Fine particle air pollution is a public health emergency hiding in plain sight

Current evidence suggests that PM2.5 alone causes more deaths and illnesses than all other environmental exposures combined. For that reason, one of us (Douglas Brugge) wrote a book to try to spread the word to the public.

Developed countries have made progress in reducing particulate air pollution in recent decades, but much remains to be done to further reduce this hazard. And the situation has gotten dramatically worse in many developing countries – most notably, China and India, which has grown faster than ever before. According to the World Health Organization, more than 90 percent of the world's children breathe air polluted it threatens their health and development.

As environmental health specialists, we believe the problem of fine particulate air pollution is much more important, especially in the United States. New research is connecting PM2.5 exposure to an alarming array of health effects. At the same time, the Trump administration's efforts to support the fossil fuel industry could increase these emissions when the goal should be further reduced.

Where there's smoke …

Particulate matter is made by burning things. In the United States, the majority of PM2.5 emissions from industrial activities, motor vehicles, cooking and fuel combustion, often including wood. There is a similar series of sources in developing countries, but often with more industrial production and more burning of solid fuels in homes.

Wildfires are also an important and growing source, and winds can transport wildfire emissions. In August 2018, environmental regulators in Michigan reported that fine particles of wildfires in California were impacting their state's air quality.

Most deaths and many diseases caused by particulate air pollution are cardiovascular – mainly heart attacks and strokes. Obviously, air pollution affects the lungs because it comes as we breathe. But once PM enters the lungs, it causes an inflammation of the body throughout the body, much as a bacterial infection would. Additionally, the smallest particles and fragments of larger particles can leave the lungs.

Emerging research to expand the boundaries of health impacts from PM2.5 exposure. To us, the most noticeable is that it appears to affect brain development and has adverse cognitive impacts. The smallest particles can be traced directly to the nose via the olfactory nerve.

There is growing evidence that PM2.5, also called children's central nervous systems. They also accelerate the pace of cognitive decline in adults and increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease.

PM2.5 has received a lot of attention and attention in recent years. Ultrafines are less than those of PM2.5 and are not yet Coarse PM, which is also larger and more typical of physical and sexual processes, may also pose health risks.

Regulatory push and pull

The progress that developed countries have made in the air pollution, especially the PM, demonstrates that regulation works. Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, Los Angeles, New York and other major US cities bore a striking resemblance to Beijing and Delhi today. Increasingly stringent air pollution regulations enacted since then public health and undoubtedly saved millions of lives.

But it was not easy. The first regulatory limits on PM2.5 were proposed in the 1990s, after two major studies showed that it had major health impacts. But industry pushback was fierce, and included accusations that the science behind the studies was flawed or even fraudulent. Ultimately federal regulations were enacted, and follow-up studies and reanalysis confirmed the original findings.

EPA ">

The Trump administration is working to reduce the role of science in shaping air pollution policy and reverse regulatory decisions by the Obama administration. Dr. Robert Phalen, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Irvine, is well known for asserting that modern air is actually too good for the environment, even though the empirical evidence does not support this argument. .

On Oct. 11, 2018, Andrew Wheeler, an EPA Administrator, is criticized by the government. Critics called this an effort to limit the role of public safety in the protection of the environment.

Opponents of regulating PM2.5 in the 1990s at least in the knowledge that they had a role to play, they tried to discredit studies that supported the case for regulation. The new approach seems to be in the scientific process of the process entirely.

No time for complacency

In late October 2018, the World Health Organization convened a special conference on global air pollution and health. The agency is likely to be motivated by the fact that it is likely to be affected by this phenomenon.

This is a highly aspirational target, but it may be focused on the focus of this strategy. .

In any case, it is important to know that it is not the time to move from one of the world's most important arsenals of fossil fuels, to the United States or abroad.

Explore further:
The toxic air we breathe