The soot is falling, the soot is falling!

The following two paragraphs appear in a NYT article by Felicity Barringer on soot and mortality:

"A new appraisal of existing studies documenting the links between tiny soot particles and premature death from cardiovascular ailments shows that mortality rates among people exposed to the particles are twice as high as previously thought." and ...

"The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase."

The mortality did not double. The estimate of "health risk," i.e. precursor conditions, increased from 112% of normal to 124% of normal, a rise of 11% not 100%. I've scanned the actual report and I can't find a direct correlation between HR and mortality, although it's a long report and I haven't read it all. However, the precursor condition is definitely not the same as mortality.

Furthermore, buried deep within the research paper is a statement that did not make its way into the New York Times. It seems that the particulates in question have declined by a third since the oldest part of the study, so that while it is true that the EPA hasn't lowered its standards for particulates, they are falling anyway. That the story gives the impression that the risk is seen as greater and nothing is ameliorating it is scandalous.

Researchers need headlines to maintain funding, so it's no use to say that you're studying an issue that is taking care of itself. Also, the New York Times is always inclined to favor more regulation of anything, so even if it's a declining problem, they think we should hire more EPA bureaucrats to harass American businesses. Judge for yourselves.