Quantcast
Health

Dangerous Air Alert: New Analysis Shows How the Trump Administration Could Hide the Health Risks of Bad Air Days

By Andrew Rosenberg

We all check the weather forecast for sun, rain, UV, allergies and other information that might affect us as we spend more time outside in the summer. That includes alerts on bad air days, when air pollution levels are high enough to be potentially dangerous, especially for children, those with respiratory concerns like asthma and the elderly.


Indeed, there is a nice little numbered, color-coded scale for air quality that warns us when extra caution is needed. Ever wonder where that comes from?

The standards used to determine air quality refer to the average amount of a pollutant in the air. Keeping air quality below a standard determined to be bad for your health is an obviously good idea—as is being aware of when the air is bad or unhealthy. Alerts of bad air days are those that exceed the standard, telling us to watch out!

But now, changes underway at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may make it less likely you'll see a bad air day warning—even when the air is still unhealthy to breathe. That's because the Trump administration is planning on reconsidering the standard for ozone, despite the fact that the science clearly shows that doing so would cause harm.

If the administration is successful in its efforts, we determined how many fewer bad air alerts you'd get if you lived in 19 different metropolitan areas.

Ozone is Dangerous Stuff

Ozone is a critical pollutant in those bad air days the weather forecasters tell us about.

In response to clear scientific evidence that ozone causes harm, especially to children and those with respiratory ailments, the national standard for ozone was lowered in 1997 from 120 to 80 parts per billion (ppb).

Then in 2014, EPA proposed strengthening the standard again to between 65 and 70ppb. The agency received 430,000 public comments on the proposal, with the scientific evidence clearly pointing to the need for a stronger standard. In 2015, the EPA compromised and set the standard at 70 ppb.

That move was opposed by several states, mostly those with large oil and gas industries, and the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. In 2017 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who had opposed the standard on behalf of Oklahoma, announced he would delay implementation for the 70 ppb standard pending a new review. Sixteen states objected and Pruitt allowed the standard to go into effect but remained intent on re-reviewing it.

On June 21, the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on regulating ozone pollution. The committee chairman's opening statement makes it clear that some still seem to believe that protecting public health and having a vibrant economy are incompatible—his statement was full of language about the need to rollback the ozone standard from 70 ppb.

And unfortunately, the Trump administration is taking a lot of actions that undermine the progress we have made on cleaning up the air we breathe, as my colleagues Drs. Gretchen Goldman and Juan Declet-Baretto have written.

It's clear that the EPA seems bound and determined to re-review the basis for the 70 ppb ozone standard, and are likely to argue it is too stringent. Indeed, some of the agency's leading science advisors including the Chair of the Science Advisory Board, Dr. Michael Honeycutt, have even argued—contrary to public health sciencethat the health impacts of ozone aren't that bad .

Hiding the Health Risks of Bad Air Days

If industry and their allies have their way and the standard was raised to, say, 75 ppb as they have previously argued, what do we know about the impacts on public health?

We did a simple analysis to answer the question, "How many days in major cities would be considered 'safe' under a new standard even when they weren't according to our current standard?" Put another way, if you followed the weather warnings of bad air days to potentially limit your kids' time outdoors, how many days would you believe the air to be healthy when it really wasn't because the standards have changed?

The numbers for major cities should worry us all. Here's our look at 19 major metropolitan areas across the country—and how many fewer bad air alerts they would have received since 2015 with a weaker ozone standard in place. In multiple places, nearly a month's worth of days would have been unhealthy without warning–an indicator of the potential impact that weakening the ozone standard would have over the coming years.

Click on any city to see how many fewer days would have been classified as bad air days, even though the air was still unhealthy to breathe (2015–present).

The number of "bad air" ozone days was calculated using downloaded data from the EPA's website that listed daily Air Quality Index (AQI) values. Ozone AQI values are subdivided into six categories based on the EPA's ozone standards and its effect on human health. In a selection of major metropolitan areas, including several where we and our partners and supporters live and work, we calculated the numbers of days from 2015 to the present that would have been labeled as "moderate" instead of "unhealthy for sensitive groups" under a weakened ozone standard (75 parts per billion), thereby escaping detection by the public.

From high to low, the cities with the most number of days affected are: Los Angeles (91), Phoenix (63), Las Vegas (45), Dallas (39), New York (37), Atlanta (28), Chicago (28), Houston (28), Pittsburgh (24), Philadelphia (22), Cincinnati (21), St. Louis (21), Cleveland (19), Washington, DC (19), Detroit (15), Kansas City (11), Boston (10) and Miami (7).

What Does That Mean in Terms of Overall Health Impacts?

According to the EPA's own estimates, after 2025, changing the standard is conservatively expected to annually result in:

  • 280,000 lost school days
  • 390,000 asthma exacerbations
  • 440 to 880 premature deaths

Economically, they estimate that weakening the standard would result in the loss of $2.9 to 5.9 billion annually after 2025. Clearly this does not benefit anyone in the long-run.

This is just one example of the many ways the Trump administration is working to harm our health—and it shows yet again the importance for all of us to be vigilant, and to call out and comment, when we see it happening. You can learn more ways to become engaged in our Action Center.

Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists Center for Science and Democracy.

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Insights/Opinion
Pexels

Tackling Climate Change Requires Healing the Divide

Canadian climate change opinion is polarized, and research shows the divide is widening. The greatest predictor of people's outlook is political affiliation. This means people's climate change perceptions are being increasingly driven by divisive political agendas rather than science and concern for our collective welfare.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Westend61 / Getty Images

EcoWatch Gratitude Photo Contest: Submit Now!

EcoWatch is pleased to announce its first photo contest! Show us what in nature you are most thankful for this Thanksgiving. Whether you have a love for oceans, animals, or parks, we want to see your best photos that capture what you love about this planet.

Keep reading... Show less
Food
Pexels

10 Chefs Bringing Forgotten Grains Back to Life

Millets are a staple crop for tens of millions of people throughout Asia and Africa. Known as Smart Food, millets are gluten-free, and an excellent source of protein, calcium, iron, zinc and dietary fiber. They can also be a better choice for farmers and the planet, requiring 30 percent less water than maize, 70 percent less water than rice, and can be grown with fewer expensive inputs, demanding little or no fertilizers and pesticides.

Keep reading... Show less
Adventure
Háifoss waterfall is situated near the volcano Hekla in the south of Iceland. FEBRUARY / Getty Images

The Essential Guide to Eco-Friendly Travel

By Meredith Rosenberg

Between gas-guzzling flights, high-pollution cruise ships and energy-consuming hotels, travel takes a huge toll on the environment. Whether for business or vacation, for many people it's not realistic to simply stop traveling. So what's the solution? There are actually numerous ways to become more eco-conscious while traveling, which can be implemented with these expert tips.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Animals
Freder / E+ / Getty Images

Surprising Study: Orangutans Are Only Non-Human Primates Who Can 'Talk' About the Past

We already know that orangutans are some of the smartest land animals on Earth. Now, researchers have found evidence that these amazing apes can communicate about past events—the first time this trait has been observed in a non-human primate.

A new study published in the journal Science Advances revealed that when wild Sumatran orangutan mothers spotted a predator, they suppressed their alarm calls to others until the threat was no longer there.

Keep reading... Show less
Health
Suicide rates are highest for males in construction and extraction; females in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media, the CDC found. Michelllaurence / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

CDC: Suicide Rate Among U.S. Workers Increasing

From 2000 to 2016, the suicide rate among American workers has increased 34 percent, up 12.9 per 100,000 working persons to 17.3, according to a worrisome new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Workers with the highest suicide rates have construction, mining and drilling jobs, the U.S. health officials reported Thursday.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Energy
PG&E received a maximum sentence for the 2010 San Bruno natural gas pipeline explosion. Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

Report: 90% of Pipeline Blasts Draw No Financial Penalties

A striking report has revealed that 90 percent of the 137 interstate pipeline fires or explosions since 2010 have drawn no financial penalties for the companies responsible.

The article from E&E News reporter Mike Soraghan underscores the federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) weak authority over the fossil fuel industry for these disasters.

Keep reading... Show less
Politics
Nevada Test and Training Range. U.S. Air Force / Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum

U.S. Navy Proposes Massive Land Grab to Test Bombs

Friday the U.S. Navy released details of a plan to seize more than 600,000 acres of public land in central Nevada to expand a bombing range. The land under threat includes rich habitat for mule deer, important desert springs and nesting sites for raptors like golden eagles.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!