportation (predominantly automobiles) and fuel
combustion in stationary sources, including residential, commercial, and industrial heating and cooling
and coal-burning power plants. Motor vehicles produce high levels of carbon monoxides (CO) and a
major source of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Whereas, fuel combustion in stationary
sources is the dominant source of sulfur dioxide (SO2).

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the major pollutants in the atmosphere. Major sources of CO2 are fossil
fuels burning and deforestation. "The concentrations of CO2 in the air around 1860 before the effects of
industrialization were felt, is assumed to have been about 290 parts per million (ppm). In the hundred
years and more since then, the concentration has increased by about 30 to 35 ppm that is by 10 percent".
(Breuer 67) Industrial countries account for 65% of CO2 emissions with the United States and Soviet
Union responsible for 50%. Less developed countries (LDCs), with 80% of the world's people, are
responsible for 35% of CO2 emissions but may contribute 50% by 2020. "Carbon dioxide emissions are
increasing by 4% a year". (Miller 450)

In 1975, 18 thousand million tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to 5 thousand million tons of carbon)
were released into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere showed an increase of only 8 billion tons
(equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon". (Breuer 70) The ocean waters contain about sixty times more
CO2 than the atmosphere. If the equilibrium is disturbed by externally increasing the concentration of
CO2 in the air, then the oceans would absorb more and more CO2. If the oceans can no longer keep pace,
then more CO2 will remain into the atmosphere. As water warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced.

                                               Page 20 of 37
CO2 is a good transmitter of sunlight, but partially restricts infrared radiation going back from the earth
into space. This produces the so-called greenhouse effect that prevents a drastic cooling of the Earth
during the night. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reinforces this effect and is expected to
result in a warming of the Earth's surface. Currently carbon dioxide is responsible for 57% of the global
warming trend. Nitrogen oxides contribute most of the atmospheric contaminants.

N0X - nitric oxide (N0) and nitrogen dioxide (N02)

      Natural component of the Earth's atmosphere.
      Important in the formation of both acid precipitation and photochemical smog (ozone), and causes
       nitrogen loading.
      Comes from the burning of biomass and fossil fuels.
      30 to 50 million tons per year from human activities, and natural 10 to 20 million tons per year.
      Average residence time in the atmosphere is days.
      Has a role in reducing stratospheric ozone.

N20 - nitrous oxide

      Natural component of the Earth's atmosphere.
      Important in the greenhouse effect and causes nitrogen loading.
      Human inputs 6 million tons per year, and 19 million tons per year by nature.
      Residence time in the atmosphere about 170 years.
      1700 (285 parts per billion), 1990 (310 parts per billion), 2030 (340 parts per billion).
      Comes from nitrogen based fertilizers, deforestation, and biomass burning.

Sulfur and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Sulfur dioxide is produced by combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, such as coal and fuel oils. Also, in
the process of producing sulfuric acid and in metallurgical process involving ores that contain sulfur.
Sulfur oxides can injure man, plants and materials. At sufficiently high concentrations, sulfur dioxide
irritates the upper respiratory tract of human beings because potential effect of sulfur dioxide is to make
breathing more difficult by causing the finer air tubes of the lung to constrict. "Power plants and factories
emit 90% to 95% of the sulfur dioxide and 57% of the nitrogen oxides in the United States. Almost 60%
of the SO2 emissions are released by tall smoke stakes, enabling the emissions to travel long distances".
(Miller 494) As emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide from stationary sources are transported long
distances by winds, they form secondary pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid vapor, and
droplets containing solutions of sulfuric acid, sulfate, and nitrate salts. These chemicals descend to the
earth's surface in wet form as rain or snow and in dry form as a gases fog, dew, or solid particles. This is
known as acid deposition or acid rain.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

CFCs are lowering the average concentration of ozone in the stratosphere. "Since 1978 the use of CFCs in
aerosol cans has been banned in the United States, Canada, and most Scandinavian countries. Aerosols are
still the largest use, accounting for 25% of global CFC use". (Miller 448) Spray cans, discarded or leaking
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, and the burning plastic foam products release the CFCs into
the atmosphere. Depending on the type, CFCs stay in the atmosphere from 22 to 111 years.
Chlorofluorocarbons move up to the stratosphere gradually over several decades. Under high energy ultra

                                               Page 21 of 37
violet (UV) radiation, they break down and release chlorine atoms, which speed up the breakdown of
ozone (O3) into oxygen gas (O2).

Chlorofluorocarbons, also known as Freons, are greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
Photochemical air pollution is commonly referred to as "smog". Smog, a contraction of the words smoke
and fog, has been caused throughout recorded history by water condensing on smoke particles, usually
from burning coal. With the introduction of petroleum to replace coal economies in countries,
photochemical smog has become predominant in many cities, which are located in sunny, warm, and dry
climates with many motor vehicles. The worst episodes of photochemical smog tend to occur in summer.


               To enlarge the image, click on it.

Photochemical smog is also appearing in regions of the tropics and subtropics where savanna grasses are
periodically burned. Smog's unpleasant properties result from the irradiation by sunlight of hydrocarbons
caused primarily by unburned gasoline emitted by automobiles and other combustion sources. The
products of photochemical reactions includes organic particles, ozone, aldehydes, ketones, peroxyacetyl
nitrate, organic acids, and other oxidants. Ozone is a gas created by nitrogen dioxide or nitric oxide when
exposed to sunlight. Ozone causes eye irritation, impaired lung function, and damage to trees and crops.
Another form of smog is called industrial smog.

This smog is created by burning coal and heavy oil that contain sulfur impurities in power plants,
industrial plants, etc... The smog consists mostly of a mixture of sulfur dioxide and fog. Suspended
droplets of sulfuric acid are formed from some of the sulfur dioxide, and a variety of suspended solid
particles. This smog is common during the winter in cities such as London, Chicago, Pittsburgh. When
these cities burned large amounts of coal and heavy oil without control of the output, large-scale problems
were witnessed. In 1952 London, England, 4,000 people died as a result of this form of fog. Today coal
and heavy oil are burned only in large boilers and with reasonably good control or tall smokestacks so
that industrial smog is less of a problem. However, some countries such as China, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and some other eastern European countries, still burn large quantities of coal without
using adequate controls.

Pollution Damage to Plants
With the destruction and burning of the rain forests more and more CO2 is being released into the
atmosphere. Trees play an important role in producing oxygen from carbon dioxide. "A 115 year old
Beech tree exposes about 200,000 leaves with a total surface to 1200 square meters. During the course of
one sunny day such a tree inhales 9,400 liters of carbon dioxide to produce 12 kilograms of carbohydrate,
thus liberating 9,400 liters of oxygen. Through this mechanism about 45,000 liters of air are regenerated
which is sufficient for the respiration of 2 to 3 people". (Breuer 1) This process is called photosynthesis
which all plants go though but some yield more and some less oxygen. As long as no more wood is burnt
than is reproduced by the forests, no change in atmospheric CO2 concentration will result.

Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and peroxyacl nitrates (PANs), cause direct
damage to leaves of crop plants and trees when they enter leaf pores (stomates). Chronic exposure of

                                               Page 22 of 37
leaves and needles to air pollutants can also break down the waxy coating that helps prevent excessive
water loss and damage from diseases, pests, drought and frost. "In the midwestern United States crop
losses of wheat, corn, soybeans, and peanuts from damage by ozone and acid deposition amount to about
$5 billion a year". (Miller 498)

Reducing Pollution
You can help to reduce global air pollution and climate change by driving a car that gets at least 35 miles
a gallon, walking, bicycling, and using mass transit when possible. Replace incandescent light bulbs with
compact fluorescent bulbs, make your home more energy efficient, and buy only energy efficient
appliances. Recycle newspapers, aluminum, and other materials. Plant trees and avoid purchasing
products such as Styrofoam that contain CFCs. Support much stricter clean air laws and enforcement of
international treaties to reduce ozone depletion and slow global warming.

Earth is everybody's home and nobody likes living in a dirty home. Together, we can make the earth a
cleaner, healthier and more pleasant place to live.

Works Cited:
      Breuer, Georg, Air in Danger: Ecological Perspectives of the Atmosphere. New York: Cambridge
       University Press, 1980.

      Stewart, T. Charles, Air Pollution, Human Health and Public Policy. New York: Lexington
       Books, 1979

      Miller, G. Tyler, Living in the Environment: an introduction to environmental science. Belmont:
       Wadsworth, 1990.

Additional Sources of Information:
      Home, Sick Home — Johns Hopkins Science & Technology
      Safety and Comfort in Your Home
      Air Pollution and Respiratory Health — Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
      Indoor Air Pollution
      Clean Energy Gains Support
      Outdoor Air Pollution
      Cancer Epidemic: Symptom of an Unsustainable Society
      Air Pollution Linked to Birth Defects
      Inflammation is a Secret Killer
      Clean energy and efficiency investments would create 3.3 million jobs, says study
      State of the Air: 2004 — American Lung Association
      Air Pollution — National Library of Medicine
      Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals — Centers for Disease
       Control & Prevention

                                               Page 23 of 37
        Toxic Releases and Health: A Review of Pollution Data and Current Knowledge on the Health
         Effects of Toxic Chemicals
        New Report Finds Cancer Risk From Air Pollution Nearly 500 Times Greater Than Clean Air Act
        Weatherization and Indoor Air Quality: Minimizing entry of outdoor air pollutants
        Air Pollution: Our Children at Risk
        Air pollution causes lung disease in school-age children
        Air Pollution Causes Blood Vessels to Constrict — American Heart Association
        Energy Department Data Confirm that President's Global Warming Plan Would Accelerate
        How industry-funded "experts" twist the environmental debate
        Mold (health effects, economic effects, mitigation, etc.)
        Heavy Metal Toxicity
        Fire's dangers drift far beyond flames
        Tobacco Related Diseases
        Real-Time Air Pollution and Visibility Monitoring (multiple outdoor web cams)

NOTE: You can help to reduce air pollution by improving energy efficiency so that less fossil fuel is
burned. This will help you to endure the oil shortages and natural gas shortages.



[Note 24-1: author Deliang et.al.]

China relies on coal for 70% to 75% of its energy needs, consuming 1.9 billion tons of coal
each year. In addition to CO2, the major greenhouse gas, coal burning in China emits vast
quantities of particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, arsenic,
and mercury. Automobiles emit nitrogen dioxide and benzene in addition to particulate
matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Seventy percent of Chinese households burn
coal or biomass for cooking and heating, which contaminates indoor air. Adverse effects of
combustion-related air pollution include reduced fetal and child growth, pulmonary disease
including asthma, developmental impairment, and increased risk of cancer.
(Air Pollution Threatens the Health of Children in China, Alexander Millman, BAa, Deliang Tang,
DrPHb and Frederica P. Perera, DrPHb ; PEDIATRICS Vol. 122 No. 3 September 2008 )


[Note 24-2: author Dr. DeRoos, A, et. al]

Job Occupations Suggest Link to Neuroblastoma in Children
SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998 Jun;147(11 Suppl):S86

It has been suggested that parental occupational exposures may increase the risk of neuroblastoma in

                                                       Page 24 of 37
offspring. Previous studies reported an association with paternal work in farming, and for mothers or
fathers working as electricians or in electronics assembly and repair. In order to evaluate parental
occupation, we conducted a large multicenter case-control study. Cases included 539 children diagnosed
with neuroblastoma (1992-1996) at 140 hospitals that are members of the Children's Cancer Group or
Pediatric Oncology Group. One age-matched control per case was selected by random-digit telephone
dialing. Telephone interviews conducted with both parents included a lifetime occupational history.
Industries and occupations were grouped to reflect similar tasks and exposures. Conditional logistic
regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each
occupational group, with adjustment for mother's race, age, education, and income.

Elevated odds ratios were found for paternal employment as:

1.   Electric power installers and power plant operators (OR = 2.7; CI: 0.9-8.1)
2.   Broadcast, telephone and dispatch operators (OR = 6.1; CI: 0.7-50.9),
3.   Landscapers and groundskeepers (OR = 2.3; CI: 1.0-5.2),
4.   Painters (OR = 2.1; CI: 0.9-4.8)
5.   Printers (OR = 2.6; CI: 0.5-13.9)
6.   Florists and garden store workers (OR = 2.4; CI: 0.6-9.9),
7.   Hairdressers (OR = 2.8; CI: 1.2-6.3),
8.   Electric power installers (5 cases, 0 controls), and
9.   Farm workers (OR = 2.2; CI: 0.6-8.8)

Author Address: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dept.of Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC.



[Note 25-1: author Kessler]

Death by Particles
The Link Between Air Pollution and Fatal Coronary Heart Disease in

A growing body of evidence links chronic exposure to air pollution--especially particulate matter (PM)--
with mortality resulting from a variety of heart, lung, and respiratory diseases. A new study corroborates
this association, and indicates that women may be at greater risk than men of fatal coronary heart disease
(CHD) as a result of exposure to airborne PM [EHP 113:1723-1729]. When ozone (O3) or sulfur dioxide
(SO2) is also present, women's risk appears even greater.

The study, by a team of epidemiologists at Loma Linda University, is part of the 22-year Adventist Health
Study on the Health Effects of Smog. It followed 3,239 nonsmoking, non-Hispanic white adults in several
mainly urban areas in California from 1976 to 1998. The researchers associated CHD deaths with prior
exposure to various levels of several common air pollutants: PM2.5, PM10-2.5, PM10, O3, SO2, and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2).

Participants completed a baseline health and lifestyle questionnaire in 1976, and four subsequent
questionnaires covering personal sources of air pollution, such as secondhand tobacco smoke and fumes
in the workplace. The researchers used airport visibility measurements (for PM2.5 only) and data from

                                                       Page 25 of 37
state-run air pollution monitors (for all other pollutants) to estimate pollutant levels over time for the zip
code centroids of participants' work sites and residences. Documented pollutant levels ranged from
negligible to above legal limits. California's death certificate files and the National Death Index provided
data on numbers and causes of deaths.

The researchers found that CHD caused 23.7% of all the deaths in the study cohort (155 women and 95
men). Adjusting for past smoking, body mass index, education level, frequency of eating meat, and
calendar year (as PM levels declined over the study period), the researchers conducted statistical analyses
to determine whether fatal CHD was associated with long-term exposure to the pollutants, either singly or
in combinations of single gases and PM.

Women showed a relative risk for fatal CHD of 1.42, 1.38, and 1.22 with each increase of 10 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3) of airborne PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and PM10, respectively, in the air pollution they
encountered during the four years preceding death. Postmenopausal women showed higher relative risks
of 1.49, 1.61, and 1.30 for each 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and PM10, respectively. Neither O3,
SO2, nor NO2 was associated with fatal CHD on its own. O3 and to a lesser degree SO2 (but not NO2)
increased the effect of all sizes of PM. O3 in conjunction with PM2.5 yielded the most striking results: a
relative risk of 2.0 in all women. Contrary to findings from several other studies that found increased risk
of cardiopulmonary deaths due to PM in both genders, men showed no response to any of the pollutants.

The researchers highlight several physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings. Short-term
exposure to PM is known to increase arrhythmia, inflammation, and blood viscosity, and to decrease heart
rate variability, among other adverse effects that could lead to fatal CHD. Other findings show that O3
exposure increases lung permeability, perhaps easing PM's entry into the bloodstream. Finally, several
studies have indicated that PM deposits differently--and perhaps more harmfully--in women's lungs than
in men's. This may provide a starting point for teasing out the study's finding of an association between
PM and risk of fatal CHD in women, but not in men. By Rebecca Kessler

(Environmental Health Perspectives at http://www.ehponline.org)


[Note 26-1: author Jefferson]


The second renewable energy resource where a firmer screening process is
required relates to biomass. PPS 22 makes a general statement about generation plants
being located in as close a proximity as possible to the sources of fuel that have been
identified. The Companion Guide to PPS 22 states that under the Energy Crops Scheme
crops should serve a biomass plant within a 25-mile radius catchment (Companion
Guide, page 88). It further states that a proposed plant should be located at the ‗centre of
gravity‘ of the proposed feedstock (ibid.). PPS 7 contains a number of statements
consistent with these guidelines. Unfortunately, this has not prevented proposals coming
forward, and being backed by local planning authorities, for biomass-based generating
plants which are proposed for location in rural areas, along narrow country lanes, and
using feedstocks such as palm oil (presumably from such locations as Indonesia or
Malaysia where huge areas of tropical forest have been destroyed to make way for palm

                                                       Page 26 of 37
oil plantations). One of the disgraceful aspects of such cases is that local planning
authorities have themselves claimed that such feedstocks are ―carbon neutral‖ and the
fact that objectors pointed out that they included palm oil was deemed irrelevant. [I am
prepared to provide concrete evidence of such matters if challenged.]
There are other biomass/biofuel issues of a strategic nature (the questionable
rationale of using foodstuffs for this purpose, because of the possible national, regional
and global implications) which presumably go beyond the scope of matters to be covered
under reform of the RO. Therefore, there is this third proposal:
Proposal 3: No biomass scheme will be contemplated where the location of
any conversion or generating plant is outside a broadly defined ‘centre of gravity’,
and where feedstocks would need to come from outside a 25-mile radius of the proposed plant.


[Note 27-1: author Dr. Upham]

Stakeholder opinion of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in
Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for bioenergy planning and policy
Authors: Paul Upham a; Simon Shackley a
Affiliation: a Tyndall Centre (North) and Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester,
             Manchester, UK
DOI: 10.1080/15239080600634144
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in:     Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Volume 8, Issue 1 March 2006 , pages 45
- 66

A detailed survey of local opinion of a proposed 21.5 MWe bioenergy power plant in Devon, England,
has revealed a high level of public opposition and a distrust of the relevant authorities, particularly the
Regional Development Agency. Local people view the project as unreasonably large in scale and expect a
significant deterioration in their quality of life if it is constructed. They doubt that farmers in the region
can be contracted to grow sufficient miscanthus grass as fuel and suspect that the real motivation for the
plant is as a regional waste management facility. Local people object strongly to the late stage at which
the project became public knowledge and the presentation of a fait accompli. The paper documents the
main themes evident in focus groups and interviews with local people and stakeholders. The implications
for bioenergy planning and policy are also discussed. It is recommended that large bioenergy power plant
are sited away from residential areas and sensitive landscapes, and that the concerns of UK government
advisors regarding policy support for advanced bioenergy plant for electricity generation be taken more
seriously by the UK Department for Trade and Industry.
Keywords: Bioenergy; planning; public; opinion; stakeholder; gasifier; WINBEG


                                                       Page 27 of 37
[Note 28-1: author McNeill Technologies for Oregon Dept. of Energy]

Oregon Biomass Facility study consideration regarding site location: [study on best location for
biomass facilities in 3 Oregon Counties – site away from residential was an important factor]
6.2 Site Ranking
The sites listed in Table 6-1 were assessed for viability using the criteria in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Criteria used to rank potential conversion sites for biomass:
         2) Zoning and existing land use – Score for Power with zero being least desirable
         Residential nearby 0
         Undeveloped 1
         Industrial 3

December 2003 38 Oregon Department of Energy

The sites with the highest overall score were chosen for further evaluation. Information on each
of these criteria was collected from site visits conducted in May 2003. Distance to a substation
was determined either visually or, if a substation was not evident, by determining where
substations were located on maps relative to the location. Zoning was determined by talking to
landowners and county planners during the site visit. This criterion is somewhat subjective,
because it takes into account proximity to residential and commercial areas and a sense of
whether the site is likely to encounter problems because of inconsistency with surrounding land
uses. Sites that were already industrial received higher scores for this criterion.


[Note 28-2: website by Earthworks]

See also ―NO DIRTY ENERGY ― website at : http://www.nodirtyenergy.org


[Note 28-1: author Dr James Wang (starts at p. 29)]

The medical community’s response to a proposed biomass project in Massachusetts

                                                       Page 28 of 37
Page 29 of 37

[Note 30-1: author Melzer]

A Michigan Utility company took a PROACTIVE step rather than reacting later to
the health impacts or leaving it for the rest of the community to deal with after the
Traverse City utility commissions study on health effects of biomass
By Eartha Jane Melzer 6/22/10 3:59 PM

                                                       Page 30 of 37
Traverse City‘s municipally owned utility company has hired a firm to study the potential health impacts
of a proposed $30 million wood-fired power plant.

―We‘ve been hearing from a lot of other people, what they think the public health aspects would be,‖
[Karen Feahrs of Traverse City Light and Power told Interlochen Public Radio,]―And we thought it was
important to find someone objective. We want to make sure the correct facts get out.‖

Light and Power is paying $22,000 for a preliminary environmental health study. It‘s being done by Mac
Tec, a nationwide engineering and consulting company with a Traverse City office.

According to emission statistics published by the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment
the recently permitted Mancelona Renewable Resources wood-fired power plant would be, by some
measures, more polluting than the coal plant proposed (and later put on hold) by Consumers Energy.
(emphasis added)

The proposed Mancelona plant would emit more particulate matter and greater amounts of NOX and
VOC, two pollutants that react with sunshine and heat to form smog.

A group of Traverse City area physicians have asked local officials to table plans for a biomass plant until
the potential health impacts have been investigated.

Tonight at the Traverse Area District Library the group Michigan Citizens for Energy, the Economy and
Environment (MCE3) is sponsoring a presentation by Dr. Bill Sammons, a pediatrician who has warned
that particulate matter from biomass power plants is an air pollutant associated with asthma, heart disease,
and cancer.

Opponents of TCLP‘s plan to burn wood for power are circulating a petition to amend the city charter so
that residents would have the right to vote on whether the plant should be built.


There are other uses for the land on which the old power plant sits, that would pose no public
health or environmental threat, and that would be more appropriate given the change in the
surrounding area. We’d like to get to work on positive change for all.

                                                       Page 31 of 37
NOTES for SI Exhibit 45a

[Note 1-1: author Rapoza]

      Bridget K. Rapoza J.D. :
      Wife, mother & home school teacher: 1998 - present .
      Licensed to practice law in Hawaii, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas.
      Attorney, Husch, Blackwell Sanders, LLP Law Firm: 1992-1993 and 1995-1999
              Practice Areas - Corporate Finance, Bank Regulatory Compliance; Officer & Director
             Fiduciary Responsibilities; 3 years in the Energy Law dept. specializing in weather
             derivatives – presented legal analysis and risk management papers to Securities &
             Exchange Commission regulators, Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulators,
             and derivatives industry participants.
      Law Degree from Creighton School of Law: Cum Laude 1992.
      Corporate Loan Officer, National Westminster Bank, USA, Health Care, New York City: 1986-
      Undergrad Business Communications Degree from Tulane University: Cum Laude 1986.

                                      Statement on compilation of research:
      The attached research compilation summarizes the voluminous studies / research I have read over
      the past 2 ½ years, in an effort to identify some of the most important issues without requiring
      everyone else to read the full reports, data sources, studies and articles. In the compilation each
      source is specifically referenced for readers who would like to understand more.

[Note 1-2: author National Renewable Energy Labs]
       NREL is a U.S. Dept. of Energy research laboratory located in Golden, Colorado; The
       full report Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass Power Plants was is included as SI
       Exhibit 35.

[Note 2-1: energyjustice.net ; webmaster Mike Ewall]
       Mr. Ewall has a Bachelor of Science in Sociology with a Minor in Science, Technology
       and Society from Pennsylvania State University. He is currently a Juris Doctor candidate
       (2011) at the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law.
        Nearly every section of the energyjustice.net website is clearly footnoted with mostly
       primary sources, many of which are directly linked to the reference source. If there is any
       questions about the sources of any information on the energyjustice.net website, Mr.
       Ewall stated on Oct. 25th, that any party may contact him directly through the website.

[Note 4-1: author Environmental Protection Agency]
       I spoke to Elizabeth Blackburn on July 14th, 2008 and she emailed me this pdf ; Ms.
       Blackburn is in the Office of Children’s Health and Environmental Education at the EPA in
       Washington DC. Her direct phone # is (202) 564-2192; her email is

[Note 5-1: author Clean Air Task Force, Senior Scientist Dr. Bruce Hill]
       Children At Risk: How Air Pollution From Power Plants Threatens The Health Of
       America’s Children. The Clean Air Task Force is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
       reducing atmospheric pollution through research, advocacy, and private sector

                                             Page 32 of 37
       collaboration. The lead author on this report is Dr. Bruce Hill, who received his PhD from
       Stanford; Foreward is by Dr. George D. Thurston of NYU School of Medicine.
[Note 5-2: author American Lung Association]
       The American Lung Association. Its webpage is www.lungusa.org, where it states that it
       is the leading organization working to save lives by improving lung health and preventing
       lung disease through Education, Advocacy and Research. The data is from 2008 when I
       first found out about Hu Honua. The American Lung Association has since published
       more recent data on particulate matter.

[Note 6-1: author Environmental Protection Agency]
       The U.S. EPA has set up a Particulate Matter “PM” research center to address the
       growing scientific data regarding PM impacts. The cite for the statement regarding the
       current inadequacy of the existing regulations is

[Note 6-2: author Environmental Protection Agency] See Note 6-1 above

[Note 7-1: author S. Balakrishna & S. Lomnicki]
       This research paper discussing particulate matter formation and health impact was
       published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology in 2009. The lead authors are Dr. Shrilatha
       Balakrishna PhD, Yale University School of Medicine, and Dr. Slawo Lomnicki, PhD.,
       LSU Department of Chemistry.

[Note 8-1: author Environmental Protection Agency] See Note 4-1 above.

[Note 9-1: author RHAMC, citing Harvard School of Public Health, Journal of American Medical
Association, and Environmental Health Prospective]
       RHAMC is the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, an organization
       dedicated to promote healthy lungs and fight lung disease through research, advocacy
       and education. It serves an estimated 1 million Cook County residents living with asthma,
       lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema and other lung
       diseases. The Harvard Study was authored by Dr. John Spengler PhD., Harvard School
       of Public Health (Environmental Health) and Dr. Jonathan Levy, Sc.D., 1999, Harvard
       School of Public Health (Environmental Science and Risk Management); The American
       Journal of Medicine article on Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution lead
       author was Dr. C. Arden Pope III, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at BYU.

[Note 11-1: author Dr. Kirk Smith, PhD; this is an excerpt from the full report SI Exhibit 37]
       Dr. Smith. MPH (Masters in Public Health), and PhD, is the Director of the Global
       Environmental Health program at UC Berkeley.
       I called Dr. Smith in late 2008 / early 2009 to discuss the relevance of his research and
       this World Health Organization report to the Hu Honua biomass plant wood burning
       emissions of Particulate Matter. Dr. Smith explained that although the report focuses on
       indoor air pollution from wood burning stoves, the report is still relevant as to the
       discussion on Particulate Matter as a hazardous air pollutant emitted from wood burning
       biomass. Specifically, it is relevant to:
               i) the types hazardous emissions from wood burning;
               ii) the physical and chemical characteristics of Particulate Matter, including the
               visual graphics and variable sizes;

                                          Page 33 of 37
              iii) the formation of Particulate Matter, esp. the secondary formation of Particulate
              Matter from physical and chemical reactions in the atmosphere;
              iv) the entry of Particulate Matter into the human body and the lung tissue; and
              v) the health impact of Particulate Matter on the human respiratory system.
      I left another message on Dr. Smith’s voice mail on Mon. Oct. 25th to ask his availability
      should anyone have questions, but have not heard back from him. His phone number is
      (510) 643-0793.

[Note 13-1: author Dr. William Sammons; SI Exhibit 141 provides the uploaded link to cleaner
copies of the video files, and 141a provides descriptions for each video file]
       Dr. William Sammons is a Board Certified Pediatrician with hospital privileges in
       Massachusetts, Connecticutt and New York. Dr. Sammons has actively spoken out
       regarding the damage of Particulate Matter from biomass power plants on human health,
       especially the health of children.

[Note 13-2: author Dr. Tom Termotto]
      Dr. Termotto is Board Certified in Integrative Medicine ; serves as the President of the
      Helathcare Professionals for a Clean Environment, and currently serves as the National
      Coordinator of the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference;

[Note 15-1: author Dr. Nick Day, MD, Retired Professor of Epidemiology,
Cambridge University, United Kingdom]
      Dr. Day retired as Professor in Epidemiology at the University of Cambridge in 2004, after
      he authored the article; Dr. Day most recently was appointed to the Renewable Energy
      Commission which has been set up to license large scale renewable energy projects in
      the territorial seas around Guernsey, United Kingdom.

[Note 16-1: author Fews, A.P.]
       A.P. Fews and Dennis Henshaw, both physicists and professors at University of Bristol,
       England authored this earlier 1999 study hypothesizing the effect of power lines’
       electromagnetic fields on airborne pollutants – since the time of this study, much more
       has been learned about the specifics of particulate matter formation.

[Note 16-2: author Chair Harvard Public Health, Dr. D. Dockery, BBC correspondent, H.
       Dr Douglas Dockery, MD. Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Dockery is the Chair of
       the Department of Environmental Health and a professor of Environmental Epidemiology.
       This BBC April 2009 report on Dr. Dockery’s study is at
       http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7946838.stm ; His publication list at
       http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/douglas-dockery/publications/ The report also cites
       Dr. Bruce Hill of the Clean Air Task Force see Note 5-1 above.

[Note 18-1: author Dr. Leland Deck, et.al. of Abt Associates]
 Report titled, Particulate-Related Health Impacts of Eight Electric Utility Systems . The
full report is located at http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/rockefeller_pm_study_final_v2.pdf
The report was prepared by Abt Associates’ Environmental Research Group, which provides
multi-disciplinary scientific research and environmental policy analysis for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and other policy organizations including the federal and state
governments and the World Health Organization. This group conducted extensive health

                                           Page 34 of 37
analysis for the U.S. EPA in support of the 1997 revisions to both the ozone and the particulate
matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. They also prepared the health and economic
analyses for EPA’s 1997 Report to Congress The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970
to 1990, and the 1999 Report The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010. Abt
Associates conducts similar policy, health and economic analyses for EPA of regulations on the
electric generating industry, automobile exhaust, diesel vehicles, regional haze, and potential
policies for climate change mitigation strategies. Abt Associate’s Environmental Research Area
conducts public health analysis projects worldwide.
[Note 18-2: author NIEHS]
        NIEHS is the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences whose mission is “to
        reduce the burden of human illness and disability by understanding how the environment
        influences the development and progression of human disease”. The exposure
        assessments look at the routes by which people are exposed to hazardous
        environmental agents, specifically via air pollution. The NIESH air pollution exposure
        links page is at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/exposure/air-pollution/index.cfm

[Note 19-1: author Causes of Children’s Cancer Newsletter]
       The C3 (Causes of Childhood Cancer) bimonthly newsletter is published by the Children's
       Cancer Research Fund, Epidemiology Research Unit, Division of Pediatric Epidemiology-
       Clinical Research, University of Minnesota. The editors are Julie A. Ross, Ph.D.
       Pediatric Epidemiology and Logan Spector, Ph.D. epidemiology

[Note 19-2: author Socha]
       Mr. Socha holds a BA from Trinity College and an MBA from New York University.
      He is a credit analyst in the utility and energy industries.

[Note 24-1: author Deliang et.al.]
       Research paper titled Air Pollution Threatens the Health of Children in China , authored
       Alexander Millman, BA, Dr. Deliang Tang, PhD and Dr. Frederica P. Perera, PhD at
       Columbia University Center for Children's Environmental Health, Mailman School of
       Public Health
       Full research paper is at

[Note 24-2: author Dr. DeRoos, A, et. al]
       Study titled Parental Occupational Exposures to Chemicals and Incidence of
       Neuroblastoma in Offspring, lead author Dr. AnneClaire De Roos, PhD, Epidemiology,
       professor, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center;
       Full study at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/2/106.abstract?sid=4f367688-32ce-

[Note 25-1: author Kessler for EHP]
       EHP is Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer reviewed journal published by the
       National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Rebecca Kessler is a science writer
       and editor with special interest in environmental issues. She was senior editor at Natural
       History magazine and has a BS in Botany and an MA from the Science, Health and
       Environmental Reporting Program at New York University.

                                                   Page 35 of 37
[Note 26-1: author Jefferson]
       World famous “Renewable Energy” expert, Michael Jefferson’s comments on the
       renewable energy policies based on his years & experience in the industry – full
       commentary is at

      Professor Jefferson has degrees from Oxford University and London School of
      Economics. For years he served as Chairman of the Policies Committee of the World
      Renewable Energy Network/Congresses, and an Associate Editor of the journal
      “Renewable Energy”. He is a member of the Technical Advisory Group of the Renewable
      Energy Foundation. Professor Jefferson is former Deputy Secretary-General, Director of
      Policy Development, and Director of Studies of the World Energy Council; and he worked
      as Chief Economist of The Royal Dutch/Shell Group; Head of Oil Supply Strategy and of
      Planning in Europe for Shell Internationale Petroleum. He has been a Lead Author,
      Review Editor, and Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
      He wrote the energy policies chapter in the United Nation’s “World Energy Assessment”
      (2000), and he was the first lead consultant for the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force.
      In 2007, Professor Jefferson was recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
      Change for his contributions to their award of the Nobel Peace Prize. He currently
      teaches “International Business and Sustainability” at the London Metropolitan Business

[Note 27-1: author Dr. Upham]
       Dr. Paul Upham, PhD, is a Research Fellow in the Tyndall Centre Manchester and
       Manchester Business School. Dr. Upham is co-investigator for Tyndall Manchester's
       EPSRC SUPERGEN work (2003-7 and 2007-11, EP/E039995/1 and EP/E040071/1),
       which entail UK bioenergy/biofuel scenarios, life cycle analyses of bioenergy systems
       and assessment of public/stakeholder perceptions of bioenergy. Previously, he was a
       Research Fellow at the Centre for Air Transport and the Environment (CATE), working on
       airport environmental and operational capacity and projects for EUROCONTROL. His
       PhD involved an evaluation of a corporate learning tool for sustainability, The Natural
       Step. DR. Upham worked with Wildlife Trusts on ecological and corporate environmental

[Note 28-1: author McNeill Technologies for Oregon Dept. of Energy]
       The report Biomass Resource Assessment and Utilization Options for Three Counties in
       Eastern Oregon considers biomass energy feasibility for 3 large Oregon counties
       specifically for the issues of biomass supply, cost and site location. The excerpt is from
       Chap. 6 “Facility Siting Analysis”, and Chapter 13 “Conclusions and Recommendations”.
       The full report is at

[Note 28-2: website by Earthworks]
      The No Dirty Energy campaign is an effort of Earthworks, and advocacy nonprofit based
      in Washington, DC dedicated to protecting communities and the environment. It is a
      national drive for all citizens to pledge toward a clean, efficient energy policy for their own
      communities as well as for the country. http://www.nodirtyenergy.org

[Note 28-1: author Dr. James Wang]

                                           Page 36 of 37
      Dr. Wang, MD, FACOG, CCD as president of Hampden District Medical Society issued
      this statement of the doctors’ position at a press conference, raising public awareness
      and medical community awareness of the public health impacts from biomass air

[Note 30-1: author Melzer]
       Ms. Melzer has a degree from Antioch College, and writes for the Michigan Messenger
       published by the American Independent News Netwrok. Ms. Melzer received an
       Honorable Mention from the National Press Club for the Hume Award recently in relation
       to her investigative reporting. The article is at

                                         Page 37 of 37

Shared By: