http://cleanairarticles.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Study Doubles Estimate of Smog Deaths
Study Doubles Estimate of Smog Deaths
USC researchers amass measurements of lethal particulate matter from hundreds of locations in the L.A. Basin. State may raise its official figures.
By Janet Wilson, Times Staff WriterMarch 25, 2006
The number of deaths from breathing sooty smog in California may be more than twice as high as previously estimated, based on a recent USC study that examined the risk of such deaths in the Los Angeles Basin. A team of researchers headed by Michael Jerrett, associate professor of preventive medicine, found two to three times greater risk of mortality from heart attacks, lung cancer and other serious illness tied to chronic exposure to fine particulate matter than did previous studies.
The study looked at specific soot measurements and deaths in hundreds of neighborhoods — rather than relying on citywide annual averages used in the past — and detected the largest increased risks in the Inland Empire, Jerrett said. Fine particulate matter spewed out by cars, trucks, locomotives, ships, planes, refineries and other sources lodges deep in the lungs and is widely considered the most lethal form of air pollution. The staff of the California Air Resources Board said this week they are considering boosting statewide death estimates based on the USC data, pending independent review."I think candidly it's likely," said Michael Scheible, deputy executive director of the board. "The research suggests we will end up raising our estimates … but we want to be cautious." Currently, state officials estimate 9,000 Californians die annually from diseases caused or aggravated by air pollution, more than half of them in Southern California. That number could double or even triple if the Air Resources Board incorporates the USC data into its estimates, Scheible said.He said the board decided Thursday that the USC study and two others examining the effect of air pollution on mortality should undergo one more layer of review to determine the best possible way of applying them statewide. That review could be completed by the end of summer. The other studies include one by researchers at Harvard University who found that as soot pollution declined in six northeastern cities, related deaths declined as well. The other, a recent study by Loma Linda University, found increased coronary deaths among women exposed to both fine particulate matter and ozone. The Times reported earlier this week that one in every 15,000 Californians — about 66 per million — is at risk of contracting cancer from breathing chemicals in the air over his or her lifetime, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. The study was based on emissions of 177 chemicals in 1999."The more we learn about particulate, the worse the news is," said Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the Air Resources Board, who added that as recently as 10 years ago, ozone and toxics were considered the problem. "Part of that is the technology for looking at very fine particles keeps improving…. A fine particle is less than one-twenty-eighth the size of a human hair. At that size, it can actually permeate right through your lungs into your bloodstream and cause heart problems."Other air regulators and clean-air advocates said the USC study points to the need to toughen national standards for fine particulate."The study underscores the extremely grave severity of the threat from air pollution," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch in Washington, D.C. "It draws a huge line under the need for the federal government to take aggressive action against existing sources of diesel soot." Sam Atwood, spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said the agency's chief health expert "considers it a significant study that bolsters the need to strengthen particulate matter standards." EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson has drawn criticism for proposing new standards for particulates considered too lax by his own scientific advisory panel. He is facing a court-ordered September deadline to make a final decision.The highest death rates from smog-related illnesses in the USC study were found in the Inland Empire, where diesel soot is blown by prevailing winds. In western Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the soot is trapped by four mountain ranges."Somebody living in San Bernardino is two or three times more likely to die from smog during a given period than someone in Venice," Jerrett said.The risk of fatal heart attacks tied to soot was as much as 39% higher in the smoggiest areas. Deaths from diabetes, though few, were twice as high in those areas.The current mortality estimate is based on a 2002 national study of 500,000 people that found a 6% increased risk of death with each additional 10 micrograms of fine particulate per cubic meter of air. But the national study used just three monitors in the L.A. basin, missing major pockets of pollution, according to Jerrett.He said the new study, co-written by the lead researcher on the 2002 work, found sharply higher rates of risk, between 11% and 17%, because it analyzed soot measurements and deaths in 269 ZIP Codes and 23 monitoring sites across the basin. He said researchers studied nearly 23,000 Los Angeles-area residents who are part of a long-term study of the effects of air pollution begun by the American Cancer Society in 1982. He said more than 40 variables, including smoking habits and diet, were taken into consideration. A separate USC study published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives Journal found that ozone, a different type of air pollution, reduced sperm counts in Los Angeles men. Other pollutants did not affect sperm counts."The data indicated that for every 14 parts per billion increase in ozone, we had an approximate drop of 3 million sperm per millimeter," said lead author Rebecca Sokol, a USC endocrinologist. That is about a 3% drop in sperm as the ozone level rose, especially on smoggy summer days.The smoggiest day measured was 50 parts per billion, but she said that such heavy smog days were rare."These changes are not going to put men in the infertile scenario," she said. Still, she noted that all the days measured had smog levels below the current California legal standard of 80 parts per billion.More than 5,000 samples from men known to be fertile were taken. Next, the researchers plan to study the possible relationship between ozone and infertile men.
posted by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch at 6:40 AM 0 comments
Friday, March 24, 2006
Cough, cough: welcome to New York
New York Tops in Pollution Cancer Risk
Rural States Have Lowest Risk, Says EPA
By Todd ZwillichWebMD Medical News
Thursday, March 23, 2006
March 23, 2006 - Nearly 42 out of every million Americans will develop cancer as a direct cause of pollution spewed by cars and factories, according to projections compiled by the federal government.
The data, completed last month, predict that airborne pollutants would be expected to cause cancer in 41.5 out of every 1 million U.S. residents. The data are based on 1999 levels of 177 pollutants, many of which the Environmental Protection Agency says are now decreasing.
EPA spokesman John Millett called the projections "rough estimates" based on pollutant measurements and predicted rate of cancer that those toxicants -- many of which are known carcinogens -- would cause.
The figures assume 70 years of exposure in a particular location at 1999 pollution levels. That means that actual risks could be substantially higher or lower as people move between communities.
New Yorkers Most at Risk
New York residents are at highest risk for pollution-induced cancers, according to the data, which were analyzed in a Los Angeles Times article this week. Slightly more than 68 per million of the state's residents are expected to develop cancer due to pollution, according to the EPA.
California was close behind with a 66-per-million rate, followed by Oregon, which has a 63-per-million projected cancer rate.
Some of the most rural states, including North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana, had the lowest projected average risk. A 15-per-million average increased cancer rate in South Dakota was the nation's lowest projected state increase.
Millett, the EPA spokesman, urged caution in interpreting the data, which he says were never intended to provide a state-to-state comparison of cancer projections. "This is a snapshot from seven years ago, and a lot has probably changed. It's probably changed for the better."
The agency estimates that toxic emissions from vehicles will be 80% below 1999 levels by 2030. Those levels are already dropping, he says.
Risk Tied to Pollution
The numbers don't take into account many other potential cancer causes, including smoking, diet, or obesity.
They also don't measure risks due to diesel fumes. Toxins from diesel construction vehicles, buses, trucks, and farm equipment are still considered a major source of carcinogens and have been a source of criticism from environmental groups who say the Bush administration is not pushing reduction efforts quickly enough.
"The gaping flaw in this report is that it ignores the cancer risk from diesel fumes, and that may be the biggest cancer risk of all," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
O'Donnell agrees that the Bush administration is "on course to make some improvements" in the 177 toxins listed in the national database. But he says quicker action on diesel could lower cancer rates more quickly "without having to wait a quarter of a century" until 2030.
posted by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch at 4:47 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
EPA: NYC Has Nation's Dirtiest Air
EPA: NYC Has Country's Dirtiest Air
WASHINGTON (AP) - When it comes to dirty, cancer-causing air, New York City is the worst of the worst: the city with the greatest risk, in the state with the dirtiest air, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency.
New York is followed by California, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey for the dubious distinction of having the worst air, according to the EPA's data. The best air was in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana.
The EPA's findings are based on emissions of 177 chemicals in 1999, the last year for which data was available. The agency is currently conducting a similar study based on 2002 emissions, which it expects to have ready next year.
George Thurston, a professor of environmental medicine at New York University, said the figures are further evidence that living in a heavily polluted city like New York is roughly equal to living with a smoker. "People living in polluted cities are at a higher lung cancer risk, and more people are noticing more cases of lung cancer in people who haven't been smokers, so the effects of environmental exposures are becoming more apparent," said Thurston.
The state-by-state rankings were first reported in Wednesday's editions of the Los Angeles Times, based on an EPA table published in February. The EPA issued a statement Wednesday saying the data "is not a method for comparing one area of the country to another." EPA spokesman John Millett said states and cities should not be compared because some states provide more data about emissions than others.
"That's ridiculous," said Frank O'Donnell of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "It may not be a perfect tool, but EPA is being duplicitous in trying to disavow and downplay its own statistics," said O'Donnell.
New Yorkers' risk of developing cancer from air toxins is estimated to be 68 residents per million. In California, slightly fewer than 66 residents per million are at risk of developing cancer due to the air they breathe. The national average is 41.5 per million, according to the figures. The numbers for New York City are particularly grim when compared to the rest of the country. Manhattan has the worst air, with the risk of developing cancer from air toxins estimated to be 136 residents per million. In the Bronx, it is 106 per million; in Brooklyn, 95 per million, and Queens 93 per million. A spokeswoman for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not immediately comment on the figures. The EPA assessment evaluated toxins including heavy metals, such as lead; volatile chemicals, such as benzene; combustion byproducts, such as acrolein; and solvents, including perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. Benzene alone contributed a quarter of the individual cancer risk identified in this assessment, the primary source of it being vehicles, according to the study. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is a screening tool that the EPA used to estimate cancer and other health risks from exposure to air toxins. It provides a snapshot of air quality and the risks if 1999 emissions levels remained unchanged. It does not reflect reductions in air toxins that may have occurred since 1999.
posted by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch at 1:33 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
NY Times: Cleaner Air Brings Drop in Death Rate
Cleaner Air Brings Drop in Death Rate
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: March 21, 2006
When air pollution in a city declines, the city benefits with a directly proportional drop in death rates, a new study has found.
For each decrease of 1 microgram of soot per cubic meter of air, death rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer decrease by 3 percent — extending the lives of 75,000 people a year in the United States. The association held even after controlling for smoking and body mass index.
The work, described in a paper in the March 15 issue of The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, was carried out in six metropolitan areas: Watertown, Mass.; Kingston and Harriman, Tenn.; St. Louis; Steubenville, Ohio; Portage, Wyocena and Pardeeville, Wis.; and Topeka, Kan. The participants, ages 25 to 74 at enrollment, were followed from 1974 through 1998.
The scientists periodically measured concentrations of soot, or particulate air pollution, in each city. At the same time, they tracked disease and mortality among 8,096 residents. Particulate air pollution consists of a mixture of liquid and solid particles, mostly a result of fossil fuel combustion and high-temperature industrial processes. By definition, the particles have a diameter less than 2.5 microns, or about one ten-thousandth of an inch.
"For the most part, pollution levels are lower in this country than they were in the 70's and 80's," said Francine Laden, the study's lead author, "and the message here is that if you continue to decrease them, you will save more lives."
Further declines in air pollution are within reach, said Dr. Laden, an assistant professor of environmental epidemiology at Harvard. "The technology is out there," she said. "The cities that we've covered have cleaned up considerably over the course of the study."
In Steubenville, for example, soot declined to 22 micrograms per cubic meter from 27 over the course of the study, and the city had a corresponding 25 percent decrease in mortality risk. "Consistently," Dr. Laden said, "in the cities where there was the most cleanup, there was also the greatest decrease in risk of death."
Dr. Laden said the study supported what the federal scientific advisers had advocated: lowering the air quality standard below the present 15 micrograms per cubic meter. "There was discussion about lowering it to 12," she said, "and this study supports that."
posted by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch at 4:18 AM 0 comments
