It’s time for public policy to catch up with science, and President Barack Obama will soon have a chance to help make that happen. Later this month, on Dec. 14, he’ll be presented with the newly proposed air quality standards on soot from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Soot encompasses all microscopic particles such as metals, acids, dirt, pollen, molds and aerosols, according to the American Lung Association. It comes mainly from combustion of fuels, from diesel to wood,  and it’s dangerous because it can lodge in the lungs.

Ed Miller, American Lung Association vice president of public policy for New England, recently told the Journal Tribune Editorial Board that particulate matter has a similar effect on the body as secondhand smoke: It can trigger asthma attacks; increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes; and damage lung tissue and airways. The eldest and youngest are most susceptible to damage from pollutants, but it affects everyone who breathes the air.

Based on scientific studies, the new EPA standards aren’t strong enough to protect public health, so the ALA has called on President Obama to stand up for a stricter law. Two standards are in place for particulate matter: A 24-hour standard and an annual standard. As it stands, the current annual standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter and the 24-hour standard is 35.

The EPA proposes to keep the 24-hour standard as is, but lower the annual standard to 12 or 13.

The ALA says that’s not enough. The current standards are 15 years old, according to Miller, and updated scientific studies show that the 24-hour standard needs to be at 25, not 35 micrograms per cubic meter; while the annual standard should be 11.

Not only is this a matter of air quality and public health in the long term, it’s also a matter of public safety and of providing accurate information to those who are most vulnerable to air pollution. On days when air quality is dangerous, a warning goes out, but right now the standard is set too low, so even on days when scientists would say the air is dangerous to breathe for those who are sensitive, no warning is issued because the political standard has been met.

For example, in Maine there were seven official days of unhealthy air quality, according to EPA standards, during the three years of 2009-11, according to Miller. If the standards were lowered to the level the ALA supports, there would have been 26 days of unhealthy air announced.

We agree with Miller that the current standard gives people a “false sense of security” about the air quality. Those who have breathing problems should be confident that the EPA will give them notice when the air is of poor quality, so they can avoid outdoor activities as much as possible. These warnings are important in helping people make informed decisions so they can avert an asthma attack and have the piece of mind that they are not damaging their respiratory or cardiovascular systems.

And while the warning system is an important aspect of the policy change, it’s also imperative that we as a country base our air quality goals on the best new science available, rather than leave them based on 15-year-old studies. Polluters come in many shapes and sizes, and the EPA’s proposal does a good job addressing them fairly to help achieve this goal of cleaner air. Federal funding has been allocated in the past to help clean up diesel engines in lobster boats and school buses, and vouchers provided so people can upgrade their woodstoves to an EPA-certified model.

The EPA is already regulating power plants and diesel, and those standards will help lower emissions, among other efforts. Federal funding is also expected to be available to help these efforts along.

The EPA is also offering a significant time window, giving states five years to meet the standards after the pollution standard is effective. A five-year extension is even available without penalty. And so long as states are working to reduce pollution sources, they won’t face penalties.

President Obama has the power to tell the EPA to change the standards to reflect current science and keep Americans healthy, and we hope he takes that step when the updated standards come across his desk next week.