Air Pollution Increases Blood Clot Risk

(WebMD) Air pollution increases the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) -- dangerous blood clots in the veins -- even at pollution levels the EPA deems "acceptable."

Harvard researcher Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD, and colleagues in Italy studied 870 people diagnosed with DVT from 1995 to 2005. They compared their particulate air pollution exposure in the year before their diagnosis to that of 1,210 matched people without DVT.

They found that DVT risk goes up 70% for every 10 microgram-per-cubic-meterrise in particulate air pollution above 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air (the lowest pollution level measured in the study).

The U.S. EPA standard for particulate air pollution is 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air. However, it's likely that fine and very fine particles cause most of the health risks linked to particulate air pollution. The EPA sets much lower standards for these smaller particles, which Baccarelli and colleagues did not specifically measure."

Our findings introduce a novel and common risk factor into the pathogenesis of DVT and, at the same time, give further substance to the call for tighter standards and continued efforts aimed at reducing the impact of urban air pollutants on human health," Baccarelli and colleagues conclude.

Air pollution affects the heart and blood vessels even more than the lungs, notes Robert D. Brook, MD, a University of Michigan expert on the cardiovascular effects of air pollution. An editorial by Brook accompanies the Baccarelli report in the May 12 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study, Brook notes, adds DVT to a long list of cardiovascular illnesses linked to air pollution that includes heart attacks, heart failure, stroke, and sudden death.

However, Brook warns that while Baccarelli and colleagues link air pollution to a huge increase in DVT risk, part of this result may be due to chance or the unique circumstances of the population studied. Other studies are needed to better determine the absolute risk.

Even so, Brook says, we don't have to wait for these studies -- we already know that air pollution, even at current levels, is not healthy."

You do not need to know every last detail about the archer who shot you with a poison arrow before you know you need to pull the arrow out," he writes.

to the source

(AP PHOTO)

Measuring Asia's Pollution Exports

NASA has quantified the amount of pollution that moves from East Asia to North America.

Atmospheric scientists have long known that air pollution travels vast distances and is a global phenomenon. Now researchers at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center have conducted the first-ever satellite-based measurements of pollution aerosols transported from East Asia to North America.

The researchers looked at four years of satellite data and found the amount of pollution arriving in North America to be equivalent to 15 percent of local emissions of the United States and Canada. It is "a significant number," says Hongbin Yu, an associate research scientist at the University of Maryland, in Baltimore, who is working at NASA Goddard and led the study.

"This means that any reduction in our emissions may be offset by the pollution aerosols coming from East Asia and other regions," says Yu. The new study will be published in April in the American Geophysical Union's Journal of Geophysical Research.

The study was conducted from 2002 to 2005, using measurements from a satellite instrument called the moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) onboard NASA's Terra satellite. The instrument measures the reflective solar radiation and emitted thermal radiation from the earth's surface and atmosphere.

The satellite-based instrument can look at 36 different wavelengths of the solar spectrum, and it does so with better spatial resolution than previous satellite instruments, says Lorraine Remer, a physical scientist and a member of the MODIS science team at Goddard.

For the study, the researchers measured the reflected solar radiation at seven different wavelengths. Being able to see different colors of the spectrum allows the researchers to differentiate the types of particles more accurately than the older sensors, says Remer.

"Some particulates are absorbing things like black carbon that come out of diesel exhaust, making it a black color," says Ronald Prinn, a professor of atmospheric sciences and the director of the Center for Global Change Science at MIT. "Particles that are produced from sulfur that comes from the burning of coal are very bright white. You can look at the multiple colors ... and get information about composition and density as well."

The instrument is able to distinguish between man-made pollution and naturally occurring particles based on size. Naturally occurring dust and sea salt are typically larger than aerosol particles emitted from combustion sources, forest fires, automobiles, and industry, says Remer.

The MODIS instrument works by scanning a broad swath of the earth--about 2,300 kilometers--and counting the number of photons it is receiving by turning them into electrical signals. The instrument can measure the entire earth in one day.

MODIS does a better job than aircraft instrumentation does because it can observe the earth all the time, capturing events that only happen occasionally and accumulating them over the whole year, says Richard Honrath, a professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at Michigan Technological University, in Houghton. "We can only do continuous measurements at ground level, but then you only see events that hit the ground," he says.

The instrument also gets "spatial and time detail that one would never get from ground-based measurements, and it captures the entire pollution plumes rather than just having a few observing stations looking up," says Prinn.

NASA researchers drew two virtual lines at 20 degrees north to 60 degrees north, and they measured the optical effect of the particles as they crossed those lines, says Yu. Using software that he made, the researchers culled this data and mapped it to see globally where the pollution is located.

The researchers found that 18 teragrams--almost 40 billion pounds--of pollution is exported from Asia, and that 4.5 teragrams--10 billion pounds, or about 25 percent--reaches North America annually, says Mian Chin, an atmospheric scientist at NASA and a coauthor of the study. But the instrument measures the total atmosphere column and does not have the vertical structure, so it is unknown how many of the pollutants are at surface level, and how many are aloft in the atmosphere, says Chin.

Despite that uncertainty, the scientists say that it is the higher-altitude pollution that is probably most worrisome. "We think the pollution being imported to North America will impact the weather and climate; we don't expect any big impact on the air quality because particles from East Asia are exported at high altitude," says Yu.

"It is very difficult to lower pollution levels of man-made pollutants to extremely low levels because pollutants come in the air from other countries that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, cannot control," says Prinn. Agrees Honrath: "You have to consider the future industrial growth of Asia if you develop long-range plans for meeting air-quality goals in the United States."

source - Technology Review
photo credit - NASA

White House takes air out of new EPA regulations

THIS MARCH, the Environmental Protection Agency was about to take a major step forward in curbing pollutants that cause smog - until it got word from the White House to make it a baby step instead. The weakened rule will result in several thousand preventable deaths annually. Environmental groups and public health organizations should take the EPA to court for letting last-minute interference by the president and the White House's Office of Management and Budget dictate a less stringent standard.

Thanks to improved pollution controls on cars, power plants, and other industries, Americans breathe much cleaner air than they did a generation ago. But smog is still severe enough in many areas to cause respiratory and heart problems and shorten lives.

The rule regulates acceptable levels of ozone, the main component of smog. Ozone forms when the sun heats up vehicle exhaust, smokestack pollution, and emissions from gasoline and many other substances.

Even under the old standard, set in 1997, most of Massachusetts, with the exception of Bristol County and Nantucket, was in violation, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. The new standard will place the entire state out of compliance. Fixing that will require a continuation of the vehicle-inspection and maintenance programs now under way, in addition to efforts to reduce emissions from solvents and paints. New measures, such as encouraging greater energy efficiency to reduce pollution by power generators, likely will be needed as well, according to DEP.

It's well worth the trouble and expense to gain improvements in respiratory health. Nationally, the EPA estimates that its new rule will prevent 1,300 to 3,500 premature deaths a year. A stricter rule favored by its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee would save as many as 9,200 lives a year.

Under current law, EPA can consider the cost of complying with a clean-air standard in setting a timeline of compliance, but not in deciding how stringent the rule should be. Memos leaked last week indicate that input from the bean counters in the budget office did affect the standard, although EPA administrator Stephen Johnson denies it.

Johnson did call recently for amending the Clean Air Act to allow the agency to weigh compliance costs in setting an antipollution rule. Congress should not give this proposal the time of day, and should instead call Johnson before it to explain just what role the White House played in his decision to allow higher smog levels than his own scientific advisers recommended.

Source - boston.com

Clean Diesel Possible With New Diesel Particulate Filter Technology

ScienceDaily (Mar. 14, 2008) — Most diggers and construction machines discharge unfiltered exhaust fumes into the air. This is because special vehicles are made in small batches, and each requires a different filter geometry. Diesel soot filters of varying shapes can now be produced at competitive prices.

Modern diesel cars are not only quieter than their predecessors but also release considerably fewer exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. The filters for heavy-duty, construction and off-road vehicles are not yet state-of-the-art. A new diesel particulate filter technology will soon teach even these vehicles to give up smoking.

Conventional diesel soot filters usually consist of cylindrical ceramic blocks crisscrossed by numerous channels. A block of this kind cannot be made in one piece. Instead, individual quadratic honeycomb segments are bonded together to form a large block. The bonds act as expansion joints that offset the temperature stresses during operation. This is vital, for a solid ceramic block would break apart. The drawback of these square honeycombs is that the angular bonded block has to be ground into a cylindrical shape at the end of production, thus wasting valuable material. What is more, this smooth finishing takes time and requires expensive machinery.

Together with filter manufacturer CleanDieselCeramics CDC and sponsored by Saxony’s economics ministry, developers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems IKTS in Dresden have developed a honeycomb structure with a different geometry. Rather than being rectangular, it takes an irregular four-cornered shape. This allows a wide variety of filter geometries to be created – even close-to-cylindrical ones. Grinding is no longer necessary.

An added advantage of this development is the altered geometry of the channels. Usually, the gas flows into the filter through four-sided channels. The Dresden researchers have opted for a smaller, triangular cross-section. This enlarges the filter surface in the tiny channels. The triangular shape is also more stable, and the filter is less sensitive to lateral pressure.

The partners in this venture have tested and optimized the production method on a pilot production line at the IKTS – and also tested the third innovation, a silicon carbide ceramic developed at the IKTS. The advantage of this latter innovation is that the researchers can easily and precisely adjust the size of the pores for optimum filtration of the soot particles. “As far as the performance and quality of our new development is concerned, we can hold our own against anything on the market,” says IKTS project manager Jörg Adler. The up-and-coming firm CDC is currently building its first plant near Dresden. From spring of this year, about 40,000 filters will be produced there annually and installed in construction machinery as an upgrade kit.


Adapted from materials provided by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft.
(Credit: Image courtesy of Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft)

A Better Way to Capture Carbon

New materials provide a potentially cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Researchers have developed porous materials that can soak up 80 times their volume of carbon dioxide, offering the tantalizing possibility that the greenhouse gas could be cheaply scrubbed from power-plant smokestacks. After the carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the new materials, it could be released through pressure changes, compressed, and, finally, pumped underground for long-term storage.

Such carbon dioxide capture and sequestration could be essential to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, especially in countries such as the United States that depend heavily on coal for electricity. The first stage, capturing the carbon, is particularly important, since it can account for 75 percent of the total costs, according to the Department of Energy.

The new materials, described this week in Science, were created by researchers at UCLA led by Omar Yaghi, a chemist known for producing materials with intricate microscopic structures. They absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide but do not absorb other gases.

Techniques already exist for capturing carbon dioxide from smokestacks, but they use large amounts of energy--15 to 20 percent of the total electricity output of a power plant, according to one estimate, Yaghi says. That is because existing materials, known as amines, need to be heated to release the carbon dioxide they've absorbed. Indeed, capturing and compressing carbon dioxide through these existing methods can add 80 to 90 percent to the cost of producing electricity from coal, says Thomas Feeley, a project manager at the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Feeley says that Yaghi's materials "compare favorably" with other experimental materials that absorb carbon dioxide that are being developed to help bring down these costs. Yaghi says that his materials could lower costs considerably since they use less energy, although exactly how much will require testing the materials at power plants.

Beyond being potentially useful in smokestacks, the materials could be employed in coal gasification plants. In these plants, coal is first processed to produce a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas. The hydrogen is then used to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide could be captured using a solvent that increases energy consumption. But as in the smokestack-based process, the new UCLA materials could require less energy.

The materials belong to a class called zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs). They're made of metal atoms bridged by one of a number of ring-shaped organic molecules called imidazolates. Prior to Yaghi's research, 24 types of ZIFs had been developed over the course of 12 years. Yaghi made 25 new versions in just three months. These materials can be extremely versatile, since the metal atoms can act as powerful catalysts, and the organic molecules can serve as anchors for a number of functional molecules.

The new materials absorb carbon dioxide in part because they're extremely porous, which gives them a high surface area that can come into contact with carbon dioxide molecules. The most porous of the materials that Yaghi reports in Science contain nearly 2,000 square meters of surface area packed into one gram of material. One liter of one of Yaghi's materials can store all of the molecules of carbon dioxide that, at zero °C and at ambient pressure, would take up a volume of 82.6 liters.

While the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, Yaghi thinks that the slightly negative charge of organic molecules in his material attracts carbon dioxide molecules, which have a slightly positive charge. As a result, carbon dioxide is held in place, while other gases move through the material. This method of trapping carbon dioxide is better than some other methods because it does not involve strong covalent bonds, so it doesn't take much energy to release the gas.

The next step for the materials is commercialization. This means scaling up production and incorporating the materials into a system at a power plant, such as by packing the materials into canisters that can be filled with pressurized exhaust gases--something that the UCLA group says could be possible in two to three years. Yaghi estimates that the materials could easily be made in large quantities, since they are similar to other materials he has developed that can now be made by the ton by BASF, the giant chemical company. "Now it's in the hands of industry," Yaghi says. And he has developed automated techniques that could lead to more materials that could have even better properties.

source -- MIT Technology Review

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.

The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of Union of Concerned Scientist's board of directors.

INTRODUCTION

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT

The environment is suffering critical stress:

The Atmosphere -

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.

Water Resources -

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans -

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.

Soil -

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests -

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species -

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.


2. We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.


3. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.


4. We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.


5. We must stabilize population.

This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, and political.

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.

We require the help of the world's religious leaders.

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task.

Making a Living by Making a Difference

Eco-friendly jobs bloom locally and across the U.S. as companies, workers and governments go green...

Think globally, work locally.

Wind farms, ethanol plants and other earth-friendly ventures are creating a new class of green-collar jobs in the Buffalo area.

It’s part of a nationwide hiring trend this Labor Day as industries and governments fight pollution and the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

“The environmental area continues to expand — we have very high demand for our graduates,” said A. Scott Weber, chairman of the department of civil, structural and environmental engineering at the University at Buffalo.

Green-tinted jobs such as environmental engineers and hydrologists, who study ground water, will grow at “much higher than average” rates of 27 percent or more through 2014, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Locally, many jobs linked to the environment and clean energy are new and difficult to measure. They come from a wide range of employers, from consulting firms to government offices and renewable-energy companies that provide alternatives to oil and coal.

Whatever their number, green jobs are growing while many established employers are erasing blue-collar jobs.

At an ethanol fuel plant under construction in Medina, 50 permanent employees are being hired to launch production in December. Owner Western New York Energy is filling openings for operators, supervisors, lab techs and maintenance staff, Chief Financial Officer Mike Sawyer said.

Another planned ethanol plant in Buffalo, the River- Wright project, expects to have 65 permanent employees if it is built and 200 temporary construction jobs. Meanwhile, a forest of 67 wind turbines is sprouting in Wyoming County to join the eight Steel Winds turbines on Lake Erie.

Interest in eco-jobs is on fire, employers say, as workers strive to make a difference while they make a living.

“I get a call a day at least,” said Mark Mitskovski, project manager of the Steel Winds site in Lackawanna, which has three permanent maintenance jobs and several more on temporary status. “Some people don’t see much future in the industry that they’re in.”

Fortunately, skills from mainstream industries can transfer to green jobs.

Steel Winds maintenance chief Ron Kielbiewicz returned to the Buffalo area after working at a power plant in Arizona. His crew includes a former auto-repair worker and a manufacturing worker with welding experience.

“People in Western New York are usually multitasking people with [mechanical] experience — that’s a big plus for us here,” he said.

North Tonawanda native Jaime Davidson got her master’s in environmental engineering at UB in 2001, combining a head for math with a desire to make a difference. Now she works on protecting drinking water and rehabilitating sewer infrastructure at consultant Parsons Engineering Science in Amherst.

“I really believe in what I’m doing — I like making communities better,” she said.

Earnings thrive

Going green doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing income. Environmental engineers in Erie and Niagara counties earned $73,900 a year on average, according to federal Occupational Employment Statistics, while environmental techni- cians earned $35,880 on average. There are 210 environmental engineers working in Erie and Niagara counties, plus 80 environmental engineering technicians.

Many green jobs come from an unlikely source: corporate America. Fortune 500 companies are creating openings as pollution cleanup technologies grow as a source of sales and profits.

At Praxair’s research campus in the Town of Tonawanda, for example, engineers are pursuing clean-coal technology to take greenhouse gases out of smokestacks and bury them in the ground. Another engineering group designs hydrogen fueling stations for future generations of zero-pollution cars.

“These sorts of programs are enabling us to grow, and as we grow we need to hire more people,” said Dan Yankowski, Praxair vice president for global supply systems at Tonawanda.

Of the 1,100 Praxair employees on the site, about 80 percent are working on projects that aid the environment in some fashion, he said, including by reducing energy use at smokestack industries. Their skills range from lab technicians to Ph.D. engineers.

Political support

There’s more than good ecological intentions behind the trend — government incentives to go green are everywhere. New York is among 10 Northeast states pledging to cap carbon- dioxide emissions and roll them back 10 percent by 2019 under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The state Dormitory Authority announced its future construction will meet “green building” standards for design and energy efficiency, part of the governor’s plan to cut energy use 15 percent by 2015.

In Washington, Congress is considering making $120 million a year available to train workers in the clean energy sector through the Green Jobs Act of 2007. Federal subsidies already support the ethanol fuel blend E85 as an alternative to gasoline.

Just what constitutes a green job can be open to interpretation, as employers seek to attract planet-conscious young workers.

There are 19 companies with Buffalo-area offices listed at the EcoEmploy.com Web site. They range from engineering consultancies to corporate training services and one that operates a hazardous waste landfill.

At college recruiting offices, it is common for all sorts of companies to describe themselves as committed to the environment.

“I think the kids see through it,” said Dan Ryan, director of career services at UB. “It’s one of those phrases like ‘dynamic work environment’ — over time it means less.”

By Fred O. Williams

NEWS BUSINESS REPORTER

EPA Must Set a Much Stronger Ozone Air Quality Standard

"The evidence is overwhelming" - The American Lung Association

On June 21, 2007 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to strengthen the official “limit” on ground level ozone smog. Unfortunately, EPA’s proposal fails to follow the law and protect public health adequately from this widespread and dangerous air pollutant.

Overwhelming scientific evidence, including reviews by independent scientists, confirm that public health is seriously at risk and needs much more protection. EPA will take comments until October 9, including at five public hearings in August and September. The American Lung Association and many other medical societies, public health and environmental groups are urging EPA to adopt standards that provide much more protection.

What is ozone?

Ozone (O3), commonly known as smog, forms when hydrocarbon vapors and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight and heat. Nitrogen oxides are emitted from combustion sources such as power plants, industrial boilers, motor vehicles, locomotives, and ships. Hydrocarbon vapors are emitted from motor vehicles, small engines, chemical plants, refineries, factories, gas stations, paint and other sources.

Why is ozone harmful?

Ozone reacts chemically (“oxidizes”) with internal body tissues, such as those in the lung. Some have described it as a strong “sunburn” on the lungs. It acts as a powerful respiratory irritant at the levels frequently found across the nation during the summer months. Ozone exposure may lead to:
􀂃 premature death
􀂃 shortness of breath, chest pain, wheezing and coughing
􀂃 inflammation and damage to the lining of the lung.
􀂃 increased asthma attacks, greater need for medical treatment and for hospitalization for people with lung diseases, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
􀂃 long-term, repeated exposure to high levels of ozone may also lead to reduced lung capacity.

Who are most at risk?

􀂃 people with lung disease, especially chronic lung diseases such as asthma and COPD4
􀂃 children, because their airways are smaller, their respiratory defenses are not fully developed, and their higher breathing rates increase their exposure.
􀂃 people who work or exercise outdoors.
􀂃 senior citizens.
􀂃 otherwise healthy individuals who respond to lower levels of exposure than the average person.

What is the ozone standard?

• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set and regularly review air pollution limits, called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA must follow the latest scientific evidence to set them where they protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations, with an adequate margin of safety.

• The standards help inform the public when the air is unhealthy and drive the clean up of air pollution.

• The last time the EPA revised the standard for ozone air pollution was 1997, when the Agency set an 8-hour average standard of 0.08 parts per million. This current standard is effectively 0.084 ppm due to a loophole that allows states to round down ozone concentrations.

• The Clean Air Act requires that the EPA set the standard to protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety” to protect sensitive populations that respond at lower concentrations than healthy adults. In 2002, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that protecting health was the only basis for the standard.

How is EPA proposing to change the ozone standard?

• Overwhelming evidence shows that the ozone standard must be much stronger than EPA has proposed to protect public health from serious harm.

• EPA has concluded that new scientific studies show that the current standards fail to protect public health, particularly for those with lung diseases, like asthma or emphysema.

• EPA has proposed to set the health standard to a level within the range of 0.070-0.075 ppm (70 -75 ppb) and to drop the rounding loophole. This is a modest improvement but it is weaker than EPA’s science advisors have recommended.

• Importantly, EPA is considering keeping the current weak standard of 0.084 ppm, a move that polluters are pushing . EPA could set a final standard that does nothing.

What did EPA’s independent science advisors recommend?

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is a group of expert scientists appointed under the Clean Air Act to advise the EPA Administrator on the review of the NAAQS. After reviewing the 2,000-page summary of the scientific research and extensive additional analysis by the EPA staff, the 23 ozone scientists unanimously concluded:

􀂃 There is no scientific justification to keep the current primary standard
􀂃 The rounding loophole must be eliminated
􀂃 The 8-hour ozone standard should be set in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm
􀂃 The ozone health standard must explicitly include the “margin of safety” required by the Clean Air Act.

Why does the current standard need strengthening?

New epidemiological and clinical studies have shown that breathing ozone can harm health at concentrations lower than the current standard. This has prompted not only the CASAC, but the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the State of California, EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, the American Medical Association and others to recommend much stricter ozone standards.

• Clinical studies of healthy adults show decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection at the current standard of 0.08 ppm, and studies showing adverse lung function effects and symptoms at 0.06 ppm.

• Breathing ozone can kill. Short-term increases in ozone were found to increase deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory causes in a large 14-year study in 95 U.S. cities. The relationship between mortality and ozone was evident even on days when pollution levels were below concentrations of 0.06 ppm.

• Due to a loophole, communities can round down their measurements and still meet the ozone standard. This means that some large metropolitan areas don’t have to clean up their air. Newer monitoring technology has eliminated the original reason for this practice.

What is the timetable for EPA action?

• August 30, 2007 -- public hearings in Philadelphia and Los Angeles
• September 5, 2007 -- public hearings in Atlanta, Chicago and Houston
• October 9, 2007 -- deadline for written comments
• March 12, 2008 -- EPA announces final standards

What does the American Lung Association Recommend that EPA do?

• The existing standard fails to protect public health, so EPA must strengthen it.
• EPA should set an 8-hour primary standard for ozone of 0.060 ppm to protect public health with a margin of safety.
• EPA must eliminate the rounding loophole.

Public Hearings:

Sign up to speak at the public hearings by contacting Tricia Crabtree of EPA at crabtree.tricia@epa.gov or 919-541-5688.

1. Philadelphia: Thursday, August 30, 2007. Crystal Ballroom, Radisson Plaza— Warwick Hotel Philadelphia, 1701 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Telephone: (215) 735–6000.

2. Los Angeles: Thursday, August 30, 2007. Garden West Room, Wilshire Grand Los Angeles, 930 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Telephone: (213) 688–7777.

3. Atlanta: Wednesday, September 5, 2007. AFC Conference Center, 2nd Floor— Conference Room B, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, Telephone: (404) 562–9077. [Bring a driver's license or other proof of ID.]

4. Chicago: Wednesday, September 5, 2007. Governor’s Suite, The Westin Michigan Avenue Chicago, 909 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611, Telephone: (312) 943–7200.

5. Houston: Wednesday, September 5, 2007. Emerald Rooms 4 & 5, Houston Marriott West Loop by the Galleria, 1750 West Loop South, Houston, Texas 77027, Telephone: (713) 960–0111.

Written Comments:

Send written comments to EPA by October 9, 2007 via email to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Reference Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172. Send copies to your elected officials and Members of Congress.

For More Information:

http://www.cleanairstandards.org/

http://epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html

Stricter US Refinery Emission Rules Not Needed - EPA

WASHINGTON - Health risks linked with toxic air pollution from crude oil refineries are "acceptably low" and don't justify tighter federal rules, the US Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday.

The EPA was required to review its policy on refinery pollutants by a settlement reached in 2006 with environmental groups like the Sierra Club, who had sued the agency in 2005 for missing a 2003 deadline for issuing its review.

In a policy statement, the EPA declined to update refinery emission rules it issued in 1995 because "the risks to human health and the environment are low enough that no further controls are warranted."

Environmental groups said the rules would put the 90 million Americans who live within 30 miles of an oil refinery at increased risk of cancer and other health hazards due to higher exposure to chemicals like naphthalene, toluene and hexane, which the EPA defines as "hazardous air pollutants."

The lifetime cancer risk from exposure to refinery emissions from the proposal - 70 per one million -- is 70 times higher than federal limits, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"We will strongly oppose the Bush administration EPA's do-nothing approach to cancer-causing pollution from oil refineries and urge them to require clean-up measures that will protect the public," said John Walke, an attorney at the environmental group.

The Sierra Club said the EPA was ignoring improvements in emission-reduction equipment since the EPA issued its rules in 1995 to comply with the Clean Air Act.

"The scientific evidence shows that these standards are not protective of public health as required under the Clean Air Act," said Alice McKeown at the Sierra Club.

The EPA said the 1995 standards have reduced emissions from refineries nationwide by about 53,000 tons per year.

The rules were a subject of an Aug. 2 meeting at the White House Office of Management and Budget, which included industry representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

"We appreciate the collaborative effort with the EPA to ensure that the risk information reviewed was accurate," said Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for the refinery group, which lobbies for big US refiners like Valero Energy Corp.

EPA said it could still require reductions from storage vessels and wastewater treatment plants at refineries, which could reduce toxic air emissions at 153 facilities by up to 4,600 tons per year.

The agency action is the end result of a risk-analysis process the EPA must conduct on refinery emissions every eight years to comply with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is still weighing separate but related rules proposed in April to expand pollution controls on the nation's aging oil refineries, forcing companies to install emission-reduction equipment if they build or expand.

The EPA has also issued rules governing the amount of cancer-causing benzene in gasoline.

Story by Chris Baltimore
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Research Finds Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide

About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

David Pimentel, Cornell professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, and a team of Cornell graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation on human diseases.

"We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases," said Pimentel.

Of the world population of about 6.5 billion, 57 percent is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of a world population of 2.5 billion in 1950, said Pimentel. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of 6 million children's deaths each year but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to such killers as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other life-threatening diseases, according to the research.

Among the study's other main points:

Nearly half the world's people are crowded into urban areas, often without adequate sanitation, and are exposed to epidemics of such diseases as measles and flu.

With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, killing 1.2 million to 2.7 million people a year, and air pollution kills about 3 million people a year. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, of which more than half are children.

Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment -- contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.

Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown but spreading of disease microbes and various toxins.

At the same time, more microbes are becoming increasingly drug-resistant. And global warming, together with changes in biological diversity, influence parasite evolution and the ability of exotic species to invade new areas. As a result, such diseases as tuberculosis and influenza are re-emerging as major threats, while new threats -- including West Nile virus and Lyme disease -- have developed.

"A growing number of people lack basic needs, like pure water and ample food. They become more susceptible to diseases driven by malnourishment, and air, water and soil pollutants," Pimentel concludes. He and his co-authors call for comprehensive and fair population policies and more conservation of environmental resources that support human life.

"Relying on increasing diseases and malnutrition to limit human numbers in the world diminishes the quality of life for all humans and is a high-risk policy," the researchers conclude.

# # #

By Susan Lang

Industrial Soot Speeds Global Warming

Industrial Soot Speeds Global Warming
Source: Associated Press
Date: August 9, 2007
Original URL

Around the middle of the 19th century the Arctic took a sooty turn for the worse, according to researchers studying how humans have affected the climate.Soot can darken the snow, causing it to absorb sunlight, warm up and melt. That, in turn, can add to local climate warming by exposing darker ground which absorbs energy from the sun that the white snow would have reflected.

Ice cores from before about 1850 show most soot came from forest fires. But since then, black soot in the snow has increased several times over and most now comes from industrial activities, according to a paper in Thursday's online edition of the journal Science.

In a separate paper in that journal, a team of British researchers forecast that climate warming will slow for about a decade, then bound back to record-setting temperatures. That group added new detail to improve the accuracy of complex computer models that calculate changes in weather and climate to come up with their new outlook.

The soot study was done by a team led by Joseph R. McConnell of the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada. The researchers analyzed black carbon levels in ice from Greenland, covering the last 215 years. They found that the older soot samples contained vanillic acid, an indicator of burning conifer trees.

In the more recent years the soot was seven times more common and contained a larger concentration of non-ocean sulfur, an indicator of industrial emissions.

Soot concentrations peaked in 1906-1910 and remained high for decades. Sulfur emissions declined following the Clean Air Act in 1970, they noted.In the early 20th century the Arctic warmed more than anywhere else on Earth, Richard B. Alley of the California Institute of Technology observes in a commentary on the report, noting a "broad correspondence between the soot peak and the observed warming."

Doug M. Smith and colleagues at the British Meteorological Office produced the improved climate model. They added the effects of natural climate changes, such as the El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, fluctuations in ocean circulation and anomalies in ocean heat content to their computer models.

In general, climate models have focused on the impact of outside factors such as solar radiation, atmospheric aerosols and greenhouse gases.The new outlook calls for a slowdown in warming for the next few years, but then an increase again. They forecast that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year to date according to the Met Office.

The U.S. National Climate Data Center ranked 2005 in a virtual tie with 1998.The arctic soot research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Desert Research Institute, Office of Naval Research and NASA. The climate forecasters were supported by the United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the U.K. Government Meteorological Research Programme.

# # #