many different aspects of our environment, including us, that it is a wonder why it is not treated as a big issue. Is it because the effects of poor air quality are so anticlimactic? Although the Environmental Protection Agency has introduced a Clean Air Act, they still do not seem to be entirely concerned with the air quality's affect on humans. "Now the EPA wants only to issue code red warnings when pollution is 50 percent higher than the standards (Borenstein 1999)." This may result in higher incidences of death among the elderly and other people most sensitive to the affects of air pollution. If the EPA follows through with their proposed warning changes, it may give the population the idea that the air quality has improved when it really hasn't, it may even be worse than it has ever been before. Another problem with the EPA is that they have not defined who is sensitive to air pollution. They may tell us that people who are sensitive to air pollution should stay indoors on a given day, but we don't know if we are sensitive to air pollution or not. "The lung association and independent environmental health professors say about one out of three people are sensitive to air pollution. This includes people who work or play outdoors for long periods of time, young children, people with chronic lung diseases, asthmatics and the elderly (Borenstein 1999)." This engulfs and enormous population. Shouldn't the EPA make sure that we are aware of this statistic?In conclusion, it seems that the Environmental Protection Agency could be somewhat more concerned with the effects of air pollution on the plant and animal communities. Would it really cost them much money to regulate warnings, and to actually enforce their Clean Air Act?...
