AIR POLLUTION
INTRODUCTION
Clean air is a delicate balance of nitrogen and oxygen, with small amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, neon, helium, and other gases. Unfortunately, pollutants are altering this mixture by adding myriad ingredients which alone and in concert pose health risks to everyone who breathes the air, particularly children. In fact, children represent the largest subgroup of the population susceptible to the effects of air pollution.[1] Over the last ten years, a considerable number of scientific studies have reported adverse health effects associated with air pollution. The effects have ranged from respiratory symptoms and illness, impaired lung function, hospitalization for respiratory and cardiac disease to increases in mortality.[2]
A recent study estimated that approximately 64,000 people in the United States die prematurely from heart and lung disease every year due to particulate air pollution -- more people than die each year in car accidents.[3] Among children, air pollutants are associated with increased acute respiratory illness, increased incidence of respiratory symptoms and infections, episodes of longer duration, and lowered lung function.[4]
Asthma, the most common chronic disorder of childhood, is on the rise in the United States and in other industrialized nations. During the 1980s, the prevalence of childhood asthma increased nearly 40 percent.[5] Many different factors have been associated with asthma, including genetic makeup, environmental tobacco smoke, dust mites, cockroach allergens, and air pollution, both indoor and outdoor. Several studies have linked ozone and particulate air pollution with exacerbations of asthma in children afflicted with the disease.
Due to their greater respiratory rates, children breathe a proportionately greater volume of air than adults. As a result, children inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight. They also spend more time engaged in vigorous activity than adults. In addition, because of young children's height and play habits (crawling, rolling) they are more likely to be exposed to pollutants or aerosols that are heavier than air and tend to concentrate in their breathing zone near ground level.[6] Children's physiological vulnerability to air pollution arises from their narrower airways and the fact that their lungs are still developing. Irritation caused by air pollutants that would produce only a slight response in an adult can result in potentially significant obstruction in the airways of a young child.
The harm caused by air pollutants has been recognized by medical scientists, government officials, and the public for some time. Historic air pollution disasters -- Meuse Valley, Belgium in 1930, Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948, and London, England in 1952 -- in which large numbers of people fell ill and died, have been clearly associated with high concentrations of particulate and sulfur dioxide pollution.[7] Such acute air pollution episodes have killed children because of their heightened susceptibility to the damage that can be done by air pollutants.[8]
Existing stationary sources of air pollution include coal combustion for power production, oil refineries, and industrial manufacturing facilities. Additional sources of air pollution have emerged; today automobiles are a major polluter of the air: Americans drive some 150 million private cars and nearly 50 million buses and trucks.[9] The exhaust from these vehicles contains nitrogen oxides, and other ozone precursors, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide -- all deleterious to health, even in small quantities. Also of importance in vehicle exhaust are toxic organic compounds including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene. And, even though new cars start out far cleaner than the cars of decades ago, we drive them far more and they fail to remain clean as they age.
To protect citizens, the federal government began setting standards for ambient air quality as early as the 1950s. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the first major national law for air pollution control throughout the United States. This Act, amended in 1977 and 1990, requires the EPA to establish national health standards for ambient air pollutants and to assure that states adopt effective programs for attaining these standards. The most successful parts of the Act, such as the acid rain program, the ozone depletion program, and the introduction of emission standards for automobiles and the reformulation of fuels, established very specific federal standards. Yet these standards are not enough. In 1995, about 127 million Americans -- half of the nation's population -- lived in regions with air quality that did not meet federal standards for certain pollutants.[12] Based on U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the population by age group, 18 million children under the age of ten lived in these "nonattainment" areas. The health risks from air pollution are greatest in these regions, and those at greatest risk include children.
Citizens must seek additional remedies to assure the health of their families in the face of increasing air pollution threats. Toward that end, this chapter describes scientific research on the health effects of air pollutants on children, suggested measures that concerned parents and others can take, and model programs of local solutions that have worked throughout the nation, as well as government reforms that should be supported.
BACKGROUND: HOW LUNGS WORK
Children: The Most Vulnerable Among Us
The nation has failed to protect its most precious citizens -- its children -- from the adverse health effects of air pollution. Emission reduction efforts and federal air quality standards have been insufficient to shield children from potentially serious health damage.[13] Ozone and particulate matter are of special concern. In June 1993, the Committee on Environmental Hazards of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that the federal standard for ozone in effect at that time contained "little or no margin of safety for children engaged in active outdoor activity."[14] In July 1997, the EPA revised both the ozone and particulate matter air quality standards in order to protect children and other members of the population. The American Lung Association estimated that 27 million children under the age of 13 reside in areas with ozone levels above EPA's revised standard, and that two million children with asthma, or half of the pediatric asthma population under the age of eighteen, lived in these areas.[15]
HAZARDS OF AIR POLLUTION
Cellular Damage
Even short-term exposure to low levels of pollutants can damage lungs at the cellular level. For instance:
Sulfuric acid compounds can interfere with the lungs' mucociliary clearance system,[16] and ozone at levels below the pre-1997 federal ozone standards may hinder the immune system's ability to defend against infection.[17]
Ozone exposure at levels below the pre-1997 federal standards contributes to persistent inflammation of airways, sometimes days after exposure ceases.[18] Exposure to acidic aerosols may aggravate the effect.[19]
Sulfur dioxide can induce bronchial constriction in asthmatics.[20]
Even short-term ozone exposure increases lung cell permeability, which may hinder the body's ability to regulate the movement of gases and liquids between the lungs and the bloodstream. This effect potentially facilitates the body's uptake of inhaled substances and may promote enhanced allergic sensitization.[21]
Reduced Lung Function
Lungs must inhale and exhale an adequate volume of air to remove carbon dioxide and replenish oxygen to maintain health, but studies show that even brief exposure to pollutants can result in impairment of lung function. These effects are generally temporary, but they are still of great importance, for two reasons. Chief among these is that the impairment of lung function may be a sign of invisible, sub-clinical damage inside the lungs, such as inflammation produced deep in the lungs from ozone, as discussed above. Though the impairment of lung function generally disappears after exposure, it may mask continuing cellular damage. Secondly, people whose lung function is already compromised may be unable to tolerate additional impairments caused by air pollution, however modest or temporary they might be. The medical literature shows that ozone, sulfur dioxide and sulphate aerosols, and airborne particulate matter affect lung function, and that chronic exposure to air pollutants can impair lung function permanently.[22]
Respiratory Illness and Asthma
Breathing polluted air increases a person's chances for respiratory illness. Epidemiological studies show a significant correlation between exposure to air pollution and the frequency of respiratory symptoms -- ranging from cough symptoms to hospital admission.[23]
Currently affecting at least 6 percent of American children, asthma is the number one cause of absenteeism for school children.[24] During the 1980s, asthma incidence among children increased by nearly 40 percent.[25] One study estimated the total costs -- both direct and indirect -- related to asthma in the young and old in 1990 to be $6.2 billion.[26] Asthmatics suffer recurrent attacks of breathing distress caused by temporary inflammation and constriction of the airways. In many cases, asthma is caused by an allergic response that develops as a result of the airways becoming sensitized to one or several substances.
Common air pollutants, especially ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, present a challenge to asthmatics. A considerable body of scientific evidence links increases in levels of these pollutants to worsening of asthma (increased emergency room visits, increased medication use, increased hospitalization, and increased symptoms.)[27] Some of the investigations reveal asthma exacerbations occurring at pollutant levels at or below the pre-1997 federal air pollution standards. In one case, hospital emergency visits rose by 37 percent on days when ozone reached hourly concentrations of 0.11 parts per million (ppm), which is below the pre-1997 federal standard.[28]
Higher Mortality Rates
Research on mortality rates in heavily polluted areas reveals statistically significant links between high levels of air pollutants and increased numbers of deaths, primarily among the elderly. Particulates show the clearest link, and elevated death rates have been found even at particulate concentrations that are well below the pre-1997 federal health standards; death rates start to inch upward when particulates reach levels below the pre-1997 federal standard.[29]
In December 1993, Harvard researchers published the results of a sixteen-year-long community health study that tracked the health of 8,000 adults in six U.S. cities with differing levels of air pollution. After adjusting for age and smoking, researchers found that residents of the most polluted city had a 26 percent higher mortality rate than those living in the least polluted city.[30] This translated into a one- to two-year shorter lifespan for residents of the most polluted cities.[31] Another major study corroborated these findings. The study correlated American Cancer Society data on the health of 1.2 million adults with air pollution data in 151 U.S. metropolitan areas. The study found that people living in the most polluted area had a 17 percent greater risk of mortality than people living in the least polluted city.[32]
Long-Term Effects of Chronic Exposure A variety of animal studies suggest that long-term exposure to air pollution damages lung cells.[33] In one animal study, researchers found that low-level ozone exposure resulted in the progression of lung injury into structural changes.[34] Acute inflammation in the animals' lungs evolved into chronic inflammation, with healing by a process known as fibrosis, or scarring that stiffens the lung and may make it less capable of efficient gas exchange.
Corresponding evidence from epidemiological research includes one study of humans who were exposed to elevated ozone levels over several days. Lung function loss persisted for a week after exposure, which suggested to researchers that cell death and inflammatory reactions were involved, not just reflex airway constriction.[35]
Chronic exposure to air pollutants may reduce lung capacity. The most comprehensive study was performed on populations living in two different parts of the Los Angeles Basin. People living in the more polluted area had substantially worse lung function than when they were initially tested, and they showed a significantly more rapid deterioration of lung function over time.[36] Chronic exposure to a mixture of air pollutants, as shown in this study, results in less rapid growth of lung function in children and a greater rate of deterioration in adulthood.
In addition, a lifetime of exposure to air pollution may lead to premature aging of the lungs. The aging process in the lungs, which occurs naturally throughout adulthood, is marked by increased deposits of scar tissue, and it may render the lung tissue less elastic and less efficient in delivering oxygen to the blood. Ozone is strongly implicated in the premature aging of lungs. For instance, research on laboratory animals shows that common ozone exposure can lead to a variety of changes in lung tissue, including changes in the structure of the cells that line the smallest airways, such as death of the ciliated cells that are critical in the lung's defense system against particles and bacteria,[37] reduced ability to remove foreign material,[38] inflammation,[39] biochemical changes that suggest damage to tissues and greater permeability of the air sacs,[40] and stiffening of the lung due to the formation of scar tissue.[41]
An autopsy study performed on 107 young accident victims (fourteen to twenty-five years of age) in Southern California, most of them lifelong residents, showed evidence of lung disease. Though few had outward signs of breathing disorders when alive, the lungs of 104 of them showed early signs of chronic lung disease, including low-level bronchitis, chronic interstitial pneumonia, and an unprecedented rate of severe chronic inflammation of the respiratory bronchioles. While the results of this study are not definitive since the subjects were not screened for the use of tobacco or marijuana, one of the researchers commented that the subjects "had lungs of older people," saying that, "air pollution is highly suspect for a substantial contributory role."[42]
Special Vulnerability of Children
During the last decade, hundreds of published reports have documented the effects of air pollutants on children, who are more susceptible than adults to the adverse effects of air pollution. Children's greater sensitivity is a function of both greater exposure to air pollutants and unique physiological susceptibility.
Greater Exposure and Susceptibility
Children breathe more air relative to their body weight and lung surface area than do adults; consequently, they also receive proportionately higher doses of air pollutants.[43] Children spend more time outdoors, often during midday and afternoons when pollutant levels are generally highest.[44] Children are three times more active than adults while outdoors, significantly increasing their oxygen demand and consequently raising their breathing rates.[45]
Young children generally spend more time low to the ground by virtue of both their shorter stature and the nature of their typical physical activity. Children, therefore, experience greater exposure to pollutants emitted close to the ground, such as automobile exhaust and high-density pollutants brought downward by gravity.[46] In addition, when the sources of air pollutants such as automobiles are close to playgrounds and other areas where children play, children and infants in strollers may be heavily exposed.
Children often fail to recognize the significance of respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and they frequently fail to move indoors or curtail exercise during air pollution episodes. Children tend to breathe more through the mouth than through the nose due to their increased physical exertion, thus reducing the effectiveness of one level of filtration. In addition, young children's small noses are easily blocked by congestion, constriction, or other illnesses.
Children's airways have small diameters. Environmental irritants capable of obstructing air passages are more likely to do so in children than in adults.[47] Early in life, children have far fewer alveoli than adults, creating less "reserve volume" from which to draw oxygen. They also have relatively less reserve surface area in their lungs available for times of stress or increased metabolic demand.[48] In adults, air moves from one alveolus to another through holes in the alveoli and channels between the small airways and the alveoli, allowing air to be distributed deeply throughout the lung, circumventing obstructed areas. Infants and young children have few such pathways that provide for this restorative air drift.[49]
Children at greatest risk from the effects of air pollution include: children with sensitized respiratory systems, such as allergic or asthmatic children, children who live near industrial pollution sources, areas of heavy traffic, or in homes with cigarette smokers, and children who lack adequate medical attention, nourishment, or sanitary living conditions.
Adverse Health Effects in Children
Data gathered by a researcher from a variety of recent studies[50] reveals that air pollutants are associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects in children, including:
increased death rates in very severe pollution episodes and increased mortality risks for those living in highly polluted areas,
increased risk of acute respiratory illness,
aggravation of asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and increased sickness rates (as indicated by kindergarten and school absences), and
decreases in lung function.
Increased Mortality Risk
The most serious effect of air pollution is death. Although the elderly are at greater mortality risk from air pollution, children are also susceptible. In the London air pollution episode in December 1952, mortality in children increased.[51] A new study has found an association in the United States between particulate pollution and an increased risk of infant mortality.[52] A recent report from S‹o Paulo, Brazil, indicated that death in children under the age of five due to respiratory diseases from 1990 to 1991 was positively associated with air pollution levels of nitrogen oxides.[53] In the Czech Republic, the risk of respiratory mortality among infants increased in relation to worsening air pollution (particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide) after adjusting for socioeconomic factors.[54] Researchers in Taiwan found a higher rate of infant mortality from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) at times of elevated particulate air pollution as measured by reduced visibility.[55]
Increased Acute Respiratory Illness
Several studies indicate that air pollution is associated with increased acute respiratory illness, as measured by hospital admissions and other indices. Two epidemiological studies, conducted in central Utah, on the relationship between hospital admissions for respiratory illness and ambient air pollution found that admissions were strongly correlated with particulate levels, and that the correlation was especially pronounced in preschool-aged children. In one study, bronchitis and asthma admissions for preschool children were twice as frequent when the local pollution source (steel mill) was operating than when it was shut down.[56] Another study in the same region also indicated that hospital admission for respiratory illness is strongly associated with particulate air pollution and that the association is stronger for children than adults. During months with peak particulate pollution levels, average hospital admissions for respiratory illness in children nearly tripled, whereas for adults comparable hospital admissions increased by 44 percent.[57]
Similarly, researchers found that summertime hospital admissions in Ontario for children are associated with increases in ambient ozone and sulfate levels.[58] Other researchers report that over a six-year period, respiratory admissions were closely associated with ozone levels at 168 hospitals in Ontario. They also showed that 15 percent of summer hospital admissions for infants were associated with air pollution, as compared with 4 percent of such admissions for elderly patients.[59] Studies of hospital admissions in Toronto suggested that increases in ozone, sulfates, aerosol hydrogen ion levels, and particulate air pollution with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) can all be directly correlated to increases in hospital admissions.[60]
In a diary study of 625 Swiss children between birth and five years of age, respiratory symptoms were associated with particulate concentrations, while the duration of symptoms was associated with levels of nitrogen oxide. These symptoms included coughing, upper respiratory episodes, and breathing difficulty.[61]
Another study compared the frequency of upper respiratory infections in Finnish children residing in a polluted city with that in children living in two less polluted cities. The researchers found a significant association between the occurrence of upper respiratory infections and living in an air-polluted area.[62] The finding was consistent in both the fourteen- to eighteen-month-olds and six-year-olds when comparing the polluted city with the reference cities and when comparing the more and less polluted areas within the polluted city. A study in East Germany found that levels of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides were associated with an increased risk of developing upper respiratory infections in nine- to eleven-year-olds.[63]
Increased Respiratory Symptoms
Elevated levels of various air pollutants have been linked with an increased incidence of respiratory symptoms in children. In an ongoing study comparing air pollution in six U.S. cities and the respiratory health of individuals living in those cities, the frequencies of coughs, bronchitis, and lower respiratory illnesses in preadolescent children were significantly associated with increased levels of particulates and acidic fine particles.[64] Illness and symptom rates were higher by approximately a factor of two in the community with the highest air pollution concentrations compared to the community with the lowest concentrations. A follow-up study reported that rates of chronic cough, bronchitis, and chest illness during one school year were positively associated with particulate pollution.[65] Another study in these six cities also found a significant association between particulate pollution and the incidence of coughing and other lower respiratory symptoms.[66] One study suggested that though all children are at risk for increased respiratory symptoms due to particulate pollution, children with preexisting respiratory conditions (wheezing, asthma) are at greater risk.[67]
Decreased Lung Function
To maintain a normal rate of gas exchange -- the removal of carbon dioxide and replenishment of oxygen -- the lungs must be able to inhale and exhale an adequate volume of air. In determining how well a person's lungs function, researchers take measurements of the lungs at rest, the volume of air that can be inhaled and exhaled, and the time it takes to exhale.
Numerous studies have showed that even brief exposure to air pollutants can impair lung function.[68] One study in Utah Valley indicated that elevated particulate levels were associated with a decline in lung function among elementary school-age children as measured by peak expiratory flow (the maximum rate at which air is exhaled from a maximum inhalation).[69] Another study examined the health effects of exposure to acidic air pollution among children in twenty-four communities in the United States and Canada and found that acidic air pollution is associated with reductions in pulmonary function, as measured by forced vital capacity (the volume of air forcibly exhaled from a deep inhalation) and forced expiratory volume (the volume of air exhaled over a specific period of time from a maximum inhalation).[70]
Much of the evidence that air pollution reduces lung function in children focuses on summertime exposure to acidic particles or acid aerosols.[71] Reductions in pulmonary function in children have also been linked to ozone exposure.[72] One study found a significant decline in forced expiratory volume after ozone exposure, a change that appeared to persist for sixteen to twenty hours.[73]
Exacerbation of Asthma
Approximately 4.8 million children in the United States under the age of 18 have asthma, the most common chronic illness among children.[74] The incidence of the disease is on the rise, increasing nearly 40 percent among U.S. children between 1981 and 1988.[75] Other countries are also observing rising rates of asthma. Blacks, Hispanics, and people living in urban areas appear to be at greatest risk for the disease.[76] Asthma is a complex disease associated with many factors including genetics, allergies (cockroaches and dust mites), mildew, molds, and the environment. Asthma is a condition of the airways characterized by chronic inflammation and episodic limitation of the flow of air into and out of the lungs. Symptoms of the disease include coughing, tightness in the chest, shortness of breath, and wheezing. Exacerbations of asthma have been linked with exposure to ambient air pollutants, indoor air pollutants, as well as allergens.
Based on increased hospital admissions, increased hospital emergency room visits, and increased medication use, ambient air pollution is associated with aggravation of asthma. In a recent study of children at an asthma summer camp, ozone air pollution was significantly correlated with an increase in the use of asthma medication and the worsening of other asthma symptoms.[77] The children were 40 percent more likely to suffer asthma attacks on high pollution summer days. In another study, researchers reported a 37 percent increase in hospital emergency visits for childhood asthma after periods of maximum ozone pollution levels.[78] A study in Mexico City showed an association between increased levels of particulate matter and ozone and a worsening of respiratory symptoms among mildly asthmatic children.[79] Hospital admissions among children with asthma in Toronto were higher after days with elevated ozone levels.[80]
Children of Color
While dirty air is a threat to all Americans, communities of color often suffer disproportionately from air pollution. This is also true of low-income communities. Such communities have historically been used as dumping grounds for the toxic by-products of industrial society. Several studies have demonstrated that proportionately more landfills, power plants, toxic waste sites, bus depots and rail yards, sewage treatment plants, and industrial facilities are sited in them.[81] In a landmark report[82] prepared by the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice, investigators discovered that three of the five largest hazardous waste landfills in the United States are in Black or Latino neighborhoods and that the mean percentage of people of color in areas with toxic waste sites is twice that of areas without toxic waste sites. An update to this report found that, in 1993, the percentage of people of color remains three times higher in areas with the highest concentration of commercial hazardous waste facilities than areas without commercial hazardous waste facilities.[83]
The health risks from air pollution are likely to be more serious for children who are already exposed to toxic chemicals, because they live or attend school near landfills, toxic waste sites, bus depots and rail yards, industrial plants, or similar facilities. Because of low-quality housing, overcrowding, and lack of air conditioning, children in low-income communities may also spend more time outdoors on smoggy summer days. (In the absence of air conditioning, indoor concentrations of ozone can approach 80 percent of outdoor levels.[85]) In addition, children in low-income families are less likely to receive sufficient health care.
Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory have found that minority population subgroups experience greater exposure to substandard outdoor air quality. In particular, their research indicates that minorities live in greater concentrations both in areas with above-average numbers of air polluting facilities and in air quality non-attainment areas. [86] For instance, 52 percent of all whites live in counties with high ozone concentrations. For African-Americans the figure is 62 percent, and for Hispanics it is 71 percent. Population group distributions were found to be similar for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter, with higher percentages of African-Americans and Hispanics than whites residing in counties with excessive levels of these pollutants. Moreover, 57 percent of all whites, 65 percent of African-Americans, and 80 percent of Hispanics live in counties that failed to meet at least one of the EPA's ambient air quality standards. Five percent of whites, 10 percent of African-Americans, and 15 percent of Hispanics live in counties that exceed standards for four air quality standards.
To compound the greater likelihood that children of color reside in the areas of worst air pollution, Black and Hispanic children are potentially more susceptible to air pollution due to their increased rates of asthma. Black and Hispanic children have a higher incidence of asthma than white children. Black children are more likely to have asthma than white children.[87] Moreover, Black children aged five to fourteen years are four times more likely than whites to die from asthma, and African-Americans under the age of twenty-four are 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma.[88] Children of Hispanic (mainly Puerto Rican) mothers have a rate of asthma two and a half times higher than whites and more than one and a half times higher than Blacks.[89] Within the Hispanic-American population, the highest prevalence of asthma among children was in Puerto Ricans (11.2 percent), followed by Cuban-Americans (5.2 percent), and Mexican-Americans (2.7 percent). By comparison, the asthma incidence in non-Hispanic Blacks is 5.9 percent and in non-Hispanic whites it is 3.3 percent.[90]
What You Can Do
The following are suggestions for protecting children and other family members during air pollution episodes.
Regularly check air pollution levels in your area and plan accordingly. Pollution patterns and concentrations can differ radically from one area to another. Some areas might be particularly susceptible to carbon monoxide violations, while for others it might be ozone. Be sure you are able to recognize the air district jurisdiction under which your area falls. Call your county health department to identify your local air pollution control agency. Pollution patterns also change over the course of a single day. During hot summer months in some areas, for instance, levels of ozone are five times higher in the afternoon than in the morning, while in the winter the mid or late afternoon may be the time of lowest pollution. Depending upon the area in which you live, newspapers and newscasts often discuss each day's air pollutant levels. You can also contact your local air district for specific information and advice.
Limit children's outdoor exercise when smog levels are high. Laboratory studies have revealed that heavy exercise during smog episodes contributes to adverse health effects. Though our bodies have a variety of protective mechanisms against the adverse affects of air pollution, children are especially vulnerable and should be encouraged to stay indoors during smog episodes. At these times, keep doors and windows closed whenever possible while taking into account the sensitivities of asthmatics and others with breathing difficulty that may be exacerbated due to indoor air pollutants.
Be sure your child's school is prepared for smog episodes. Every school should have plans for smog episodes, including alerting teachers, curtailing sports or exercise programs, and providing alternative activities that do not involve heavy physical exertion.
Encourage curriculum development on air pollution issues. Children need help identifying air pollution hazards and the health symptoms that might indicate sensitivity to air pollution. Encourage your child's school to develop curriculum units centered on these issues.
Be aware of sensitivities that put family members at increased risk. Children, people with asthma and other chronic lung diseases, the elderly, and the chronically ill are especially vulnerable to air pollution. During episodes of poor air quality, monitor the health of these individuals and contact a physician if needed.
Avoid highly polluted areas during smog episodes. If you must be outside during a smog episode, avoid busy streets and highways that can significantly increase your exposure. Sitting in a car during a hot summer day in the middle of a traffic jam can expose you to elevated levels of carbon monoxide.
Keep indoor air as clean as possible. Do not smoke cigarettes indoors. Keep your house free from dust and mildew. To control dust in the home, remove wall-to-wall carpets when possible and replace them with small area rugs that can be thoroughly cleaned. Periodically remove and launder heavy curtains. Be sure that fumes from gas stoves and heaters are properly vented, and reduce indoor sources of pollutants such as insecticides, wood fires, cleaners, solvents, and deodorizing sprays. When painting or using chemical cleaning agents, assure full ventilation.
Help get polluters off the road. Report vehicles with visibly excessive tailpipe emissions to your local air quality management district. In some areas, an anonymous 800 number is available for this purpose. Minimize your own use of the automobile. Take your car to a reliable service station if your automobile "smokes " or if the "check engine " light remains illuminated. Carpool whenever possible. Use public transportation, bicycle, or walk as frequently as you can.
Consult the Toxics Release Inventory. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), part of the 1986 Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act, is a powerful tool for uncovering local sources of air pollution. The information, available thorough the regional US EPA office or state air pollution board, is free to any citizen who requests it. The TRI data identify by name and location industrial facilities that release toxic substances into the air, water, or land. Contact the EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline at 800/535-0202.
Model Programs and Local Solutions
In a number of communities across the country, community pressure, progressive business decisions, and government programs have worked to promote feasible, non-polluting alternatives that make economic sense. The job includes not only pressuring local businesses, but regulators as well. Below are some examples.
The Scott Paper Company was opening a new facility in Owensboro, Kentucky. When a local group learned of their plans, they pressed the company to live up to its environmental commitments. Under this pressure, Scott researchers came up with a new process that eliminated airborne emissions of formaldehyde and dramatically reduced emissions of epichlorohydrin, and the community got 500 new jobs and a healthy environment.[117]
Concerned about emissions from a new incinerator, the North Carolina Waste Awareness and Education Network coordinated efforts throughout the state and helped block the siting of a commercial hazardous waste incinerator. But they didn't stop there. Recognizing the state's need to address hazardous waste generation and disposal, the group presented state officials with a "Waste Reduction Assurance Plan " as an alternative to the EPA-required "Capacity Assurance Plan, " which helped guide the state to more environmentally safe solutions.[118]
A chemical facility in Manchester, Texas, run by Rhone-Poulenc was operating an incinerator that burned liquid waste. Changes in environmental regulations reclassified some of this waste as hazardous, requiring changes in the company's operating permit. One week before a meeting to discuss the permit modification, a release of sulfur dioxide from the plant sent twenty-seven people to the hospital. A group of concerned citizens from the largely Hispanic, low-income neighborhood along the Houston ship channel joined forces with Texans United, a statewide environmental group, and together they persuaded the company to open up some of its decision-making processes to a Community Advisory Committee.[119]
In 1983, the Ashland Oil refinery in northeastern Kentucky on the Big Sandy River installed new equipment to process low-quality crude oil into gasoline. It wasn't long before a fine powdery soot began to settle over the area, causing paint to peel from homes and automobiles and citizens to experience skin burns and eye irritation. While Ashland Oil officials stated that the powder was "safe enough to eat, " a chemist with the West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission called the substance, "as corrosive as drain cleaner. " In 1987, more than 700 people filed personal damage claims against Ashland; while most claims were settled out of court, some went to trial. In one case, four residents were awarded $10.3 million, which stirred more hostility against the plaintiffs than against Ashland. Then, in 1992, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition published a report, with facts supplied by the company and the EPA, showing that the Ashland refinery releases significantly more of each pollutant than other refineries. As a result, a 24-hour video monitoring system has been installed by the state at the company's expense. In addition, an $8.85 million settlement fund has been set aside for resolving outstanding fines for numerous state and federal air quality violations.[120]
In 1993, NRDC launched a campaign to substitute natural gas-powered buses for diesel buses in New York and Los Angeles. Natural gas buses emit 60 percent less particulates and nitrogen oxides than the most advanced diesel engines. In 1997, New York Governor George Pataki announced that New York City would purchase at least 500 clean-fuel buses over the next five years and convert three inner-city diesel bus depots to natural gas. Similarly, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority has committed to buying only natural gas buses.
CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
While the first federal standards regulating air pollutants were established in the 1950s, it was not until 1970 that the first major legislative breakthrough occurred when Congress passed the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA requires the EPA to set federal standards to limit exposures to major air pollutants including ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Accordingly, the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each of these pollutants, which is a legally permissible upper limit on the concentration of that particular substance in the air. Individual states are allowed to establish air pollution standards that are stricter than the federal standards. States are required to develop state implementation plans indicating how they will comply with the Clean Air Act requirements. The EPA must approve the state implementation plan or the EPA can take over enforcement of the Clean Air Act in that state. The 1990 amendments to the CAA require the EPA to develop regulations to reduce emissions of 189 hazardous air pollutants. The CAA also requires improvements in motor vehicles to decrease tailpipe emissions, phases out chemicals that deplete atmospheric ozone, and reduces emissions of acid rain precursors. In spite of recent improvements in air quality, many areas of the country exceed the NAAQS for a variety of pollutants. Strong implementation of the CAA is critical to improving air quality.
REFORMS NEEDED
In essence, there are two primary ways in which the government can help improve the quality of the air our nation's children breathe: set more stringent health standards for key air pollutants and carry out more aggressive clean air strategies.
Improve Health Standards
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set air pollutant standards based on health criteria. Despite this, children face substantial health risks from breathing air with levels of pollutants significantly below those permitted by the current EPA standards. If the EPA or local air quality boards were to set more stringent air quality standards, then more areas of the country would reap substantial health benefits. Even though many areas of the nation are far from achieving even inadequate standards, it is crucial that some of the present standards be revised to protect against the grave health risks of air pollution reflected in the medical evidence.
The EPA's air quality standards are structured in a variety of ways to guard against health threats from both acute pollution episodes and chronic exposure. One-hour and 24-hour standards are primarily intended to guard against acute episodes that can be extremely hazardous to sensitive individuals and have been known to incapacitate some and even lead to death for others. Seasonal or annual measuring times, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly important in the wake of mounting evidence about additional, cumulative health impacts. Annual or quarterly standards exist for PM10, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In general, the criteria used by federal and state regulators do not provide sufficient protection against repeated and chronic exposures, or combinations of pollutants.
Implement revised ozone and particulate matter standards. On July 16, 1997, the EPA issued new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.[121] The previous standard, set in 1979, limited ozone to 120 parts per billion in a single hour. The new limit is 80 parts per billion measured over eight hours. For particulate matter, the EPA's new standard allows daily concentrations up to 65 micrograms per cubic meter of air and annual average concentrations of up to 15 micrograms per cubic meter for the smallest particles (less than 2.5 microns in diameter). The standards will protect the health of 125 million Americans, including 35 million children, from the hazards of air pollution. Industry and some members of Congress are seeking to block the enforcement of the new standards.
Protect against chronic exposure. The mounting evidence of risk from exposure over a lifetime calls for a different approach to health standards and clean air policy as a whole. Standards continue to be set to protect against the risks from single, short-term exposures to single pollutants. Current control measures encourage "peak shaving, " which, rather than reducing average levels and exposures, focuses only on specific episodes.
Study the pollutant "soup. " Evidence suggests that combined effects of pollutants may be greater than the sum of their individual effects. Regulators should support more research aimed at identifying the health risks from simultaneous exposure to different combinations of air pollutants and revise standards accordingly.
Provide adequate margins of safety. Air quality regulators are required by law to protect the public not only against demonstrable hazards, but also against those that are suspected or have not yet been quantified. Consequently, even when medical evidence merely suggests health impacts, measures must be taken. This is particularly critical in the case of children's health since most of the existing standards are based upon studies conducted on adults. The only way to ensure the protection of children is to establish conservative margins of safety.
Strengthen nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide standards. Federal standards for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide must be tightened to provide protection against short-term pollution episodes in response to medical evidence of adverse health effects from short-term exposure to these substances. NRDC recommends that federal 24-hour sulfur dioxide standards be tightened. In addition, a short-term standard must be developed to protect children and others with asthma who can be affected by exposures as short as five minutes.
More Aggressive Clean Air Strategies
With several important exceptions, states are allowed to go beyond the minimum federal requirements by adopting more aggressive control programs and more stringent health standards. California, for instance, has set the strongest air pollution health standards in the country. For the nation to achieve clean air, the rest of the country must move, at a minimum, to emulate California's tighter health standards and more aggressive pollution control programs.
NRDC has identified a variety of ways in which national and state air quality programs can be improved:
Improve and enforce implementation plans. The most heavily polluted areas in the nation often lack integrated, comprehensive implementation plans to reduce air emissions. Few air quality regulators have the geographic reach or authority to develop and execute regionally coordinated plans of action, despite the regional nature of what they are regulating. And even if an area has well-crafted implementation plans, that does not assure adequate implementation, monitoring, or enforcement. This has been because, in the case of federal regulations, Congress has historically pushed back attainment dates at the request of cities or states, thus increasing public cynicism over the ultimate value of the laws.
Tighten emissions requirements for new vehicles. Transportation-related emissions account for about 50 percent of the ozone problem and almost all of the carbon monoxide problem. Some of our greatest emission reduction opportunities and greatest political problems arise in the transportation area. NRDC has helped lead a successful campaign to persuade the EPA to approve a "low emission vehicle " program for the Northeast. This program will require substantial improvements in emission standards for automobiles and require the introduction of a limited number of zero-emission vehicles. Additional changes are necessary to require manufacturers to produce more durable emission control systems for new vehicles and to strengthen emission standards for minivans and sport utility vehicles.
Reformulate fuels and clean up existing cars. The benefits of air emissions control programs will never be fully realized until the existing fleet of cars is retired, which typically takes from twelve to twenty years. Auto inspection and maintenance programs can control very large amounts of pollution at much less cost than pollution control measures on factories. There are several kinds of initiatives at work throughout the country that have reduced emissions for these vehicles:
Reformulating to cleaner gasoline and diesel, which can reduce emissions about 30 percent in every vehicle.
Upgrading vehicle inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that vehicle owners keep their engines and pollution control equipment in good order.
Establishing "clunker scrap programs " that promote early retirement of high emission cars, possibly a cost-effective way to reduce pollution levels.
Replacing dirty diesel vehicles, especially in municipal fleets of buses and trucks, with clean fuel vehicles that operate on natural gas, electric power, or other emerging technologies.
Improve transportation strategies and alternatives. For every ton of pollutants eliminated by the development and use of better technology today, more than a ton is added because of additional automobile travel. Accordingly, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require seriously polluted regions to develop coherent transportation and trip reduction strategies over the next few years. No city in the nation has developed such a program, despite the existence of many cost-effective transportation control strategies.
Policymakers must learn to integrate transportation planning into their air quality programs in order to get drivers out of their cars and into alternative forms of transportation -- buses, shuttles, bicycles, walking.
If U.S. cities continue to grow through suburban sprawl, auto use will only continue to increase and efforts to change travel behavior will fail. Compact, transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, and the strategic designation of dedicated open space can all help reduce automobile use.
Provide economic incentives and disincentives. The costs of road construction and maintenance, police patrols, and accident response -- as well as environmental costs -- are all heavily subsidized by public agencies and financed through taxes. If motorists were assessed these costs in proportion to the number of miles they drive or their annual vehicle emissions, for instance, they would have a powerful incentive to drive less and use less polluting means of travel.
Reduce emissions from small stationary pollution sources. It is essential to control the pollution emitted by solvent use, "area sources, " and consumer and commercial products. Solvents, often held in large open vats for degreasing operations, contribute significant amounts of air pollution through evaporation, for instance. Some areas of the country must cut emissions from such sources by a staggering degree in order to meet federal clean air standards, and the most promising strategies include market incentives.
Better educate the public. The general public is forced to sift through myriad conflicting claims about air quality matters. For this reason, air quality officials and policymakers must expand and enhance current public education and involvement programs to build a stronger base of support for what are often politically difficult air pollution control measures.
Target communities with the greatest needs. As noted early in this chapter, researchers have found that communities of color and low-income communities tend to suffer disproportionately from air pollution. NRDC is concerned that current laws and regulations are inadequate to protect the communities most at risk, and we recommend that air quality researchers investigate communities at special risk from air pollution. In addition, officials should intensify pollution control efforts in these communities and target the most dangerous sources.
Memaparkan catatan dengan label ann nabilla. Papar semua catatan
Memaparkan catatan dengan label ann nabilla. Papar semua catatan
Ahad, 30 September 2007
Air Pollution Linked to Birth Defects
Smog is "exacting a much greater toll than previously known" on developing fetuses, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times reports. The study, which was published in the December 28, 2001 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, for the first time links air pollution with birth defects in Southern California, the Times reports.
UCLA researchers examined "thousands of pregnant women" living in the Los Angeles area between 1987
and 1993 and compared pregnancy outcomes for women living in areas with "relatively dirty air" to women living in areas with "cleaner" air. Researchers determined that pregnant women who were exposed to high levels of ozone and carbon monoxide were three times more likely than other women to give birth to babies with cleft lips, cleft palates and defective heart valves. The greatest risk to fetuses occurred during the second month of pregnancy, when the fetus develops most of its major organs and much of its facial structure, the study found.
More Research, Reaction........
More than 12 other studies in the United States, Brazil, Europe, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan have established links between air pollutants and low birthweight, premature birth, stillbirth and infant death, the Times reports. For instance, a team of U.S. and Swedish researchers reported earlier this year that pregnant women in several U.S. cities who were exposed to elevated carbon monoxide levels during their third trimester were 31% more likely than other women to give birth to underweight babies.
Another study by UCLA researchers published last year found that pregnant women exposed to elevated levels of microscopic particles during the final six weeks of pregnancy were 20% more likely to deliver a baby prematurely than women whose pollutant exposure levels were lower. In addition, a 1998 study by Brazilian researchers found that pregnant women exposed to high levels of nitrogen and sulfur oxides were 18% more likely than other women to have their pregnancies end in stillbirth. Researchers in that study also found evidence of carbon monoxide in the umbilical cords of nonsmokers, suggesting that air pollutants can reach fetuses through the umbilical cord. Carbon monoxide can cut off oxygen to a fetus, resulting in death, the Times reports.
Dana Loomis, a University of North Carolina epidemiologist and co-author of a study on pollution and pregnancy, said, "There really is evidence that levels of air pollution encountered in large cities worldwide may be hazardous to the fetus. This is something that has not been recognized before. It was always assumed the fetus was isolated in the womb from things in the environment." Tracey Woodruff, a senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and an author of one of the studies, added, "The research is suggestive, but preliminary. It's something to be concerned about, but nothing to panic about. It's something we need to pay attention to."
EPA officials have said that before federal limits for ozone and microscopic particles can be strengthened to prevent harm to fetuses, additional research is necessary to determine what pollutants are harmful and at which stages of pregnancy they are most damaging to fetal development. In California, state officials are using the recent studies to back up a recommendation that the state Air Resources Board lower the statewide standard for airborne particle pollution by 33 percent (Polakovic, Los Angeles Times, 12/16).
UCLA researchers examined "thousands of pregnant women" living in the Los Angeles area between 1987
and 1993 and compared pregnancy outcomes for women living in areas with "relatively dirty air" to women living in areas with "cleaner" air. Researchers determined that pregnant women who were exposed to high levels of ozone and carbon monoxide were three times more likely than other women to give birth to babies with cleft lips, cleft palates and defective heart valves. The greatest risk to fetuses occurred during the second month of pregnancy, when the fetus develops most of its major organs and much of its facial structure, the study found.
More Research, Reaction........
More than 12 other studies in the United States, Brazil, Europe, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan have established links between air pollutants and low birthweight, premature birth, stillbirth and infant death, the Times reports. For instance, a team of U.S. and Swedish researchers reported earlier this year that pregnant women in several U.S. cities who were exposed to elevated carbon monoxide levels during their third trimester were 31% more likely than other women to give birth to underweight babies.
Another study by UCLA researchers published last year found that pregnant women exposed to elevated levels of microscopic particles during the final six weeks of pregnancy were 20% more likely to deliver a baby prematurely than women whose pollutant exposure levels were lower. In addition, a 1998 study by Brazilian researchers found that pregnant women exposed to high levels of nitrogen and sulfur oxides were 18% more likely than other women to have their pregnancies end in stillbirth. Researchers in that study also found evidence of carbon monoxide in the umbilical cords of nonsmokers, suggesting that air pollutants can reach fetuses through the umbilical cord. Carbon monoxide can cut off oxygen to a fetus, resulting in death, the Times reports.
Dana Loomis, a University of North Carolina epidemiologist and co-author of a study on pollution and pregnancy, said, "There really is evidence that levels of air pollution encountered in large cities worldwide may be hazardous to the fetus. This is something that has not been recognized before. It was always assumed the fetus was isolated in the womb from things in the environment." Tracey Woodruff, a senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and an author of one of the studies, added, "The research is suggestive, but preliminary. It's something to be concerned about, but nothing to panic about. It's something we need to pay attention to."
EPA officials have said that before federal limits for ozone and microscopic particles can be strengthened to prevent harm to fetuses, additional research is necessary to determine what pollutants are harmful and at which stages of pregnancy they are most damaging to fetal development. In California, state officials are using the recent studies to back up a recommendation that the state Air Resources Board lower the statewide standard for airborne particle pollution by 33 percent (Polakovic, Los Angeles Times, 12/16).
Jumaat, 28 September 2007
Sabah to boost Serasi scheme
By RUBEN SARIO
Newsdesk@thestar.com.my
KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah government is keen for all schools to become environmental-friendly places by adopting the Sekolah Rakan Alam Sekitar (Serasi) programme.
Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Datuk Masidi Manjun said the programme would create more environmental awareness among students.
“We hope to meet with the State Education Director and discuss in which ways and means we can expand the programme and make it compulsory in all schools,” he said at SMK Datuk Peter Mojuntin in Penampang recently.
Resourceful: Benschop (left) and Masidi admiring paper lamps shaped from discarded newspapers – a project by students of SMK Datuk Peter Mojuntin in Kota Kinabalu recently.
Earlier, Masidi received an RM80,000 cheque from Shell Malaysia Gas and Power vice president Dick Benschop for the Serasi programme to run until next year.
The programme, aimed at spreading environmental awareness and protection among primary and secondary schools in Sabah, is now in its fifth year.
Serasi, an environmental education programme and an incentive scheme, is jointly organised by the state Environmental Protection Department, the Department of Environment, Forestry Department, Education Department, Science and Technology Unit, Shell Malaysia Gas and Power, the Environmental Action Committee and the Kota Kinabalu Wetland Centre.
Apart from the funding by Shell Malaysia Gas & Power, the remaining cost of RM70,000 will be funded by the Environment Protection Department, Department of Environment and the Science and Technology Unit.
Sabah Education Department will fund the transportation and lodging costs of headmasters, principals and district education officers to attend Serasi workshops and roadshows throughout the state
Display: Students showing recyled products to Masidi (right) and Benschop.
Likewise, Sabah Forestry Department is bearing the total cost of its staff visiting more than 200 schools in the Second Level Evaluation.
Other Serasi organisers such as the Environmental Action Committee and Kota Kinabalu Wetland Centre are actively assisting the implementation of Serasi in kind and expertise.
Benschop said that Shell was proud to support Serasi as it involved the promotion of environmental education in schools.
“We are very happy to see how the programme has grown over the last four years and the impact is has made on students,” said Benschop.
Shell planned to use the programme to educate teachers and students on issues such as climate change, he said.
Bush: Climate change progress must be measurable
By Jeff Mason and Deborah Zabarenko
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday called for a "strong and transparent" way for nations to measure progress on fighting climate change but said each country should set its own approach.
In a speech to a U.S.-sponsored conference of major emitting countries, Bush also called for the creation of a global fund to promote clean technology that would be led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
U.S. President George W. Bush speaks before he signs legislation expanding Pell Grants to help make college affordable for students, H.R. 2669, The College Cost Reduction and Access Act, while in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, September 27, 2007. (REUTERS/Larry Downing)
A long-term goal for reducing global warming was needed, Bush said, but added "each nation will design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this."
Bush, who has been under pressure from the world's major economies to accept binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, continued to emphasize voluntary approaches to tackling climate change as he kicked off the closing day of the conference.
Bush called the meeting as a precursor to United Nations talks in Bali in December, which will aim to launch a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that set limits on industrial nations' emissions.
Environmentalists said the conference had produced nothing new and was an attempt to circumvent U.N. efforts on climate change, a charge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the fact that Bush was speaking showed the White House would not return to its previous skepticism about the seriousness of the issue.
"This is a big step," he told reporters. "The more you have official discussions about climate change ... the more difficult it is to go backwards."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday called for a "strong and transparent" way for nations to measure progress on fighting climate change but said each country should set its own approach.
In a speech to a U.S.-sponsored conference of major emitting countries, Bush also called for the creation of a global fund to promote clean technology that would be led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
U.S. President George W. Bush speaks before he signs legislation expanding Pell Grants to help make college affordable for students, H.R. 2669, The College Cost Reduction and Access Act, while in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, September 27, 2007. (REUTERS/Larry Downing)
A long-term goal for reducing global warming was needed, Bush said, but added "each nation will design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this."
Bush, who has been under pressure from the world's major economies to accept binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, continued to emphasize voluntary approaches to tackling climate change as he kicked off the closing day of the conference.
Bush called the meeting as a precursor to United Nations talks in Bali in December, which will aim to launch a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that set limits on industrial nations' emissions.
Environmentalists said the conference had produced nothing new and was an attempt to circumvent U.N. efforts on climate change, a charge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the fact that Bush was speaking showed the White House would not return to its previous skepticism about the seriousness of the issue.
"This is a big step," he told reporters. "The more you have official discussions about climate change ... the more difficult it is to go backwards."
Tobacco smoke a major cause for air pollution
Special Correspondent
A study shows that air pollution from vehicle emission has reduced while the contribution from tobacco smoke has gone up to 8 p.c.
Bangalore: Smokers may be harming more than their own health. A recent study conducted in the city shows tobacco smoke may be contributing up to 7.9 per cent to atmospheric pollution. It was about 6 per cent a decade ago, the study says.
The study was conducted by H. Paramesh, a Director of Lakeside Medical Centre and Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The study, which used data compiled over the past few years, showed that though the number of vehicles in the city has steadily increased, air pollution from vehicular emissions has actually come down.
Though still above safe levels, air pollution from vehicle exhausts has come down because of measures such as banning heavy vehicles from the central business district and introduction of one-ways. Stringent emission checks on vehicles may have also contributed to this factor along with reduced emission levels made mandatory for new models of cars. Many new models even better these levels.
According to the KSPCB, concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air has come down to one fourth of the level prevailing in 1999, which should be considered significant. The amount of "respirable suspended particles" and "total suspended particles" in the air have also come down by 15 per cent to 22 per cent while only the percentage of oxides of nitrogen has gone up from 31 units to 54 units.
Tobacco smoke has negated the efforts to make the air cleaner, according to the study. There were indications that the number of smokers had increased in the younger age group despite statutory warnings on cigarette packets and intensive anti-smoking campaigns. The effect can be serious in the case of unborn children of parents who may be smokers or pregnant women regularly exposed to tobacco smoke. Unlike vehicle emissions, which are outdoors, tobacco smoke may be regularly present indoors.
Air pollution has resulted in the increase of ailments related to respiratory infections such as bronchitis, lung diseases, acute respiratory distress syndrome and respiratory allergies, including attacks of severe asthma. Increased air pollution has also caused cases of "middle ear infections" leading to hearing impairment in various degrees. Statistics collated from city hospitals show that an increase in sudden infant deaths, occurring within a few hours of birth, may be related to air pollution.
The study shows that respiratory disease related to air pollution or tobacco smoke is relatively lower among the highest income groups who have become aware of the risks of smoking. It is higher among the lower income groups, partly because of the fact they use firewood or dried dung for cooking and their houses lack proper ventilation for the smoke to escape.
Printer friendly page
RADON
Should I test my home for radon?
Yes! Radon is a known human carcinogen and the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. Since radon is a colorless and odorless gas, the only way to know for sure how much you and your family are exposed to in your home is to test. Testing for radon is easy and inexpensive.
How do I test for radon in my home?
It's easy. You can either do it yourself or hire a home measurement service. If you do it yourself, test kits can be purchased at retail outlets or directly from laboratories providing radon measurement services. Follow the instructions that come with your test kit. The test kit should be placed in the lowest lived-in space in your home (the basement if it is frequently occupied, otherwise the first floor). You should place the kit at least 20 inches above the floor and away from exterior walls. Indoor radon levels can be elevated by unusually high winds and storms so avoid testing during these periods. Be sure to send your radon kit to the lab specified on the package right away for the most accurate results. You should receive your test results in a few weeks. For a list of certified home measurement service providers, contact your State Radon Program or see the Region 10 website for a list of labs (link to PDF)
What do my radon test results mean?
Radon is measured in picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). The average indoor radon level in homes across the country is about 1.3 pCi/L. The average outdoor radon level is about 0.4 pCi/L. Exposure to radon increases the risk of lung cancer incidence; the higher the concentration, the higher the risk. EPA recommends taking action against radon at levels of 4 pCi/L and higher.
What do I do if my radon test results are 4 pCi/L or higher?
Test again to confirm these results. EPA recommends that, if your initial short-term test results are 4 pCi/L or higher, you consider performing a second test to verify the results. The higher your initial short-term test results are, the more reason you have to choose a short-term follow-up test over a longer-term follow-up test. If your second round of test results are still at or above 4 pCi/L, EPA recommends taking action against radon.
How do I take action against radon in my home?
No. Radon comes from the natural decay of uranium in the soil. Even though the amount of radon in the soil might be similar throughout a neighborhood, the amount of radon that actually gets into your house may differ from the amount that gets into your neighbor's house. Radon enters your home through cracks, joints and pipe penetrations in the foundation and walls, exposed soil (like in a crawl space), water and building materials. Radon levels in your home are also affected by ventilation, pressure differences and temperature differences with the outside air. Since all houses are built a little differently, they can have very different indoor radon concentrations, despite similar soil concentrations. Nearly 1 in 15 homes in the U.S. is estimated to have elevated radon levels. Again, the only way to know for sure what the radon levels are in your home is to test.
Should I worry about radon in my water supply?
In comparison to radon that enters your house from the soil, radon that enters your house from water is, in most situations, a small source of risk. A general rule-of-thumb is every 10,000 pCi/L of radon in the water supply will cause an incremental increase of 1 pCi/L of radon in the indoor air. Radon in water can enter your home only through groundwater supplies that come directly from wells. Water treatment and storage at public water supplies typically result in very low radon concentrations entering the distribution system. Therefore, Region 8 recommends testing of all private well water supplies concurrent with an indoor air radon test. If your water supply comes from a private well, you can contact a certified testing lab to have your water tested for radon.
What is the BIER VI report by the National Academy of Sciences?
The NAS has prepared its latest analysis of health research on radon, the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VI) Report. This is the most comprehensive review effort to
date. The Committee was charged with:
reviewing all current miner and residential data, as well as all existing cellular-biological data,
comparing the dose per unit exposure effects of radon in mines and homes,
examining interactions between radon exposure and smoking, and
Examining any exposure-rate effect (alteration of effect by intensity of exposure). The report confirms that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. and that it is a serious public health problem. The study fully supports EPA estimates that radon causes about 15,000 lung cancer deaths per year. You can read a summary of the report at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/beirvi.html
Yes! Radon is a known human carcinogen and the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. Since radon is a colorless and odorless gas, the only way to know for sure how much you and your family are exposed to in your home is to test. Testing for radon is easy and inexpensive.
How do I test for radon in my home?
It's easy. You can either do it yourself or hire a home measurement service. If you do it yourself, test kits can be purchased at retail outlets or directly from laboratories providing radon measurement services. Follow the instructions that come with your test kit. The test kit should be placed in the lowest lived-in space in your home (the basement if it is frequently occupied, otherwise the first floor). You should place the kit at least 20 inches above the floor and away from exterior walls. Indoor radon levels can be elevated by unusually high winds and storms so avoid testing during these periods. Be sure to send your radon kit to the lab specified on the package right away for the most accurate results. You should receive your test results in a few weeks. For a list of certified home measurement service providers, contact your State Radon Program or see the Region 10 website for a list of labs (link to PDF)
What do my radon test results mean?
Radon is measured in picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). The average indoor radon level in homes across the country is about 1.3 pCi/L. The average outdoor radon level is about 0.4 pCi/L. Exposure to radon increases the risk of lung cancer incidence; the higher the concentration, the higher the risk. EPA recommends taking action against radon at levels of 4 pCi/L and higher.
What do I do if my radon test results are 4 pCi/L or higher?
Test again to confirm these results. EPA recommends that, if your initial short-term test results are 4 pCi/L or higher, you consider performing a second test to verify the results. The higher your initial short-term test results are, the more reason you have to choose a short-term follow-up test over a longer-term follow-up test. If your second round of test results are still at or above 4 pCi/L, EPA recommends taking action against radon.
How do I take action against radon in my home?
No. Radon comes from the natural decay of uranium in the soil. Even though the amount of radon in the soil might be similar throughout a neighborhood, the amount of radon that actually gets into your house may differ from the amount that gets into your neighbor's house. Radon enters your home through cracks, joints and pipe penetrations in the foundation and walls, exposed soil (like in a crawl space), water and building materials. Radon levels in your home are also affected by ventilation, pressure differences and temperature differences with the outside air. Since all houses are built a little differently, they can have very different indoor radon concentrations, despite similar soil concentrations. Nearly 1 in 15 homes in the U.S. is estimated to have elevated radon levels. Again, the only way to know for sure what the radon levels are in your home is to test.
Should I worry about radon in my water supply?
In comparison to radon that enters your house from the soil, radon that enters your house from water is, in most situations, a small source of risk. A general rule-of-thumb is every 10,000 pCi/L of radon in the water supply will cause an incremental increase of 1 pCi/L of radon in the indoor air. Radon in water can enter your home only through groundwater supplies that come directly from wells. Water treatment and storage at public water supplies typically result in very low radon concentrations entering the distribution system. Therefore, Region 8 recommends testing of all private well water supplies concurrent with an indoor air radon test. If your water supply comes from a private well, you can contact a certified testing lab to have your water tested for radon.
What is the BIER VI report by the National Academy of Sciences?
The NAS has prepared its latest analysis of health research on radon, the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VI) Report. This is the most comprehensive review effort to
date. The Committee was charged with:
reviewing all current miner and residential data, as well as all existing cellular-biological data,
comparing the dose per unit exposure effects of radon in mines and homes,
examining interactions between radon exposure and smoking, and
Examining any exposure-rate effect (alteration of effect by intensity of exposure). The report confirms that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. and that it is a serious public health problem. The study fully supports EPA estimates that radon causes about 15,000 lung cancer deaths per year. You can read a summary of the report at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/beirvi.html
Q&A that is frequently asked
NESHAP/MACT Part 61/Part 63
What are the National Emissions Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants?
The general provisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Parts 60 and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, under the Clean Air Act, provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations.
The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions.
Further, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a specific source. These inquiries question whether a regulation applies to a specific source, or may relate to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation as it applies to a specific source.
The EPA currently issues approximately 100 memoranda per year pertaining to NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations and alternative monitoring decisions, and handles countless telephone and electronic mail requests from the regulated community and from State and Local Agencies implementing the NSPS and the NESHAP programs.
Who do I contact for more information about NESHAP in Region 10?
For Technical Information Contact Madonna Narvaez at (206) 553-2117. For delegation requests contact Lucita Valiere at (206) 553-8087
What is a MACT?
A maximum achievable control technology is the best available technology to abate a toxic pollutant from a given source. There are currently 35 MACT source categories regulated in the Pacific Northwest region. Sources of the same category report what works for them to economically achieve their NESHAP standards. A MACT is imposed when it is found to be the best economically achievable way to regulate a hazardous air pollutant.
Where can I find affected source lists for some of the newer MACTs that are coming out?
For all of the affected source lists that are available, they are posted on-line. Go to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.htmlclick on the Tables of Completed or Tables of Proposed Regulations, and then click on the MACT in question to see if the affected source lists are available. For some of the newer MACTs, EPA is still working on collecting or cleaning up that information.
There is also a general document posted on-line, with instructions for locating affected sources. It's posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/gp/gppg.html#IMP. It was written in 1996, and is called, "Source Identification Procedures for Sources Subject to Regulations under Section 111(d) of the CAA as Amended in 1990.
Additional information on the upcoming MACTs is temporarily available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112j/info/112(j)-table2.html
How do I get a listing of the sources subject to MACT in my area?
Follow this step by step approach to find MACT sources in any region:
1) go to http://www.epa.gov/idea/mact/ and select Alaska as a region.
2) use the default options and click 'submit'. This will take you to a large spreadsheet with the relevant Macts and how many facilities are in your state. Keep in mind however, that these numbers are grossly inflated. Some of the facilities are closed and the database is a bit out of date.
3) If you click on the 'view' button to the left of the spreadsheet a list of the facilities with names and addresses will pop up. Notice that many of the facilities are duplicates. I'm not quite sure the reason for this, but basically it means you should count the different OPEN facilities and not just rely on the number listed in the internet spreadsheet.
For Questions Contact
Madonna Narvaez
(206)553-2117
Where can I find information about the facilities subject to a MACT in my region?
1) go to http://www.epa.gov/idea/mact/ and select the state or region of choice.
2) use the default options and click 'submit'. This will take you to a large spreadsheet with the relevant Macts and how many facilities are in your state or region. Keep in mind however, that these numbers are somewhat inflated. Some of the facilities listed are non-operational.
3) If you click on the 'view' button to the left of the spreadsheet a list of the facilities with names and addresses will pop up. Notice that many of the facilities are duplicates. I'm not quite sure the reason for this, but basically it means you should count the different OPEN facilities and not just rely on the number listed in the internet spreadsheet. To view a detailed report about the facility, click on 'facility report'.
NSPS Part 60/Part62
What are New Source Performance Standards?
The general provisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Parts 60 and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, under the Clean Air Act, provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations.
The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions.
Further, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a specific source. These inquiries question whether a regulation applies to a specific source, or may relate to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation as it applies to a specific source.
The EPA currently issues approximately 100 memoranda per year pertaining to NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations and alternative monitoring decisions, and handles countless telephone and electronic mail requests from the regulated community and from State and Local Agencies implementing the NSPS and the NESHAP programs.
Who do I contact for more information about NSPS in Region 10?
For Technical Information Contact Madonna Narvaez at (206) 553-2117. For delegation requests contact Lucita Valiere at (206) 553-8087.
Residual Risk/Risk Assessment
What is residual Risk for Air Toxics?
Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to complete a Report to Congress that includes a discussion of methods the EPA would use to evaluate the risks remaining after the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. These are known as residual risks. EPA published the Residual Risk Report to Congress in March 1999. The CAA also directs the EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks.
What are the National Emissions Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants?
The general provisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Parts 60 and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, under the Clean Air Act, provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations.
The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions.
Further, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a specific source. These inquiries question whether a regulation applies to a specific source, or may relate to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation as it applies to a specific source.
The EPA currently issues approximately 100 memoranda per year pertaining to NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations and alternative monitoring decisions, and handles countless telephone and electronic mail requests from the regulated community and from State and Local Agencies implementing the NSPS and the NESHAP programs.
Who do I contact for more information about NESHAP in Region 10?
For Technical Information Contact Madonna Narvaez at (206) 553-2117. For delegation requests contact Lucita Valiere at (206) 553-8087
What is a MACT?
A maximum achievable control technology is the best available technology to abate a toxic pollutant from a given source. There are currently 35 MACT source categories regulated in the Pacific Northwest region. Sources of the same category report what works for them to economically achieve their NESHAP standards. A MACT is imposed when it is found to be the best economically achievable way to regulate a hazardous air pollutant.
Where can I find affected source lists for some of the newer MACTs that are coming out?
For all of the affected source lists that are available, they are posted on-line. Go to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.htmlclick on the Tables of Completed or Tables of Proposed Regulations, and then click on the MACT in question to see if the affected source lists are available. For some of the newer MACTs, EPA is still working on collecting or cleaning up that information.
There is also a general document posted on-line, with instructions for locating affected sources. It's posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/gp/gppg.html#IMP. It was written in 1996, and is called, "Source Identification Procedures for Sources Subject to Regulations under Section 111(d) of the CAA as Amended in 1990.
Additional information on the upcoming MACTs is temporarily available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112j/info/112(j)-table2.html
How do I get a listing of the sources subject to MACT in my area?
Follow this step by step approach to find MACT sources in any region:
1) go to http://www.epa.gov/idea/mact/ and select Alaska as a region.
2) use the default options and click 'submit'. This will take you to a large spreadsheet with the relevant Macts and how many facilities are in your state. Keep in mind however, that these numbers are grossly inflated. Some of the facilities are closed and the database is a bit out of date.
3) If you click on the 'view' button to the left of the spreadsheet a list of the facilities with names and addresses will pop up. Notice that many of the facilities are duplicates. I'm not quite sure the reason for this, but basically it means you should count the different OPEN facilities and not just rely on the number listed in the internet spreadsheet.
For Questions Contact
Madonna Narvaez
(206)553-2117
Where can I find information about the facilities subject to a MACT in my region?
1) go to http://www.epa.gov/idea/mact/ and select the state or region of choice.
2) use the default options and click 'submit'. This will take you to a large spreadsheet with the relevant Macts and how many facilities are in your state or region. Keep in mind however, that these numbers are somewhat inflated. Some of the facilities listed are non-operational.
3) If you click on the 'view' button to the left of the spreadsheet a list of the facilities with names and addresses will pop up. Notice that many of the facilities are duplicates. I'm not quite sure the reason for this, but basically it means you should count the different OPEN facilities and not just rely on the number listed in the internet spreadsheet. To view a detailed report about the facility, click on 'facility report'.
NSPS Part 60/Part62
What are New Source Performance Standards?
The general provisions to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Parts 60 and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, under the Clean Air Act, provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations.
The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions.
Further, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a specific source. These inquiries question whether a regulation applies to a specific source, or may relate to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation as it applies to a specific source.
The EPA currently issues approximately 100 memoranda per year pertaining to NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations and alternative monitoring decisions, and handles countless telephone and electronic mail requests from the regulated community and from State and Local Agencies implementing the NSPS and the NESHAP programs.
Who do I contact for more information about NSPS in Region 10?
For Technical Information Contact Madonna Narvaez at (206) 553-2117. For delegation requests contact Lucita Valiere at (206) 553-8087.
Residual Risk/Risk Assessment
What is residual Risk for Air Toxics?
Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to complete a Report to Congress that includes a discussion of methods the EPA would use to evaluate the risks remaining after the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. These are known as residual risks. EPA published the Residual Risk Report to Congress in March 1999. The CAA also directs the EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks.
Ahad, 16 September 2007
Should United State Ratify Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty intended to bring countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the effects of temperature increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of industrialization. The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are legally binding on the ratifying nations, and stronger than those of the UNFCCC.
Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol agree to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs. The countries are allowed to use emissions trading to meet their obligations if they maintain or increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading allows nations that can easily meet their targets to sell credits to those that cannot.
Lowering Emissions Worldwide
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Compared to the emissions levels that would occur by 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, however, this target actually represents a 29 percent cut.
The Kyoto Protocol sets specific emissions reduction targets for each industrialized nation, but excludes developing countries. To meet their targets, most ratifying nations would have to combine several strategies:
place restrictions on their biggest polluters
manage transportation to slow or reduce emissions from automobiles
make better use of renewable energy sources—such as solar power, wind power, and biodiesel—in place of fossil fuels
Most of the world’s industrialized nations support the Kyoto Protocol. One notable exception is the United States, which releases more greenhouse gases than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those generated by humans worldwide. Australia also declined.
Background
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It was opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under terms of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90 days after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC. Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990.
The first condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005.
As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to Congress for ratification.
An Alternate Plan
Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.
While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn’t alone in his opposition. Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”
Arguments For
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an essential step in slowing or reversing global warming, and that immediate multinational collaboration is needed if the world is to have any serious hope of preventing devastating climate changes.
Scientists agree that even a small increase in the average global temperature would lead to significant climate and weather changes, and profoundly affect plant, animal and human life on Earth.
Warming Trend
Many scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit). This increase represents a significant acceleration in global warming. For example, during the 20th century the average global temperature increased only 0.6 degrees Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit).
This acceleration in the build-up of greenhouse gases and global warming is attributed to two key factors:
the cumulative effect of 150 years of worldwide industrialization; and
factors such as overpopulation and deforestation combined with more factories, gas-powered vehicles and machines worldwide.
Action Needed Now
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol argue that taking action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could slow or reverse global warming, and prevent or mitigate many of the most severe problems associated with it. Many view the U.S. rejection of the treaty as irresponsible, and accuse President Bush of pandering to the oil and gas industries.
Because the United States accounts for so many of the world’s greenhouse gases and contributes so much to the problem of global warming, some experts have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed without U.S. participation.
Arguments Against
Arguments against the Kyoto Protocol generally fall into three categories: it demands too much; it achieves too little; or it is unnecessary.
In rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which 178 other nations had accepted, President Bush claimed that the treaty requirements would harm the U.S. economy, leading to economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million jobs. Bush also objected to the exemption for developing nations. The president’s decision brought heavy criticism from U.S. allies and environmental groups in the U.S. and around the world.
Kyoto Critics Speak Out
Some critics, including a few scientists, are skeptical of the underlying science associated with global warming and say there is no real evidence that Earth’s surface temperature is rising due to human activity. For example, Russia’s Academy of Sciences called the Russian government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol "purely political," and said that it had "no scientific justification."
Some opponents say the treaty doesn’t go far enough to reduce greenhouse gases, and many of those critics also question the effectiveness of practices such as planting forests to produce emissions trading credits that many nations are relying on to meet their targets. They argue that planting forests may increase carbon dioxide for the first 10 years owing to new forest growth patterns and the release of carbon dioxide from soil.
Others believe that if industrialized nations reduce their need for fossil fuels, the cost of coal, oil and gas will go down, making them more affordable for developing nations. That would simply shift the source of the emissions without reducing them.
Finally, some critics say the treaty focuses on greenhouse gases without addressing population growth and other issues that affect global warming, making the Kyoto Protocol an anti-industrial agenda rather than an effort to address global warming. One Russian economic policy advisor even compared the Kyoto Protocol to fascism.
Where it Stands
Despite the Bush Administration’s position on the Kyoto Protocol, grass-roots support in the U.S. remains strong. By June 2005, 165 U.S. cities had voted to support the treaty after Seattle led a nationwide effort to build support, and environmental organizations continue to urge U.S. participation.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to seek alternatives. The U.S. was a leader in forming the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, an international agreement announced July 28, 2005 at meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The United States, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China agreed to collaborate on strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the 21st century. ASEAN nations account for 50 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, population and GDP. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes mandatory targets, the new agreement allows countries to set their own emissions goals, but with no enforcement.
At the announcement, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the new partnership would complement the Kyoto agreement: “I think climate change is a problem and I don't think Kyoto is going to fix it...I think we've got to do so much more than that.”
Looking Ahead
Whether you support U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol or oppose it, the status of the issue is unlikely to change soon. President Bush continues to oppose the treaty, and there is no strong political will in Congress to alter his position, although the U.S. Senate voted in 2005 to reverse its earlier prohitibion against mandatory pollution limits.
The Kyoto Protocol will go forward without U.S. involvement, and the Bush Administration will continue to seek less demanding alternatives. Whether they will prove to be more or less effective than the Kyoto Protocol is a question that won’t be answered until it may be too late to plot a new course.
From Larry West
Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol agree to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs. The countries are allowed to use emissions trading to meet their obligations if they maintain or increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading allows nations that can easily meet their targets to sell credits to those that cannot.
Lowering Emissions Worldwide
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Compared to the emissions levels that would occur by 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, however, this target actually represents a 29 percent cut.
The Kyoto Protocol sets specific emissions reduction targets for each industrialized nation, but excludes developing countries. To meet their targets, most ratifying nations would have to combine several strategies:
place restrictions on their biggest polluters
manage transportation to slow or reduce emissions from automobiles
make better use of renewable energy sources—such as solar power, wind power, and biodiesel—in place of fossil fuels
Most of the world’s industrialized nations support the Kyoto Protocol. One notable exception is the United States, which releases more greenhouse gases than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those generated by humans worldwide. Australia also declined.
Background
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It was opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under terms of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90 days after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC. Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990.
The first condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005.
As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to Congress for ratification.
An Alternate Plan
Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.
While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn’t alone in his opposition. Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”
Arguments For
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an essential step in slowing or reversing global warming, and that immediate multinational collaboration is needed if the world is to have any serious hope of preventing devastating climate changes.
Scientists agree that even a small increase in the average global temperature would lead to significant climate and weather changes, and profoundly affect plant, animal and human life on Earth.
Warming Trend
Many scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit). This increase represents a significant acceleration in global warming. For example, during the 20th century the average global temperature increased only 0.6 degrees Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit).
This acceleration in the build-up of greenhouse gases and global warming is attributed to two key factors:
the cumulative effect of 150 years of worldwide industrialization; and
factors such as overpopulation and deforestation combined with more factories, gas-powered vehicles and machines worldwide.
Action Needed Now
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol argue that taking action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could slow or reverse global warming, and prevent or mitigate many of the most severe problems associated with it. Many view the U.S. rejection of the treaty as irresponsible, and accuse President Bush of pandering to the oil and gas industries.
Because the United States accounts for so many of the world’s greenhouse gases and contributes so much to the problem of global warming, some experts have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed without U.S. participation.
Arguments Against
Arguments against the Kyoto Protocol generally fall into three categories: it demands too much; it achieves too little; or it is unnecessary.
In rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which 178 other nations had accepted, President Bush claimed that the treaty requirements would harm the U.S. economy, leading to economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million jobs. Bush also objected to the exemption for developing nations. The president’s decision brought heavy criticism from U.S. allies and environmental groups in the U.S. and around the world.
Kyoto Critics Speak Out
Some critics, including a few scientists, are skeptical of the underlying science associated with global warming and say there is no real evidence that Earth’s surface temperature is rising due to human activity. For example, Russia’s Academy of Sciences called the Russian government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol "purely political," and said that it had "no scientific justification."
Some opponents say the treaty doesn’t go far enough to reduce greenhouse gases, and many of those critics also question the effectiveness of practices such as planting forests to produce emissions trading credits that many nations are relying on to meet their targets. They argue that planting forests may increase carbon dioxide for the first 10 years owing to new forest growth patterns and the release of carbon dioxide from soil.
Others believe that if industrialized nations reduce their need for fossil fuels, the cost of coal, oil and gas will go down, making them more affordable for developing nations. That would simply shift the source of the emissions without reducing them.
Finally, some critics say the treaty focuses on greenhouse gases without addressing population growth and other issues that affect global warming, making the Kyoto Protocol an anti-industrial agenda rather than an effort to address global warming. One Russian economic policy advisor even compared the Kyoto Protocol to fascism.
Where it Stands
Despite the Bush Administration’s position on the Kyoto Protocol, grass-roots support in the U.S. remains strong. By June 2005, 165 U.S. cities had voted to support the treaty after Seattle led a nationwide effort to build support, and environmental organizations continue to urge U.S. participation.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to seek alternatives. The U.S. was a leader in forming the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, an international agreement announced July 28, 2005 at meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The United States, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China agreed to collaborate on strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the 21st century. ASEAN nations account for 50 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, population and GDP. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes mandatory targets, the new agreement allows countries to set their own emissions goals, but with no enforcement.
At the announcement, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the new partnership would complement the Kyoto agreement: “I think climate change is a problem and I don't think Kyoto is going to fix it...I think we've got to do so much more than that.”
Looking Ahead
Whether you support U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol or oppose it, the status of the issue is unlikely to change soon. President Bush continues to oppose the treaty, and there is no strong political will in Congress to alter his position, although the U.S. Senate voted in 2005 to reverse its earlier prohitibion against mandatory pollution limits.
The Kyoto Protocol will go forward without U.S. involvement, and the Bush Administration will continue to seek less demanding alternatives. Whether they will prove to be more or less effective than the Kyoto Protocol is a question that won’t be answered until it may be too late to plot a new course.
From Larry West
Sabtu, 28 Julai 2007
The Great Smog of London
Chirag Trivedi BBC News Online, London
Since Roman times, London has been known to people abroad as a land of mists and fogs. Until recently visitors to the city could take home with them tins of 'London fog'.
But the London smog of 1952 had more serious consequences.
On Friday 5 December 1952 a dense smoke-filled fog shrouded London and brought the city to a standstill for four days.
Motor vehicles were abandoned, trains were disrupted and airports were forced to close.
Cattle casualties
A Ministry of Health report estimated that 4,075 more people had died than would have been expected to under normal conditions.
"In a city traditionally notorious for its fogs there was general agreement on its exceptional severity on this occasion," the Ministry said.
The first reported casualties of the smog were cattle at the Smithfield Show.
At Sadler's Wells, the opera La Traviata had to be abandoned after the first act because the theatre was so full of smog.
Public transport ground to a halt
But it was the coroners and doctors in the city's hospital who first became aware of its deadly effects.
Most victims died from respiratory or cardiovascular problems but only those "prone to such ailments" were affected.
The main pollutants were believed to be by-products of coal burning which was said to have reached "exceptional levels".
And high pressure, near freezing temperatures and very light winds kept the smog hanging over London.
No school
But to the great majority of healthy individuals, the smog was little more than a nuisance.
One of those that experienced it was Ken Livingstone, the current Mayor of London, who "didn't have to go to school for a few days".
"The fog was simply so thick that parents were advised not to risk letting their children get lost on the way to school, unless it was literally round the corner."
He added: "When my parents went out they had to cover their nose and mouth with a handkerchief.
The Great Smog
5-9 Dec, 1952
Laced with sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot
Caused by pollution and extreme cold"In response to the 1952 smog, the Government passed legislation to phase out coal fires, which meant initially many people transferred to paraffin heaters.
"I have to say that I was quite pleased because it was my job to go out and clean the fire out in the morning - raking out all the bits of unburned coal to save them for the next fire."
The battle for better air quality continues. Mr Livingstone has to meet tough targets imposed by the government and the European Union.
London has 80 monitoring stations dotted all over the city.
Air Quality minister Alun Michael visits a pollution monitoring unitInside each are computers and monitoring equipment that suck in air and measure the levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants.
They also analyse fine particulates - very small pieces of pollution that can get deep down into the lungs.
On Thursday, after visiting one of these stations on Marylebone Road in central London, air quality minister Alun Michael said: "I remember the smogs Londoners suffered as I visited the capital most autumns as a child. They were awful.
"Nowadays, partly as a result of the Clean Air Act, we are lucky to enjoy much better air quality."
Targets missed
But it is estimated that London will not achieve the annual government targets for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and daily fine particles.
Levels for both pollutants are expected to exceed their targets along the major road networks.
In addition, NO2 levels are also expected to exceed targets for central London and around Heathrow Airport.
Despite this, Gary Fuller from the environmental research group at King's College London, said: "Air quality has improved vastly in London, simply because we don't burn much coal anymore.
"The main threat is obviously cars. It's a case of can we improve air quality fast enough as more and more cars come onto the roads."
WATCH/LISTEN
ON THIS STORY
The BBC's Tom Heap"Our air is a lot clearer than it was 50 years ago but it is not clean"
See also:
05 Dec 02 Health
Historic smog death toll rises
05 Dec 02 England
In pictures: The Great Smog of London
05 Dec 02 UK
Days of toxic darkness
05 Dec 02 England
Pollution call on smog anniversary
12 Aug 02 Science/Nature
Deadly Asian haze 'can be tamed'
10 Jul 01 Asia-Pacific
Smog fears grow across SE Asia
Internet links:
Mayor of London
Kings College London: Air Quality Index
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Met Office: 1952 Smog
National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection
Big Smoke Conference The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top England stories now:
10,000 chased for congestion fine
Teenagers admit festival violence
Postmaster sacked over robbery
Beckham forgives Ferguson
Man faces nine rape charges
Abuse claimants win compensation
400 jobs to go at zinc works
Legal row cat back with owners
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2545759.stm
by ann nabilla
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)
