Danger in the Air—Report Highlights Smoggiest U.S. Cities
Americans should be able to breathe clean air, but pollution from power plants and vehicles puts the health of our nation at risk. Ground-level ozone, the main component of smog, is one of the most harmful and pervasive air pollutants. According to the American Lung Association, nearly half of all Americans—48 percent—still live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog pollution. Studies show that on days with high concentrations of smog pollution, children and adults suffer more asthma attacks, increased respiratory difficulty and reduced lung function. Exposure to smog pollution can exacerbate respiratory illness and cause premature death. Sensitive populations including children, the elderly and people with respiratory illness are particularly at risk.
Though air quality has improved significantly in the last decade as a result of policies at the state and federal level, there is still much to be done, as there are still millions of people living in metropolitan areas exposed to unhealthy levels of pollution. This report ranks metropolitan areas for their unhealthy air days in 2010 and 2011.
This report also presents data indicating that the problem may have been worse than we thought. Because the national health standard for smog pollution set in 2008 was set at a level that scientists agree is not protective of public health, people across the country have been exposed to days of poor air quality each summer without knowing it. We have calculated the additional days on which the air was unhealthy to breathe, according to a pollution threshold that is more consistent with what scientists say is necessary to protect public health, but because the 2008 standard was set too loosely, the public was not alerted.
The major data and findings of our report are broken down into the following categories:
National rankings of the smoggiest metropolitan areas across the country in 2010: The top five smoggiest metropolitan areas in the country in 2010 were in California. Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif. ranked as the smoggiest metropolitan area in the country with 110 smog days, meaning that the area—home to more than 3 million residents—had unhealthy air on one out of three days in 2010. Baltimore;D.C.; Philadelphia; Houston; and Atlanta made up the rest of the top-ten smoggiest metropolitan areas list for 2010.
Rankings of smoggiest cities across the country by population size:
- Of large metropolitan areas, or those with populations over 1 million people, Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif. suffered the worst smog pollution in 2010 by far, with 41 more days than the area in second place: Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. The top five continue with Baltimore; D.C.; and Philadelphia. Two metropolitan areas in each of the following states were among the top 20 smoggiest large areas for 2010: New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
- Among mid-sized metropolitan areas, or those with populations between 250,000 and 1 million people, areas in California again topped the list for worst smog pollution, followed by areas in Tennessee, Delaware, New Jersey, Louisiana, Alabama and Ohio. The top twenty smoggiest mid-sized metropolitan areas include three areas in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and two areas each in Louisiana, Texas and Connecticut.
- San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, Calif. was the smoggiest small metropolitan area (population less than 250,000) in 2010. Three places in Wisconsin were among the top 10 smoggiest small metropolitan areas.
State-by-state rankings of smog in 2010: Across the state of California, there were 135 days in 2010—or more than a third of the year—when at least part of the state experienced smog levels exceeding the health standard. California, Texas, Utah, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio and New York each had at least 30 days in 2010 when part of the state experienced smog levels exceeding the health standard—as many as a month’s worth of days when breathing the air could put people’s health at risk. Seventeen states experienced at least one red alert day for unhealthy air, indicating pollution levels high enough in a particular area so that anyone could start experiencing adverse health effects. Nine states did not record any days in 2010 on which levels of smog pollution exceeded the standard: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.
National rankings of the smoggiest metropolitan areas across the country in 2011, through August 21: The areas of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Calif.; Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, Ga. and Ala.; Fresno-Madera, Calif.; D.C.; Baltimore; New York; Newark, N.J.; Bridgeport, Conn.; and Bridgeport, Pa. were the top areas with the most smog days this past summer, through August 21, 2011.
The air was unhealthy to breathe many more times in 2010 and in 2011 than the public was alerted to because the 2008 standard was not set at a level to protect public health. To demonstrate the discrepancy between the ozone standard set in 2008 (75 parts per billion) and a level that scientists agree is more protective of public health (60-70 parts per billion), this report also looks at the number of times that air monitors recorded a level of 71-75 ppb in 2010, and calculates how many additional days in each metropolitan area the public was exposed to unhealthy air according to a more protective level of 70 ppb. For example, in the Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif. area, there were 110 days when pollution levels exceeded the existing health standard, but there were an additional 25 days on which pollution levels exceeded a level that scientists agree is more protective of public health.
To protect the health of our children and people across the country, many steps can be taken both at the state and federal level to reduce dangerous pollution. First, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must set a national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone within the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion averaged over 8 hours, as unanimously recommended by the independent board of air experts and scientists created under the Clean Air Act to provide periodic review and recommendations on air quality standards. The Obama administration considered updating the 2008 standard, but decided in early September 2011 to abandon this effort and update the standard in 2013.
Pollution from cars and trucks—which accounts for a third of smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions in the U.S.—must be cleaned up by developing cleaner and more efficient vehicles and by improving and expanding public transportation systems.
State and federal governments should accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy economy by passing policies to ensure we get more of our energy from clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar power.
Lastly, Congress should eliminate subsidies that help keep our nation dependent on polluting fossil fuels that put our health and environment at risk. Dirty energy pollutes the air we breathe, threatening our health and our environment. When power plants burn coal, oil or gas, they create the ingredients for ground-level ozone pollution, one of the main components of smog pollution. Especially on hot summer days, across wide areas of the U.S., ozone pollution reaches levels that are unhealthy to breathe, putting our lives at risk. In 2009, U.S. power plants emitted more than 1.9 million tons of ozone-forming nitrogen oxide pollution into the air.
In order to better protect public health, the U.S. EPA should issue a new air quality standard to reduce ground-level ozone pollution. To achieve these reductions in pollution, the U.S. should increase pollution control technologies for power plants and accelerate the transition to clean electricity sources, including wind and solar power. In addition, the U.S. should reduce ozone-forming pollution from mobile sources. Emissions from power plants contribute to widespread ozone pollution. More than half of the people in the United States—56 percent—live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone.
Power plants emitted 1,927,569.3 tons of nitrogen oxide pollution—a key precursor to ozone pollution—into the environment in 2009. Emissions from power plants in just 11 states account for 50 percent of the total nitrogen oxide pollution emitted by power plants. Repeated exposure to ozone can cause permanent lung damage. According to a RAND Corporation health study—in California alone—high levels of ozone pollution contributed to nearly 30,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions and $193 million in hospital medical care from 2005 to 2007.
Children and adults suffer more asthma attacks and increased respiratory difficulty when exposed to ozone pollution. Approximately 3.9 million children and more than 10.7 million adults with asthma live in regions with very high levels of ozone pollution. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 5,000 asthma-related deaths occur each year in the U.S. Children are particularly vulnerable. Children who grow up in areas with high levels of ozone pollution may develop diminished lung capacity, putting them at greater risk of lung disease later in life.
Ozone exposure can impact prenatal health, with research finding that in utero exposure to ozone is associated with lower birth weight and intrauterine growth retardation. Emission controls are helping to reduce health-threatening, ozone-forming pollution from power plants. In the last five years, thanks to standards set by the U.S. EPA, coal-fired power plants achieved reductions in their emissions of nitrogen oxides by an average of 74 percent. Overall electric-sector nitrogen oxide pollution has dropped by almost half without noticeably affecting electricity prices or the reliability of the power system. However, federal standards for ground-level ozone are not sufficiently protective of public health and power plant emissions are still too high. Research shows that the current 8-hour ground-level ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) set in March 2008 under the Bush administration leaves millions at risk. U.S. EPA analysts project that a standard in the range of 60-70 ppb would prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths per year from heart or lung diseases, along with thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and nonfatal heart attacks.
More action is necessary to protect our health and environment from ground-level ozone pollution. To protect our health and our environment, the U.S. EPA should establish a national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone of no higher than 60 parts per billion. Power plants should continue to implement more advanced emission control technologies like selective catalytic reduction systems to reduce ozone-forming nitrogen oxide emissions, and ultimately help areas meet the U.S. EPA air quality standard.
Additionally, to help reduce pollution, state and federal governments should accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy economy. Important steps include: Establishing or increasing renewable electricity standards to ensure that at least 25 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar by 2025; strengthening energy efficiency standards and codes for appliances, and requiring all new buildings use zero net energy by 2030; ramping up investment in solar power through tax credits, specific solar generation targets in state renewable electricity standards, requirements for solar ready homes, rebate programs and other measures; and ending subsidies for fossil fuel industries.
For more information, click here.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Eoin Higgins
Over 300 groups on Monday urged Senate leadership to reject a bill currently under consideration that would incentivize communities to sell off their public water supplies to private companies for pennies on the dollar.
<div id="fea63" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9a6f211c2bc5aedd34837944cb8eeedf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1281000111481294849" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Water in Illinois is overwhelmingly public. Why is Tammy Duckworth sponsoring a bill that aims to change that? https://t.co/1V36Kkd99s</div> — The American Prospect (@The American Prospect)<a href="https://twitter.com/TheProspect/statuses/1281000111481294849">1594249201.0</a></blockquote></div>
- DNC Ignores Progressive Climate Activists - EcoWatch ›
- Who's a Climate Champion and Who's a Climate Disaster? - EcoWatch ›
- California Makes Face Masks Mandatory to Fight Pandemic ... ›
- Here's Why COVID-19 Can Spread So Easily at Gyms and Fitness ... ›
- Hot Weather and COVID-19: Added Threats of Reopening States in ... ›
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
The Washington Redskins will retire their controversial name and logo, the National Football League (NFL) team announced Monday.
By Alyssa Murdoch, Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle and Sapna Sharma
Summer has finally arrived in the northern reaches of Canada and Alaska, liberating hundreds of thousands of northern stream fish from their wintering habitats.
A Good News Story?<p>On the surface, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13569" target="_blank">results from our study</a> appear to provide a "good news" story. Warming temperatures were linked to higher numbers of fish, more species overall and, therefore, potentially more fishing opportunities for northerners.</p><p>Initially, we were surprised to learn that warming was increasing the distribution of cold-adapted fish. We reasoned that modest amounts of warming could lead to benefits such as increased food and winter habitat availability without reaching stressful levels for many species.</p>
Photo of Arctic grayling (left) and Dolly Varden trout (right). Alyssa Murdoch / Lilian Tran / Nunavik Research Centre and Tracey Loewen / Fisheries and Oceans Canada<p>Yet, not all fish species fared equally well. Ecologically unique northern species — those that have evolved in colder, more nutrient-poor environments, such as Arctic grayling and Dolly Varden trout — were showing declines with warming.</p>
Fish Strandings and Buried Eggs<p>Recent news headlines run the gamut for Pacific salmon — from their increased escapades <a href="https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/more-pacific-salmon-showing-up-in-western-arctic-waters/" target="_blank">into the Arctic</a> to <a href="https://www.juneauempire.com/news/warm-waters-across-alaska-cause-salmon-die-offs/" target="_blank">massive pre-spawning die-offs</a> in central Alaska. Similarly, results from our study revealed different outcomes for fish depending on local climatic conditions, including Pacific salmon.</p><p>We found that warmer spring and fall temperatures may be helping juvenile salmon by providing a longer and more plentiful growing season, and by supporting early egg development in northern regions that were previously too cold for survival.</p><p>In contrast, salmon declined in regions that were experiencing wetter fall conditions, pointing to an increased risk of flooding and sedimentation that could bury or dislodge incubating eggs.</p>
Headwaters of the Wind River within the largely intact Peel River watershed in northern Canada. Don Reid / Wildlife Conservation Society Canada / Author provided<p>Interestingly, we found that certain climatic combinations, such as warmer summer water temperatures with decreased summer rainfall, were important in determining where Pacific salmon could survive. Summer warming in drier watersheds led to declines, suggesting that lowered streamflows may have increased the risk of fish becoming stranded in subpar habitats that were too warm and crowded.</p>
The Fate of Northern Fisheries<p>The promise of a warmer and more accessible Arctic has attracted mounting interest in new economic opportunities, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103637" target="_blank">including fisheries</a>. As warming rates at higher latitudes are already <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank">two to three times global levels</a>, it seems probable that northern biodiversity will experience dramatic shifts in the coming decades.</p><p>Despite the many unknowns surrounding the future of Pacific salmon, many fisheries are currently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1374251" target="_blank">thriving following warmer and more productive northern oceans</a>, and some <a href="https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic68876" target="_blank">Arctic Indigenous communities are developing new salmon fisheries</a>.</p><p>As warming continues, the commercial salmon fishing industry is poised to expand northwards, but its success will largely depend on extenuating factors such as <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060023067" target="_blank">changes to marine habitat and food sources</a> and <a href="https://www.yukon-news.com/news/promising-chinook-salmon-run-failed-to-materialize-in-the-yukon-river-panel-hears/" target="_blank">how many fish are caught during the freshwater stages of their journey</a>.</p><p>Even with the potential for increased northern biodiversity, it is important to recognize that some northern communities may be unable to adapt or may <a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/searching-for-the-yukon-rivers-missing-chinook/" target="_blank">lose individual species that are associated with important cultural values</a>.</p>
- New England Fishing Communities Being Destroyed by 'Climate ... ›
- Shrimp Fishing Banned in Gulf of Maine Due to Ocean Warming ... ›
- Atlantic Salmon Is All But Extinct as a Genetically Eroded Version of ... ›
A heat wave that set in over the South and Southwest left much of the U.S. blanketed in record-breaking triple digit temperatures over the weekend. The widespread and intense heat wave will last for weeks, making the magnitude and duration of its heat impressive, according to The Washington Post.
- Hot Weather and COVID-19: Added Threats of Reopening States in ... ›
- 50 Million Americans Are Currently Living Under Some Type of Heat ... ›
- Second Major Heat Wave This Summer Smashes Records Across ... ›
By Joni Sweet
If you get a call from a number you don't recognize, don't hit decline — it might be a contact tracer calling to let you know that someone you've been near has tested positive for the coronavirus.
Interviews With Contact Tracers<p>Contact tracing is a public health strategy that involves identifying everyone who may have been in contact with a person who has the coronavirus. Contact tracers collect information and provide guidance to help contain the transmission of disease.</p><p>It's been used during outbreaks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), Ebola, measles, and now the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.</p><p>It starts when the local department of health gets a report of a confirmed case of the coronavirus in its community and gives that person a call. The contact tracer usually provides information on how to isolate and when to get treatment, then tries to figure out who else the person may have exposed.</p><p>"We ask who they've been in contact with in the 48 hours prior to symptom onset, or 2 days before the date of their positive test if they don't have symptoms," said <a href="https://case.edu/medicine/healthintegration/people/heidi-gullett" target="_blank">Dr. Heidi Gullett</a>, associate director of the Center for Community Health Integration at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and medical director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Health in Ohio.</p>
“You’ve Been Exposed”<p>After the case interview, contact tracers will get to work calling the folks who may have been exposed to the coronavirus by the person who tested positive.</p><p>"We give them recommendations about quarantining or isolating, getting tested, and what to do if they become sick. If they're not already sick, we still want them to self-quarantine so that they don't spread the disease to anyone else if they were to become sick," said Labus.</p><p>Generally, the contact tracer won't ask for additional contacts unless they happen to call someone who is sick or has a confirmed case of the virus. They will help ensure the contact has the resources they need to isolate themselves, if necessary. The contact tracer may continue to stay in touch with that person over the next 14 days.</p><p>"We follow the percentage of people that were contacts, then converted into being actual cases of the virus. It's an important marker to help us understand what kind of transmission happens in our community and how to control the virus," said Gullett.</p>
Why You Should Participate (and What Happens If You Don’t)<p>A <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30457-6/fulltext" target="_blank">Lancet study</a> from June 16, which looked at data from more than 40,000 people, found that COVID-19 transmission could be reduced by 64 percent through isolating those who have the coronavirus, quarantining their household, and contacting the people they may have exposed.</p><p>The combination strategy was significantly more effective than mass random testing or just isolating the sick person and members of their household.</p><p>However, contact tracing is only as effective as people's willingness to participate, and a small number of people who've contracted the coronavirus or were potentially exposed are reluctant to talk.</p><p>"Contact tracers have all been hung up on, cussed at, yelled at," said Gullet.</p><p>The hesitation to talk to contact tracers often stems from concerns over privacy — a serious issue in healthcare.</p>
- Anti-Racism Protests Are Not Driving Coronavirus Spikes, Data ... ›
- Cell Phone Tracking Analysis Shows Where Florida Springbreakers ... ›
NASA scientists say that warmer than average surface sea temperatures in the North Atlantic raise the concern for a more active hurricane season, as well as for wildfires in the Amazon thousands of miles away, according to Newsweek.