The new regulations proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act have kicked up a storm. Although few of its earlier targets have been achieved, the agency has 1@roposed even more difficult regulations. EPA itself predicts that the cost of new regulations will fhr exceed the benefits. Besides, scientific evidence points out that reducing ground-level ozone will make no significant impact on the public health, instead it will have an adverse effect.

Ground-level ozone is the main constituent of urban smog and it is believed to cause respiratory problems. But ozone also filters out harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. Reducing ozone levels would increase malignant skin cancers and cataracts, as well as other UV- B-related health risks. Critics say that EPA has chosen to ignore the health benefits of the ozone's impact on UV radiation.

Studies conducted by the agency indicate that these gains could be much higher than the benefits likely to be derived from the proposed ground-level ozone standard. According to a survey done by the department of energy, the reduction in ozone level could give rise to 25 to 50 new deaths caused by melanoma annually. In terms of money, the cost of negative health effect will exceed the EPA's most optimistic health benefits by more than US $300 million.

The proposed cuts would also mean that the public will have to pay more for goods and services and consequently have less money to spend on health. EPA's claim that the new standards will benefit people suffering from asthma an@ other respiratory diseases, is also being debated. Poverty is rated as a higher risk factor than air pollution for caus- ing asthma. Even EPA's figures suggest that the potential benefits for asthma patients is very small compared to the huge cost of implementing the regulations.