Showing posts with label 1989-06. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1989-06. Show all posts

Monday, 31 March 2014

#134: Fine Particles--Part 3: Federal Standards Allow Disease.

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #134
---June 20, 1989---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com

========================Original Source========================

Particles in the air (smoke, dust, soot, haze) are more dangerous to humans as the size of the particles decreases. Particles are produced by the combustion of fossil fuels (especially coal, but also oil and gasoline), and by burning garbage or hazardous waste. In July, 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially recognized that small particles are more dangerous than larger particles when the agency established air quality standards for particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. A micrometer is a millionth of a meter and a meter is about 39 inches.

Now, just two years later, an extensive medical study has shown that human illness can result from particles in the air at levels that fall within EPA guidelines. In other words, an area may meet the federal requirements and yet still make residents sick.

The EPA standard is called PM-10, meaning it is an air quality standard for "Particulate Matter" 10 micrometers or less in diameter. (See FEDERAL REGISTER July 1, 1987, pgs. 24634-24669.) The older standard was for total suspended particulate [TSP] and it did not take into account the size of particles. The new standard specifically recognizes that particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter are not filtered out by the nose and throat and can pass into the large airways below the trachea. The smallest particles, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, are known as fine particles and they are the most dangerous because they pass all the way to the bottom of the lungs where they can move directly into the blood stream. (See RHWN #131 [revised] and #132b.] The federal air quality standard does not distinguish fine particles from others, though the existence of the PM-10 standard is recognition that small particles are more dangerous than large ones.

The federal standard says that, averaged over a year's time, an area's air should not contain more than 50 micrograms of PM-10 particles in each cubic meter of air; the 24-hour average is not supposed to exceed 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air. A microgram is a millionth of a gram and there are 28 grams in an ounce.

For the past decade, researchers at Harvard University have been studying the relationship of human health to particles in air; their work has been supported by the federal Department of Energy (DOE) which plans to burn coal on a massive scale (since nuclear power is, deservedly, on the ropes). The Harvard researchers have issued periodic reports on their work; the most recent one appeared in March, 1989. This study examined 8131 grade school students in six U.S. cities during the period 197479, and examined the same students again in 1981-82. To avoid complexities of age and race, only 5422 white students aged 10 to 12 were the final subjects of study. The cities were Steubenville, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; Kingston, Tennessee; Portage, Wisconsin; Topeka, Kansas; and Watertown, Massachusetts.

The students were asked about bronchitis, persistent cough, chest illness, wheeze and asthma. Bronchitis required a doctor's diagnosis within the last year; chronic cough was defined as being present for three months during the past year; chest illness required restriction of activity for 3 days or more; wheeze was defined as wheeze apart from colds or for most days and nights during the past year; asthma required the reporting of a doctor's diagnosis. The Harvard researchers also asked about three symptoms they didn't expect to be related to air pollution: earache, hay fever, and non-respiratory illness or trauma that restricted activities for 3 days or more.

The Harvard researchers did not collect data specifically on particles below 10 micrometers in diameter; they collected data (starting in 1978) on PM-15 (particulate matter less than 15 micrometers in diameter). The annual average PM-15 readings were as follows:

The least polluted city was Portage, WI (10 micrograms, or ug); then came Watertown, MA (26 ug), Topeka, KS (33 ug), St. Louis, MO (38 ug), Kingston, TN (42 ug), and finally Steubenville, OH (59 ug), the most polluted. Boys and girls in the more polluted cities were twice as likely to have bronchitis, compared with youngsters in the less polluted cities. Similar results were apparent for chronic cough and chest illnesses.

These results are important because in the most polluted city (Steubenville) the annual average particle count was 59 micrograms per cubic meter and this was a PM-15 measurement; if only particles 10 micrometers or smaller had been counted, the readings would have been substantially lower. In every other city in the study, the measured [PM-15] pollution levels were below the allowable federal PM-10 standard, yet children in those cities reported excessive disease rates. "We found health effects occurring at levels below the current annual average PM-10 standard," of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, says Douglas Dockery, leader of the Harvard study. This study provides unmistakable evidence that the federal standard for particles is inadequate to protect public health and safety.

The Harvard researchers say their results are important for another reason: there is some evidence that chest ailments during childhood predispose a person to permanent, serious breathing problems, like emphysema, in later life.

The study revealed that the 571 students (10.5% of the total) with asthma or persistent wheeze were particularly susceptible to bronchitis. Bronchitis was reported among 25.5% of the children with asthma or wheeze versus 4.0% of those without; for chronic cough the rates were 29.5% versus 3.2% and for chest illness 36.5% versus 7.6%.

When compared separately, those children without asthma or wheeze in the most polluted city were 2.2 times as likely to have bronchitis as non-asthmatics in the least polluted city; those children with asthma or wheeze in the most polluted city were 3.8 times as likely to have bronchitis, compared to asthmatics in the least polluted city.

An important point of this study is that it confirms that the relationship between particles in the air and childhood disease is "linear," which means that the more particles in the air, the more disease there is. This means that ANY increase in particles in the air is likely to cause disease in someone, somewhere. Thus, an incinerator proposing to spew particles into the air is very likely doing so at the expense of some innocent bystander somewhere. The defense, "I'm meeting all applicable state and federal standards" isn't sufficient to prevent illness. Even when a polluter meets those standards, someone will most likely get sick. Who gave polluters the right to make us sick? We, the people, didn't. It must have been someone else. Let's find out who and go after them.

Get: Douglas W. Dockery and others, "Effects of Inhalable Particles on Respiratory Health of Children." AMERICAN REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE, Vol. 139 (March, 1989), pgs. 587-594. For a free reprint, write: Dr. D.W. Dockery, Department of Environmental Science and Physiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: epa; pm-10; children; regulations; health effects; air pollution; air quality standards; asthma; lung diseases; particulates;

#132b: Fine Particles--Part 2: Incineration's Tiny Byproducts Aggravate Asthma, Bronchitis.

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #132b
---June 6, 1989---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com

========================Original Source========================

The most dangerous products of incineration are tiny, invisible, pollution coated particles released into the atmosphere. In the air pollution business, these are known as "fine particles." Despite the best available control technology, incinerators emit large quantities of such particles, which typically measure two micrometers or less in diameter. A micrometer is a millionth of a meter and a meter is 39 inches. Pollution control devices like Venturi scrubbers and baghouse filters are not very efficient at trapping these small particles, so to save money for incinerator operators (and thus encourage incineration, which is the stated goal of the EPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared it "OK" for incinerators to emit large quantities of the smallest particles. Federal law says that an incinerator is allowed to emit 180 milligrams of particles with each cubic meter of air (or 0.08 grains with each cubic foot of air). There are 437.5 grains in an ounce. One large incinerator smoke stack may emit 100,000 cubic feet of air every minute, day in and day out, or 52 billion cubic feet per year. It would be legal for such an incinerator to emit 300 tons of particles yearly. Typically, half of these particles will measure 2 micrometers or less in diameter and thus will be "respirable," which means that you and I can breathe them into the very bottom of our lungs because nature has provided us with no defense against particles this small. From our lungs, they can pass directly into our blood. (See RHWN #131, where we discussed the penetration of these fine particles into human lungs.)
The National Academy of Sciences, in AIRBORNE PARTICLES (Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979), discussed the health dangers of fine particles from many points of view. The "background level" of these fine particles in uninhabited regions of Canada is 1 to 3 micrograms in each cubic meter of air; in the rural Midwest, you'll find 5 to 12 micrograms in each cubic meter of air. This is not a "natural" background level; it represents pollution created by humans. Nevertheless, this background level is a good standard against which to judge the allowable emission of particles from incinerators. The allowable emissions from an incinerator exceed background concentrations by anywhere from a factor of 15,000 to a factor of 180,000. The EPA is relying upon dilution to protect you. They will argue that, by the time those particles reach your lungs, they will be diluted in a lot of fresh air and thus won't be quite so far above background levels when you breathe them. But this, of course, depends upon how close you live to an incinerator, how the wind currents go, whether there are thermal inversion conditions in your local atmosphere, and so forth. There is growing evidence (to be presented next week)#133 that the EPA's dilution strategy isn't safe.

Fine particles remain airborne for long periods of time, and before they fall to earth they can travel several hundred miles or even farther. They can present a danger to humans all along their route. Fine particles weigh so little that they do not respond predictably to the pull of gravity. The smallest air current keeps them aloft. These particles are so small that rain drops do not wash them from the atmosphere. You are no doubt familiar with the force of air being pushed ahead of a truck barreling down the highway; it gives your car a push as it goes by. In the same way, raindrops (which measure 500 to 9000 micrometers in diameter) push air ahead of them as they fall, and they knock fine particles aside instead of washing them to earth.

Increasing the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere is not good for people. Hardest hit are those with bronchitis and asthma, those who are very young or old, and those who exercise outdoors. Breathing through your mouth (which is one of the first things people do when they exercise, play sports, or jog) increases the intake of fine particles into the lungs. In addition, some healthy people absorb 50% more fine particles into their lungs than the average. The reasons for this are not understood. One particularly important aspect of fine particles is that they carry into our lungs pollutants that could not otherwise get there. In this sense, fine particles have synergistic (multiplier) effects with other pollutants. The Academy said, "The generally accepted view of synergism extends beyond potentiation [increasing a pollutant's power] to include the role of toxic vector [carrier]. Such gases as sulfur dioxide are probably either adsorbed to the particulate surface or absorbed into the particles, and thereby transported into the alveolar regions [in the deep lung], where they exist in high, localized concentrations. These localized high concentrations [in the lung] could not be produced without particles. Accordingly, sulfur dioxide sorption to particulate matter might effectively allow sulfur dioxide penetration into the alveolar regions at even nominal environmental concentrations of the gaseous pollutant." In other words, "normal" or "acceptable" levels of sulfur dioxide may be made dangerous by the presence of fine particles.


"In summary," said the National Academy, "particulate atmospheric pollutants may be involved in chronic lung disease pathogenesis as causal factors in chronic bronchitis, as predisposing factors to acute bacterial and viral bronchitis, especially in children and cigarette smokers, and as aggravating factors for acute bronchial asthma and the terminal stages of oxygen deficiency (hypoxia) associated with chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema and its characteristic form of heart failure (cor pulmonale)."


--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: lung disease; particulates; air pollution; air quality; canada; bronchitis; emphysema

Friday, 28 March 2014

#133: EPA Wants To Rename Love Canal 'Sunrise City,' Move People Back Into Contaminated Neighborhoods. (dioxin)

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #133
---June 13, 1989---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY
Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library.
Dioxinnz.com
=================================Original Source========================

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it will move families back into homes in contaminated neighborhoods at Love Canal, near Niagara Falls, New York, this summer. WE ARE ASKING OUR READERS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PREVENT THIS WRONG: we ask you to write two letters. Here's why it is important:

The EPA plans to rename Love Canal "Sunrise City," so "Love Canal" will disappear from America's vocabulary. It is a move calculated to eradicate the major symbol of corporate stupidity and greed that launched the grass roots movement for environmental justice back in 1980, when housewife Lois Gibbs gathered her courage, rallied her neighbors, fought a bitter struggle for her children's lives, and forced the phrase "toxic waste" onto evening TV news screens across America.

As a direct result of a terrific fight waged by Lois and her neighbors in the late '70s, President Jimmy Carter in 1980 responded to pressure in a human way, and the federal government bought 235 homes and moved the families out. Now the federal government, and many state governments, are facing similar demands all across the country: people living near toxic chemical dumps are demanding to be bought out and relocated. After nearly a decade of eyewash and promises, it has become clear that the Superfund program to clean up 1000 chemical dumps isn't going anywhere. The EPA has not been able to clean up Superfund dumps because cleanup technology really doesn't exist, at least not for the sums of money the EPA is willing to spend, so people are demanding to be moved out, relocated, resettled. They want the terror to stop, they want their children's health given back, they want peace of mind. In short, they want environmental justice.

For its part, the federal government hopes to dig in its heels and stonewall. If they succeed, thousands of families across America will be the losers. It will become harder and harder to argue for relocation. More and more people will find themselves trapped permanently next to toxic dumps, their children suffering rashes and abdominal pain and seizures and headaches and diminished ability to learn, the measurable effects of chemical exposures. It is a cruel prospect, hardly American at all--more in line with public policies we associate with totalitarian societies.

To pull off this cruel shift in public policy, the EPA must rewrite history and declare Love Canal habitable. (We note that the EPA never refers to Love Canal as "safe." They say only, in carefully-worded press releases, that it has been declared "habitable.") Without exactly saying so, the EPA wants to establish a precedent, that people poor enough and unlucky enough to live near a dump are just out of chips, that's all. Too bad. The implication is that real Americans will learn to live with chemical dumps; only wimps and cry babies would even WANT to be relocated.

And what more important place to establish this precedent than at Love Canal itself? Love Canal is a place where human babies were sacrificed to the chemical industry. The health damage to those children has been documented more than once. The first health study completed by the state of New York revealed that 56% of the children living along Love Canal itself were born with birth defects. Longer-term studies of a larger number of children have shown that the effects of the Canal extended into other neighborhoods besides the homes fronting directly on the dump. These studies have shown that low birth weight babies were 2.3 times as likely to occur among homeowners living near Love Canal, compared to a control group living elsewhere in Niagara Falls (11.1% vs. 4.8%). Serious birth defects were twice as likely to occur among those living near the Canal (12.1% vs. 6.2%). These studies found seizures 2.5 times as prevalent among Love Canal kids as among controls; learning disabilities were 1.5 times as prevalent; hyperactivity was almost 3 times as prevalent; eye irritation was twice as prevalent; skin rashes occurred twice as often; abdominal pain was twice as prevalent; incontinence occurred three times as often. Thus by seven health measures, living near

Love Canal is associated with sickness among children. (For more details, see RHWN #104.)

But Love Canal has been cleaned up, hasn't it? LOVE CANAL HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED UP AT ALL. A clay cap has been placed over the worst contamination, but the chemical wastes that seeped into Lois's basement are still in the ground, a toxic time bomb waiting to kill and maim future generations of children. The EPA is unwilling to spend the kind of money it would take to clean the place up. Worst of all, they are not even willing to force industry to spend the money to clean up its own mess. Instead, they want to "solve" the problem by linguistic trickery--declare the place "habitable," give it a new name that makes it sound like a Florida resort, and hope that no one remembers the awful truth about what happened there.

This is a dark day indeed. The EPA is even using bastardized science to justify this public relations stunt. The agency hired scientists who compared the Love Canal neighborhood to two inner-city neighborhoods in Niagara County, which are themselves contaminated. One of these "control" neighborhoods is actually contaminated by some of the same wastes as Love Canal, presumably dumped by the same company--

Occidental Petroleum. 

These scientists found few differences in the levels of chemicals measured in the three neighborhoods, and on that basis they have declared Love Canal "habitable." GIVEN THE HEALTH DATA FROM LOVE CANAL, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE justified in DECLARING THE OTHER TWO NEIGHBORHOODS "UNINHABITABLE." But what would the Mayor, the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and Occidental Petroleum have said about that? The scientists reached the conclusion that EPA, local boosters and the polluters needed.

Worse yet, these scientists compared Love Canal to two other neighborhoods outside the area and found Love Canal significantly more contaminated than these other two "control" areas, BUT THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE THESE DATA ENTIRELY. This is science in the service of propaganda.

Now the EPA plans to move poor and blue collar families into the homes that were originally abandoned. (The most contaminated of those original homes were bulldozed; the remaining ones are less contaminated, but health damage has been recorded among some of the families who inhabited the homes EPA now wants to open up again.) New families will be sacrificed to the god Progress Through Chemistry. Lois herself is now leading the fight to stop this travesty. Lois is asking--and we are asking--everyone to write two letters, one to William Reilly, Administrator of U.S. EPA [401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 200024], and one to Governor Mario Cuomo [State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224]. BUT PLEASE DO NOT MAIL YOUR LETTERS TO THESE GENTLEMAN--mail them to Lois Gibbs, P.O. Box 926, Arlington, Va 22216. Lois will get them into the hands of Mr. Reilly and Mr. Cuomo in some creative way this summer, as part of a strategy to stop the reinhabiting of Love Canal.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: love canal; epa; ny; niagara falls; health effects; birth defects; children; developmental disorders; skin disorders; occidental petroleum;