Air Pollution is Bad for You: What I learned at the Air Quality Retreat

What I learned at the University of Utah Air Quality Retreat March 4, 2013: From Particles to People: Air Quality, Health, and Society Retreat

1.  Air Pollution is bad for you.

One of the ground-breaking studies on evaluating the effects of air pollution compared the rate of hospitalizations in children living near a steel mill in Utah.  The steel mill had shut down for over a year, and by comparing the rates of death and hospitalization and a variety of complications of heart and lung diseases, an economist was able to demonstrate that pollution was bad.

(Pope, CA 3rd. Respiratory hospital admissions associated with PM10 pollution in Utah, Salt Lake, and Cache Valleys. Arch Environ Health 1991)

2.  Air Pollution, like Climate Change, can be political and controversial

The economist from study above, C. Arden Pope III, noted that this one publication completely changed his career and stirred a lot of controversy.  He was attacked and sued, and eventually, his data proven right.  Ultimately in 2001, the US Supreme Court upheld that the federal Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set air-quality standards based on science to protect public health without regard to business costs.  In the intervening 20 years since the study, researchers have shown that air pollution increases mortality.  Air pollution increases the risk of developing asthma, lung cancer, severe pneumonia, COPD and emphysema.  It increases the risk of heart attacks, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, strokes, vascular dementia and autism, among others.  Disturbingly it also seems to have deleterious effects in utero.

 3.  Air Pollution is bad for your children.

In children, the deleterious effects of exposure to air pollution have life-long consequences.  Children exposed to air pollution have decreased lung development, increased asthma risks, decreased IQ, and increased rates of asthma exacerbations and missing school days.  Air pollution is also associated with increased infant mortality and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) incidence.

 4.  Air pollution is difficult to solve.

We are the source of air pollution.  There is no controversy around that point.  The problem is that the sources – car emissions, industrial emissions, and household emissions – are very challenging to control.  Our society is designed around driving to where we need to go, our jobs are dependent on the polluting companies that we work for, and we heat our houses and cook our food.  The projections for Salt Lake City are an increase in population from 1.5 million people today to 5 million people by 2050.  As one of the people in the audience pointed out, there’s no “clean technology” that will manage that.  People make the economic argument that we lose revenue by failing to recruit employees and companies to come to the Salt Lake Valley due to poor air quality, but perhaps our air quality would be worse if we did recruit more people.  Proposals to allow free use of public transportation during July and January, our worst air months, would, if fully utilized, reduce emissions by 1-2%, by some accounts.  Something needs to be done, everyone agreed, as most of us got into our single occupant cars and drove home.

5. Why study air pollution?

There is much we don’t understand about air pollution.  We have focused on PM2.5, the particles in the air that are 2.5microns in size and are the product of combustion.  But we don’t know which particles that size are harmful or even if it’s the particles or something they bring along.  We do know that the particles enter the blood stream through the lungs, and evidence is building about how the deleterious effects of air pollution such as heart attacks and strokes are caused by these particulates.

But over 20 years ago, Pope was able to show increased hospitalizations with increased air pollution, and that was before anyone was measuring PM2.5.  It reminds me of a comment I had heard apropos tobacco smoke exposure research. “I don’t understand why anyone studies tobacco effects or malnutrition.  We already know how to treat those problems.”  Alas, it is because it is very difficult to solve the problem of air pollution, that we do study it. Some people in my discussion group expressed optimism that if we could figure out the exact particle in air pollution that is the problem, and there were an easy solution, we might be able to affect policy and improve health.  This, to me, seems akin to the hopeful thinking that if only we figured out the bad ingredient in our diets we could cure obesity.

6. We have to do something about Air Pollution.

It’s not easy, but it has to be addressed.  One of the first documented episodes of air pollution was in London in 1952, when on several December days there was no wind and the massive coal emissions of the time hung over the city. Pictures from the time, during daytime, show thick black smoke hanging in the air.  Deaths were 10 times higher during this period.  Since then, much has improved about air pollution in London, and many other industrial cities.  We must not be paralyzed into inaction by the thought that things are hard to do.

6 Responses to “Air Pollution is Bad for You: What I learned at the Air Quality Retreat”
  1. Michael Kalm says:

    First of all, my congratulations to you for a superb blog. Where do you find the time?!!

    Now, on to the subject at hand…

    In 2006, the BBC presented their extraordinary series, “Planet Earth.” When the series was released on DVD, it included an episode that had not been broadcast, “Planet Earth – the Future.” In this episode, scientists were asked what total World population Planet Earth could sustain without causing mass species extinctions and preserving quality of life. The estimates were between 500 million and three billion people. Not 500 million to three billion more people than we have now, but 500 million to three billion TOTAL.
    Some time after that, I was attending a lecture by Jean Michel Cousteau on work being done by his Oceans Future group. Feeling very gloomy, I raised the question, “How can there be any serious discussion of improving the environment that does not simultaneously address the problem of world population?” Cousteau first hedged on answering my question, but then said, “I just believe that if you treat people fairly, educate women, provide clean water and improve infrastructure, things can happen. Consider Costa Rica. They disbanded their army and used the funds previously allocated to the military for improving infrastructure, clean water supplies and educating women. Today, Costa Rica has the lowest birth rate of any Catholic country in the world, including Italy.” Despite high birth rates in Utah despite clean water and education of women, I believe Cousteau is right, and even if he isn’t, strategically his position is the only one we can reasonably take. Otherwise, we just give up.
    Then I heard a podcast about technology, in which the speaker was looking at energy consumption. “A human being at rest runs on 90 watts,” he said. “That’s how much power you need just to lie down. And if you’re a hunter-gatherer and you live in the Amazon, you’ll need about 250 watts. That’s how much energy it takes to run about and find food. So how much energy does our lifestyle [in America] require? Well, when you add up all our calories and then you add up the energy needed to run the computer and the air-conditioner, you get an incredibly large number, somewhere around 11,000 watts. Now you can ask yourself: What kind of animal requires 11,000 watts to live? And what you find is that we have created a lifestyle where we need more watts than a blue whale. We require more energy than the biggest animal that has ever existed.”
    He then added that technology had gotten us into this mess, and that it would take technology to get us out of it. Furthermore, he added, when technology got us out of this mess, it would create new problems that would probably be as bad or worse, that would require newer technology to get us out of. “Welcome to the future,” he concluded!

  2. Melz says:

    Fantastic post, d. Any info on whether air filters in the home can help at all?

  3. Siddhi Singh says:

    Oh how can we prevent it

Check out what others are saying...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: