Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nr~~'.)~ <br />dd L.L ',' . <br /> <br />in a Nashville study. Particulate levels in this range are <br /> <br />found in most l1l/3.jor urban areas and are common even in sl1l/3.11er <br /> <br />industrial cities . <br />DREW, in its report, "Air Quality Criteria for SulfUr Oxides, ':1/ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />concludes that: <br /> <br />'Under the conditions prevailing in areas where the studies <br /> <br />were conducted, adverse health effects were noted when 24-hour <br /> <br />average levels of sulfUr dioxide exceeded 300 pg/m3 (0.11 p.p.m.) <br /> <br />for 3 to 4 days. Adverse health effects were also noted when the <br /> <br /> <br />annual mean level of sulfUr dioxide exceeded 115 pg/n? (0.04 p.p.m.)." <br /> <br /> <br />In contrast, M. D. Battigelli, M.D., in an article in the "Journal <br /> <br />of Occupational Medicine," September 1968, "SulfUr Dioxide and Acute <br />Effects of Air Pollution, '.::./ says: <br /> <br />"In sUlIllllllXy the search for an acceptable rationale, or for <br /> <br />reasonable evidence documenting a toxicological relevance of <br /> <br />S02 levels, as these are encountered in urban air pollution, <br /> <br />has thus far failed. If urban pollution has a measurable <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />effect on the health and disease of exposed populations, as <br /> <br />it appears to have, on the basis of available information, <br /> <br />this phenomenon does not appear to involve sulfUr dioxide <br /> <br />in its mechanism. II <br /> <br />In the same hearing, Mr. Nelson quoted from a statement on May 18, <br /> <br />1967, by Dr. E. J. Cassell, Mt. Sinai, School of Medicine, New York City, <br /> <br />to the Muskie Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution: 'There is no <br /> <br />proof that S02 alone, or at levels anywhere near those found in urban <br /> <br />atmospheres, has any adverse effects on man." <br /> <br />32 <br />