Stroke risk increased when air pollution
was moderate in Boston area
Publication: The Boston Globe
Date: May 17th, 2012
This graphic shows
the visibility of how bad the air quality is in some certain areas because of
industry and cars. Not all air quality is visible like this to show how bad or
good it is.
Link to Graphic: http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/indoor-air-pollutiuon-facts-what-is-indoor-air-pollution-and-how-to-reduce-it/
Summary:
Car
exhaust and other forms of air pollution may substantially increase the risk of
strokes. This includes levels that are considered to be safe by the federal
regulations. A research team reviewed medical records of 1,700 patients in the
Boston area over ten years and found a 34% increase in strokes. The strokes
happened on days with moderate air quality levels compared to days when air
quality was considered very well by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Although
during the days with moderate air quality there was more particulate matter in
the air. Researchers matched the stroke
symptoms patients had to hourly measurements of air pollution taken at Harvard
School of Public Health’s environmental monitoring station, which was within 13
miles of 90 percent of the stroke patients’ homes. Rather than relying
on when patients who had strokes were taken to the hospital, they estimated the
time when strokes would occur. Also they used the conformation of neurologists
rather than insurance billing records for the research. Within their research
they found the peak risk of strokes occurring to patients 12 to 14 hours before
having a stroke and that stroke risks were more closely tied to black carbon
and nitrogen dioxide from cars than any other pollution source. The Boston
researchers estimated that reducing the particulate matter they studied by
about 20 percent could have prevented 6,100 of the 184,000 stroke
hospitalizations in 2007.
Opinion:
I am just stunned to read
about how bad air pollution can be and its correlation with strokes. I knew
before that certain air qualities were bad for certain people but I would have
never assumed moderate air quality being bad still. I think the EPA should
review and revise the air quality index or what is considered to be a safe
level for air quality. It would be real bad for people with certain health
problems if they were to go out in a bad air quality level zone because of
misleading information. I go outside but never take into notice of air quality
because I do not have any health problems relating to strokes or asthma.
However I think it is still important to know about the right information on
the air quality because it could be real dangerous. I think this especially
because we live in the northeastern area of the United States which was very
close to the research done on air quality and strokes. It is scary to think that
some people are victimized with strokes because of bad air quality and even
scarier that some people die from it. It is surprising though that the effect
of bad air quality does not show up until 12 to 14 hours later. I cannot
imagine how many people that could have been saved from going to the hospital
or dying if it would have been verified sooner. The main source of the air
quality being terrible comes from black carbon and nitrogen dioxide and those
come from cars. I would have suspected factories giving out these fumes and
causing people to get strokes. This is surprising yet it seems a bit good at
the same time. This could open to more ideas on trying to get everything more
energy efficient. I think for cars people will buy more hybrids which are
healthier for the environment and their wallet. Also I think getting solar
power for a lot of things would be even more helpful. However I think this is a
bit of wishful thinking because not everyone will quickly move onto more “energy
efficient” things too quickly. Spreading the idea of energy being efficient I
think will start getting people to become more energy efficient which will thus
help air quality to become healthier.
Questions:
1.
What do you think the air quality is like in
other countries without much industry or automobiles? Explain.
2.
How do you see our countries air quality in 10
years if we keep going as we are? How about with changing to energy efficient
products? Explain.
3.
What do you think people with health problems
(asthma, memory loss, physically unhealthy, etc.) would say about air quality
after reading this article?
4.
What else do you think makes air quality better
and worse? Why? (Provide at least 2 reasons each).
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteIt's stunning how the EPA safety limits for air quality are so low that strokes can occur and the air quality still be in the EPA's safety range. The EPA should review the limits, and change the safety range accordingly. I know personally that if I got a stroke due to air quality and the EPA said the air quality was safe, I would be furious and possibly go as far to take legal action against the EPA. The amount of pollutants that come from black carbon and nitrogen dioxide (from cars) is more than any other pollution type, and with the increase in car emissions and stroke occurrence, a correlation can be drawn. The strokes could easily be prevented if there was more cars with high fuel efficiency and less cars overall. I know when I get a car that it will need to get amazing fuel economy to be an option to me, and that cars with bad fuel economy are a waste environmentally. If 6,000 deaths can be prevented by reducing particles in the air, I will definitely join the cause. Using a decision making model that we learned about in class, a fuel efficient car is definitely a better choice than a car with bad fuel economy, and I will definitely consider buying a extremely fuel efficient car.
Answer to Question 1
As the article said, much of the pollution is derived from car emissions and industry. In countries without either of these, the air quality is most likely much better compared to America's air quality. With the absence of major pollution sources, the air quality is uninterrupted by human activity, and assuming air quality without human interference is good, air quality in less developed countries is better than America's air quality.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteWhen I go outside, the last thing on my mind is how the air quality is today. I might be thinking of the place I am headed to or the weather outside, but to take into consideration the air I am breathing is something I should not have to do. With agencies like the EPA to regulate these type of things, I thought I would not have to worry about such matters. However, the new set of air pollution regulations came out after the study was done. It is a shame that we have to wait another five years until the EPA can examine the air pollution with the new information in mind. If the regulations for the air pollution are not going to be changed, I think people, especially stroke-prone citizens, should be wary when outside. For the most part, though, the air does not seem to be that bad. Most of us are doing well enough—at least seemingly so—but there are precautions some people have to think about.
Questions:
1) At one point, air pollution might become dangerous in the EPA’s mind. When that happens, the EPA will want people to change their ways. How far would you go to lessen the air pollution?
2) Is this new level of measured pollution a general hazard or merely a data change of significance to a very small percentage of actual people?
3) Is air pollution a national or local danger, and, if local, should there be different policies for different national locales?
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteThis article summary drew my attention quickly when I read it was about strokes, because I have a relative that fell ill due to one of them. But, then as I kept reading, I saw that strokes are now correlating with air quality/pollution. I fing it very misleading and even criminal that the regulations are misadvising citizens of how dangerous or safe air quality is. I agree with Jung that the EPA should recalcuate and revise which air qualities are safe or hazardous for the safety of people. Also, since research showed that most strokes occurred near a pollution source from factories, I think it is ethical for factories to pay a fine to help medical bills, or simply cut their emissions. As Jung said, they can switch to renewable and efficient energies such as solar, wind, etc. However, these modifications will not come quick due to costs, time, and effort. The article even said that if emissions were merely reduced by 20 percent, over 6,000 strokes could have been prevented, and this is just Boston. Which drew me to the question, why this study was conducted in Boston. We learned in class that areas such as Denver and Los Angeles are very polluted cities, but I never learned Boston was. I would find it interesting for scientists to do the same study in China, because their air quality is often Hazardous, meaning fatalities could occur.
Expansion:
As I said in my opinion, I wondered if studies had been done in the most polluted part of the world, China. Therefore, I found an article relating the massive country's air pollution. It is a crisis many officials worry about, so throughout the article solutions are given. Many of them deal with car modifications, since much of the air pollution comes from automobiles. Hybrid and electric cars are being invented by companies we well know, GM and Volkswagen. After I read this part, I thought, maybe GM and VW can do this for our country as well to improve our air quality (as we need it in Boston obviously). Other solutions included restricted driving, more electric charge places for cars, and buses with hybrid engines. Maybe China's advancements can possibly rub off on us. To find out more, read the following link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-29/china-to-spend-315-million-yearly-on-alternative-energy-cars
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThis article was very surprising and interesting to me. I was surprised how car exhaust fumes are harmful to people and that moderate levels of air are still toxic. That means people who live have a very big chance of getting strokes, which is bad because strokes are very harmful. This shows that we should stop driving as much especially in cities to reduce these risks. I can’t believe how that reducing the particulate matter would have gotten rid of 6100 of the 184000 strokes in 2007. Overall this article was very interesting and surprising.
Answer to question 2.
I think that our air quality will severely decline in the next few years. First of we use more fossil fuels than any other country which makes our air quality dirty. Also we are not that far in technology with alternate energy resources as far as I know. Now unless we switch to cleaner energy methods our air will be very dirty. We should try and use more solar and wind that are clean sources, unlimited and don’t produce waste.