Report: Most Americans still live in unclean air

Report: Most Americans still live in unclean air
By SUE MANNING
Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 28, 2010


LOS ANGELES – Six in 10 Americans — about 175 million people — are living in places where air pollution often reaches dangerous levels, despite progress in reducing particle pollution, the American Lung Association said in a report released Wednesday.

The Los Angeles area had the nation's worst ozone pollution.

The report examined fine particulate matter over 24-hour periods and as a year-round average. Bakersfield, Calif., had the worst short-term particle pollution, and the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale area of Arizona had the worst year-round particle pollution.

The U.S. cities with the cleanest air were Fargo, N.D., Wahpeton, N.D., and Lincoln, Neb.

The report is accurate but doesn't show how far California has come, said Dimitri Stanich, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board.
"More than 45 percent of the days in the 1990 ozone season were considered very unhealthy (in the South Coast area). Today, 45 percent of the days are clean, more than double the number of clean days during 1990."

Continue reading: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_sc/us_polluted_cities
- - -

American Lung Association's report:
http://www.stateoftheair.orgShare this on Facebook: Share

Common Cleaning Chemicals Make Breathing Harder

Common Cleaning Chemicals Make Breathing Harder
A small study finds indoor air pollution from everyday products impairs breathing in older people.
By Leah Zerbe LINK TO FULL ARTICLE BELOW

Snuff out paraffin candles for good; instead, use beeswax or soy. And use white vinegar instead of harsh cleaners.

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns that thousands of common household items, including many cleaners, candes, paints, glues, printer ink, pesticides, and vinyl flooring, are releasing volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, into your indoor air, posing a number of health problems. And a new study looking at the effects on the elderly suggests these irritating chemicals are actually decreasing their ability to breathe, worsening living conditions for those with heart disease or lung ailments.

THE DETAILS: The small study looked at 154 people 60 years old or older who lived at home but spent their days at senior centers. The participants performed up to eight spirometric tests, designed to measure the amount and force with which people exhale and inhale. The tests are commonly used in evaluating asthma and other lung diseases.

Researchers also used urine samples to detect levels of VOC breakdown substances—chemicals indicating the presence of VOCs in the body—and tested for oxidative stress markers that indicate cellular damage. They found that when metabolites of the VOCs toluene and xylene were present, there were significant decreases in lung functioning and increases in oxidative stress, which can damage cells, tissues, and organs. The authors conclude that toluene and xylene create a harmful effect on lung function by worsening oxidative stress in elderly people.

WHAT IT MEANS: Many studies focus on the harmful effects of VOCs in occupational settings, but this is one of the first looking at health effects of VOC exposure during everyday living. And while the researchers only looked at older adults, there are good reasons for all of us to keep products that contain VOCs out of our homes. According to the EPA, the health effects associated with VOC exposure can vary greatly depending on the compound. Some short-term effects include asthma attacks, allergic skin reactions, dizziness, and headaches. There hasn't been much research looking at long-term effects of VOC exposure in the home setting.

Here's how to cut indoor air pollution in your home, no matter what your age.

• Don't let your paint leave you panting. Finding low- or no-VOC paint is easier than ever, with different brands available at many local hardware stores and national chains. So choose these options over regular paint. But always remember to ventilate while painting, no matter what type of paint you use.

• Can scented candles. Last year at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting, University of South Carolina State researchers unveiled new research that found burning petroleum, or paraffin, candles (the most common kind) emitted carcinogenic chemicals like the VOC toluene and the carcinogen benzene, the same pollution that comes out of tailpipes. On the flip side, soy-based candles did not.

Please read the full article:
http://www.rodale.com/improve-indoor-air-quality?cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-_-2010_04_13-_-Top5-_-NA


Share this on Facebook: Share

Snow Atop the Andes Mountains No Longer Pure … Why Should This Concern You?

Snow Atop the Andes Mountains No Longer Pure …
Why Should This Concern You?
by www.SixWise.com
Link to full article below

Stretching 4,500 miles from Venezuela to the tip of Chile are the Andes Mountains, drawing thousands of visitors each year to witness the longest mountain range along with one of the highest mountain peaks in the world.

Traces of toxic PCBs have made their way to one of the “purest” places on Earth: the top of the Andes mountains.

Sadly, even remote parts of the world like this -- long considered to be among the purest forms of nature -- have been tainted by environmental pollutants. In a recent study researchers tested snow samples from Aconcagua Mountain in Argentina, which is considered the highest peak in the Andes at 22,834 feet high, and found traces of a toxic pollutant called PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls).

How PCBS are Making Their Way Into the Environment

PCBs are a mixture of 209 man-made chlorinated chemicals. They can enter the environment through air, water, and soil during their manufacture, use, and disposal; from accidental spills and leaks during their transport; and from leaks or fires in products containing PCBs.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), before being banned in the United States in 1979, PCBs were found in various products such as old fluorescent lighting fixtures and electrical devices containing PCB capacitors, old microscope and hydraulic oils, paints and carbonless copy paper.

Even though the traces of PCB found in the Andes snow samples were low, researchers expressed serious concerns because:

1. These contaminants found their way through the atmosphere to these very remote areas of 20,340 feet elevation
2. A change in climate -- such as a warm spell that would cause glaciers to melt -- would lead to pollutants finding their way into the meltwater that is used for agriculture and drinking

Please read the full article: http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/December/23/Snow-Atop-the-Andes-Mountains-No-Longer-Pure.htm?source=nl

Use Windows for Cross Ventilation Keep cool and comfortable with less air conditioning.

Use Windows for Cross Ventilation
Keep cool and comfortable with less air conditioning.
By Brian Clark Howard Link to full article below

In many areas, you can save money on cooling bills by opening up your windows in the mornings and evenings, when the temperatures are typically more pleasant.

Cross ventilation works by taking advantage of high and low pressure zones created by wind to draw fresh air through a building. Breezes enter through a window or vent, bringing fresh air, while the pressure difference on both sides of the building pulls stale air out an opening in the other side. The key, of course, is to have open windows (or vents) on opposite sides of the structure.

To read the full article: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/cross-ventilation-460708?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist

******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.

Analysis Finds Elevated Risk From Soot Particles in the Air

Analysis Finds Elevated Risk From Soot Particles in the Air
By FELICITY BARRINGER
June 2, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/earth/03soot.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

A new appraisal of existing studies documenting the links between tiny soot particles and premature death from cardiovascular ailments shows that mortality rates among people exposed to the particles are twice as high as previously thought.

Dan Greenbaum, the president of the nonprofit Health Effects Institute, which is releasing the analysis on Wednesday, said that the areas covered in the study included 116 American cities, with the highest levels of soot particles found in areas including the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles and the Central Valley of California; Birmingham, Ala.; Atlanta; the Ohio River Valley; and Pittsburgh.

The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase.

A variety of sources produce fine particles, and they include diesel engines, automobile tires, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.

Comparing exposure within the New York and the Los Angeles metropolitan areas, the study found that the risks were evenly distributed in the vicinity of New York while some areas around Los Angeles, including neighborhoods near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, had elevated health risks.

The extended epidemiological analysis, which draws on data gathered from 350,000 people over 18 years, and an additional 150,000 people in more recent years, was conducted for the Health Effects Institute by scientists at the University of Ottawa.

To read the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/earth/03soot.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Report: Air Not Fit to Breathe for 60 Percent of U.S. Population

Report: Air Not Fit to Breathe for 60 Percent of U.S. Population
A new State of the Air report finds air pollution levels at unhealthy levels in almost every major city in the country.
By Leah Zerbe

http://www.rodale.com/print/808
http://www.rodale.com/most-polluted-cities?cm_mmc=DailyNewsNL-_-2009_04_29-_-Top5-_-NA

04-29-09 RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Six out of every 10 people in this country are breathing air so contaminated it endangers their lives, according to the American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2009 report. “This should be a wake-up call. We know that air pollution is a major threat to human health,” says Stephen J. Nolan, chair of the American Lung Association National Board. “When 60 percent of Americans are left breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill, [then] air pollution remains a serious problem.”

THE DETAILS: For the tenth annual report, researchers examined air quality reports from U.S. counties that monitor pollution, looking at ozone and particle pollution. They found that more than 186 million people live in counties where outdoor air pollution levels receive an “F” grade. About 40.5 million people live in U.S. counties where outdoor air failed all three tests.

To read the full article: http://www.rodale.com/print/808

New Greenhouse Gas: MIT Researchers Identify Potent New Greenhouse Gas

New Gas: MIT Researchers Identify Potent New Greenhouse Gas
March 11, 2009

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/11/new-gas-mit-researchers-identify-potent-new-greenhouse-gas/
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/11/new-gas-mit-researchers-identify-potent-new-greenhouse-gas/tab/print/

The unintended law of consequences strikes again. The 20-year old campaign to save the ozone layer has led to the widespread industrial use of a greenhouse gas 4,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol was established to limit emissions of chlorofluorocarbons and other gases that deplete the ozone layer, the big worry in the 1980s. One of the targeted compounds was methyl bromide, which was widely used in fumigation to kill weevils and mice and other pests that threaten food supplies. Methyl bromide was phased out in 2005.

Dow Chemical´s AgroSciences unit came to the rescue, dusting off research on an old compound called sulfuryl fluoride, which has now become the standard fumigant.

Just one problem, say researchers at MIT: Sulfuryl fluoride lasts a lot longer in the atmosphere than expected and is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The good news is that the concentration of Dow´s new fumigant in the atmosphere is still tiny. The researchers will publish their findings, which were compiled with the help of Dow AgroSciences, tomorrow in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

When Dow was pressing for EPA approval of sulfuryl fluoride in 2002 (eventually given in 2004), it didn´t think the new compound presented any global warming threat. In a technical bulletin published then, Dow said:

The relatively small amounts of sulfuryl fluoride released are calculated to have virtually no impact on the global atmosphere. Standard atmospheric modelling indicates that sulfuryl fluoride will have an insignificant contribution to global warming because of the low sulfuryl fluoride to carbon dioxide ratio (< ;0.0001).

The new findings may cause dismay for an industry that just finished complying with one environmental imperative only to find that the cure might have been worse than the disease. But at least the new findings come soon enough to make changes without too much pain, said Ron Prinn, director of MIT´s Center for Global Change Science and a co-author on the new paper. It´s "a new frontier for environmental science - to try to head off potential dangers as early as possible, rather than wait until it´s a mature industry with lots of capital and jobs at stake," he said in a statement.

And making the first switch from methly bromide to sulfuryl fluoride hasn´t exactly kneecaped the fumigation business-the new compound is cheaper and more effective than what it replaced, meaning the environmental imperative also carried business benefits.

The whole imbroglio does underscore how tough it is to foresee the consequences of wide-reaching environmental regulations. The Montreal Protocol proved very effective at curbing ozone-killing emissions. It also proved surprisingly effective-five times more than the Kyoto Protocol-at reducing emissions of known greenhouse gases, which it wasn´t even meant to do.

But saving the ozone layer may slightly exacerbate some aspects of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found. Some ozone-depleting gases lead to warming, and some-like methyl bromide in particular-help cool temperatures.

Is Your Computer Printer Hazardous to your Health?

Is Your Computer Printer Hazardous to Your Health?
by www.SixWise.com

http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/February/18/Is-Your-Computer-Printer-Hazardous-to-Health.htm?source=nl

Sitting next to a laser printer could be akin to having your desk next to a chain smoker, researchers from the Queensland University of Technology in Australia revealed in 2007.

Their groundbreaking study found 30 percent of the laser printers they tested released tiny particles of toner-like material into the air, in concentrations ranging from low to high. The particles were described as "causing lasting damage on the scale of inhaled cigarette smoke,” and breathing in these tiny particles has been linked to respiratory illness, heart disease, lung disease and cancer.

"Even very small concentrations can be related to health hazards," said author Lidia Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in the San Francisco Chronicle. "Where the concentrations are significantly elevated means there is potentially a considerable hazard."

Alarmingly, the researchers found laser printers could increase particulate matter in the air by up to 400 percent.

The printers in the original study were manufactured by common names including Hewlett-Packard, Toshiba, Ricoh and Canon -- and all used toner instead of ink. What was mysterious about the study’s findings, however, was why certain printers emitted high levels of particles, while others were relatively low.

Now, a follow-up study by the same group of researchers may have discovered the reason for the discrepancy.

They tested two printers from the same manufacturer, one of which may emit 100,000 percent more particles into the air than the other. What they found was that a reaction between the air and organic compounds on the paper and from the toner was producing the toxic emissions -- and the temperature of various components within the printer was responsible for the increased levels.

The researchers concluded that printer companies should investigate the temperature issue in order to make their laser printers safer, but for now potentially dangerous versions still remain on the market.

What Can You do if You Work Near a Laser Printer?

Although Hewlett-Packard has dismissed the idea that printer emissions are a public health risk, you may still want to take some precautions.

Because of their small size, ultra-fine particles in the air are especially dangerous.

"Ultra-fine particles are of most concern because they can penetrate deep into the lungs where they can pose a significant health threat," Morawska told TheAge.com.

"These [printer] particles are tiny like cigarette smoke particles and, when deep inside the lung, they do the same amount of damage … The health effects from inhaling ultra-fine particles depend on particle composition, but the results can range from respiratory irritation to more severe illness such as cardiovascular problems or cancer,” she continued.

Your risk of exposure, the researchers found, depends largely on the office building's ventilation system, which is why we highly recommend taking matters into your own hands and purifying your office air yourself.

The PIONAIR Smarte Pointe Air Treatment System, which Sixwise.com highly recommends, uses photocatalysis, which is designed to oxidize organic odors, germs, and fungi. The PIONAIR technology creates ultraviolet light rays, safe levels of ozone, and passive negative ions as part of your air treatment.

The SMART POINTE uses the same technology as the original PIONAIR system, with the added benefit of actively generated negative ions. These actively generated negative ions clear the air of particulate FASTER than the original PIONAIR system. Therefore, the PIONAIR SMART POINTE is effective against particulate such as pollen, dust, pet dander, and smoke, AS WELL AS mold, mildew, organic odors, and chemical vapors (such as formaldehyde).

The Pionair 350 Unit covers 150 to 350 sq. ft., and is perfect for a typical office. If you have a large office space, Pionair's 750 Unit covers 350 to 750 sq. ft., and if you work in a large, open environment, we recommend our largest Pionair, the 1500 Unit, which covers 750 to 1500 sq. ft.

Particularly if you work in a large space along with other workers, you may want to talk to your employer about getting one or more Pionair Units to clean the area’s air.

Keeping Your Office Air Pure is Essential to Good Health

Most Americans spend up to 90 percent of their time indoors and many spend most of their working hours in an office environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

EPA studies show that indoor air can sometimes have higher levels of pollutants than outdoor air, and these indoor pollutants can increase your risk of illness.

“Several studies by EPA, states, and independent scientific panels have consistently ranked indoor air pollution as an important environmental health problem. While most buildings do not have severe indoor air quality problems, even well-run buildings can sometimes experience episodes of poor indoor air quality,” the EPA writes on their Web site.

Your office manager or employer should be proactively thinking about your office environment’s air quality.

“Many common products used in offices, like solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and pesticides can give off pollutants and odors, as can office equipment such as copiers, printers, and fax machines,” writes the EPA. “If any of these items are used in the office environment, adequate and sometimes separate ventilation should be provided. If your organization engages in activities that may generate pollutants, such as photographic or printing processes, exhaust ventilation will be especially important.”

The EPA recommends that all office managers do the following to improve indoor office air:

* Maintain a good working relationship with building management on indoor environmental issues.

* Place office furniture and equipment with air circulation, temperature control, and pollutant removal functions of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in mind.

* Coordinate with building management in instances when responsibility for design, operation, and maintenance of the ventilation system is shared.

* Establish an effective smoking policy that protects nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke.

* Avoid procedures and products that can cause indoor air quality problems.

* Integrate indoor air quality concerns into your purchasing decisions.

* Work with the building manager to ensure use of only necessary and appropriate pest control practices, and nonchemical methods where possible.

* Work with building management and the contractor before you remodel or renovate to identify ways of keeping building occupant exposure to pollutants to a minimum and to ensure that the air distribution system is not disrupted.

* Encourage building management to develop a preventive indoor air quality management program following guidance issued by EPA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Further, EVERYONE who works in an office environment can help improve air quality with these tips from the EPA:

* Do not block air vents or grilles.

* Comply with the office and building smoking policy.

* Water and maintain office plants properly.

* Dispose of garbage promptly and properly.

* Store food properly.

* Avoid bringing products into the building that could release harmful or bothersome odors or contaminants.

* Notify your building or facility manager immediately if you suspect an indoor air quality problem.

Cleaner Air Worth Five Months of Life

Cleaner Air Worth Five Months of Life
By Brandon Keim
January 21, 2009

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/cleanair.html

[Read comments:
http://digg.com/environment/Cleaner_Air_Worth_Five_Months_of_Life ]

Clean air doesn't just give Americans a pleasant, smog-free view. It's added an average of five months to our lives.

In a study of three decades of health data from 51 U.S. cities, researchers found that people are living about three years longer than they did before. Controlling for changes in income, education, demographics and smoking, about five months of that can be chalked up to air improvements.

"Our efforts in the past 20 years to reduce air pollution through better technology and regulation have actually worked," said Majid Ezzati, an international health expert at the Harvard School of Public Health. "People are living longer as a result of it."

Along with Harvard environmental epidemiologist Douglas Dockery and Brigham Young University economist C. Arden Pope, Ezzati tracked the drop of what are known as PM2.5s — pollutant particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns, or 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.

During the 1980s and 1990s, average PM2.5 levels in the 51 cities dropped from 21 to 14 micrograms per cubic meter. A 10μg drop, calculated the researchers, produced a seven-month increase in life expectancy. The research was published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine

Their estimates are necessarily rough, but track with similar findings in Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, where a 10μg reduction in pollution produced life extensions of between .80 and 1.37 years.

Ezzati declined to speculate on whether the Bush administration's approach to air pollution, criticized as being lax and industry-friendly, would reverse some of these gains.

Instead he stressed the principle at stake. "Rather than just saying pollution is bad for health," he said, "we can say that regulations are good for health."

"This finding provides direct confirmation of the population health benefits of mitigating air pollution," wrote Daniel Krewski, CEO of Risk Sciences International, in an editorial accompanying the study.

Citation: "Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States." By C. Arden Pope III, Majid Ezzati and Douglas W. Dockery. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 360 No. 4, Jan. 21, 2009.

WWF: Focus on the enemy we don't see

WWF: Focus on the enemy we don’t see
December 23, 2008

http://www.supermarketguru.com/index.cfm/go/sg.viewArticle/articleId/196

All the ways retailers, suppliers and consumers demonstrate their green-ness are painting America with a fresh layer of environmental protectiveness. Trouble is, neither our nation’s activity nor our vision goes far enough, suggests the World Wildlife Fund in a position paper it calls “Leading the World Toward a Safer and Sustainable Future: Greenprint for a New Administration.”

The 17-page document, along with its 48-page Living Planet Report, serves as an urgent calling card to the incoming Obama presidency. “U.S. foreign policy has paid too little attention to the social, economic and environmental causes underlying many current conflicts [which] unchecked may pose a greater threat to global security in the future than terrorism does today,” the paper compels.

WWF cites climate change, natural resource exhaustion and ecosystem collapse as being “among the most profound and long-term threats to peace and security in the 21st century. The conflict imperiling the planet in the coming millennium is less likely to be between nations than between man and nature.”

The environment, says WWF, is “already stressed by unsustainable development, climate change and pollution….Consumptive demands are rising….Riots erupting as a result of soaring food prices may only be a taste of things to come if we fail to address this growing imbalance between what humanity consumes and what nature, in its declining state, can provide.”

To head off this potential devastation, WWF proposes a four-step plan to President-elect Obama:
1. Confront the challenge of climate change. Secure a new treaty, curb deforestation, lower greenhouse gas emissions and create a low-carbon economy.
2. Ensure food for all. Reconsider ethanol, help develop performance standards, do more to assist poor countries agriculturally, reform fisheries management.
3. Secure water for life. Make freshwater availability a strategic priority, establish water security through science and policies.
4. Protect nature and manage resources sustainably. Include conservation and sustainability in our foreign assistance programs, invest in our natural assets, engage China on green issues.

The essence of the plan is for the United States to lead the world in confronting critical environmental challenges, and restore the integrity of science to our policy and decisionmaking. “We still have time to meet the challenge of climate change, time to manage our resources sustainably, time to preserve nature for both the wonders that inspire us and the services that sustain us…but not all that much of it,” states WWF.

To SupermarketGuru.com, it looks as if we’re in for a period of accountability for so many decades of humanity disrespecting the planet, living beyond sustainable means, and using resources to nationalistic advantage rather than managing conservatively on a global scale so all could benefit. Our world is out of sorts and needs to be given a chance to heal. These issues are tough, but timely, and sooner we address them, the better we and future generations will all be.

Wendell Berry, from "The Unsettling of America"

“By now the [commercial] revolution has deprived the mass of consumers of any independent access to the staples of life: clothing, shelter, food, even water,” Wendell Berry wrote in “The Unsettling of America.” “Air remains the only necessity that the average user can still get for himself, and the revolution had imposed a heavy tax on that by way of pollution. Commercial conquest is far more thorough and final than military defeat.”

~Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture

EPA Exempts Farms from Reporting Toxic Fumes

EPA exempts farms from reporting toxic fumes
By DINA CAPPIELLO

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPME8RVRkRiY-cXB_fj60paa5pEQD951FRA00

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's farms no longer have to report to authorities the toxic, smelly fumes released from manure.

The Bush administration issued a regulation Friday exempting farms from reporting releases of hazardous air pollution from animal waste to federal, state and local authorities. The rule applies specifically to the gases from manure that are often responsible for odor problems.

Environmental Protection Agency officials said that the changes will allow responders to focus on spills and releases from factories, natural disasters and other emergencies that require urgent attention. They said it would also reduce reporting burdens on America's farmers, saying it is difficult to estimate the pollution coming from "a herd of cows."

"When there is a train wreck, we need to know about it because we need to go out and look at chemical spills," said Barry Breen, director of the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. "When there is a lagoon full of manure there is nothing our folks can do when they show up."

The farm reporting rule is one of several eleventh-hour environmental regulations unveiled by the Bush administration this week that were lobbied for by industry. The Interior Department on Thursday issued revised rules loosening protections for endangered species. And the EPA, also on Friday, issued regulations exempting industrial solvents and other chemicals that can be burned for fuel from the strict regulations governing hazardous waste.

Environmentalists lashed out again, saying that the new reporting rule would make it difficult to keep track of farms polluting the environment and putting neighbors at risk.

The gases released when animal waste decomposes include hydrogen sulfide, with its characteristic rotten egg smell, and ammonia. Exposure to these chemicals can cause respiratory problems and irritate the eyes, nose and throat.

"The effect of this is to create a loophole for all operations for not report their toxic emissions to the federal government," said Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club. "If you don't know there is a problem you aren't going to get a solution."

Representatives of the poultry and beef industries said Friday the rule was long overdue. In 2005, associations representing chicken, turkey and egg farmers asked the Bush administration to exempt all ammonia emissions from reporting requirements.

The rule finalized Friday covers gases just from animal waste. Large farms with hundreds of dairy cows or thousands of pigs would still be required to report air releases to local and state authorities.

"We have always felt that reporting requirements ... were never meant to address the release of naturally occurring substances," said the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association in a statement. "We believe the EPA heard our concerns and has come to a reasonable compromise."

Congress also wanted clarification. In appropriations bills passed in 2005 and 2006, it directed the EPA to revisit the regulations.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, said that the EPA "needed to formulate a common-sense answer which recognizes that animal production is not the same as a chemical factory."

But he criticized the Bush administration for pushing out the rule before a two-year, $14 million study launched last year on toxic air pollution from farms was finished.

The timing of the rule "almost guarantees that the issue will be revisited by the new administration and Congress," Harkin said.

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.tinyurl.com/62ukba

CA Dirty Air Kills More Than Crashes

Study: Calif. dirty air kills more than crashes
Author says state is 'paying now' for not doing enough on pollution
The Associated Press
updated 10:50 a.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008

FRESNO, Calif. - Lowering air pollution in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley would save more lives annually than ending all motor vehicle fatalities in the two regions, according to a new study.

The study, which examined the costs of air pollution in two areas with the worst levels in the country, also said meeting federal ozone and fine particulate standards could save $28 billion annually in health care costs, school absences, missed work and lost income potential from premature deaths.

The price tag amounts to $1,600 annually per person in the San Joaquin Valley and $1,250 in the South Coast Air Basin.

Researchers at California State University-Fullerton sought to assess the potential economic benefits that could be achieved by reducing air pollution to levels within federal standards.

'We are paying now'
"For decades there has been a tug of war over what to do about air pollution," said Jane Hall, lead author of the study at Cal State Fullerton. "We are paying now for not having done enough."

To illustrate its point, the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution.

Studies have indicated a relationship between ozone and particulate pollution and asthma and other respiratory problems, including chronic bronchitis. They also have connected particulate pollution with an increase in cardiovascular problems.

Hall and colleague Victor Brajer analyzed ozone and fine particulate concentrations across the two basins in 5-by-5 kilometer grids from 2005 through 2007. The researchers applied those numbers to the health affects they are known to cause, then assigned peer-reviewed economic values to each illness or death that could result.

"It may be tempting to think California can't afford to clean up, but in fact dirty air is like a $28 billion lead balloon on our economy," Hall said.

The findings were released Wednesday as the California Air Resources Board considers controversial new regulations to reduce diesel truck emissions, a move that could cost 170,000 business owners $5.5 billion. According to a board staff report, the savings in health care costs would be $68 billion by 2020 if the regulations were adopted next month.

'Very difficult to achieve'
The Cal State Fullerton study says that particulate pollution levels must fall by 50 percent in both regions for health and economic benefits to occur, something they acknowledged would be "very difficult to achieve."

If pollution levels were to improve to federal standards, the study says residents of the two air basins would suffer 3,860 fewer premature deaths, 3,780 fewer nonfatal heart attacks and would miss 470,000 fewer days of work annually. School children would miss more than 1.2 million fewer days of school, a savings of $112 million in caregiver costs. There also would be more than 2 million fewer cases of upper respiratory problems.

"As a society we make decisions to spend money on things such as railroad crossings or air traffic control — things that improve safety," Brajer said. "There are a lot of ways society spends money to make things safer, and that's what we're trying to get at."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27697708/

Ready for Another Greenhouse Gas? Study Finds Chemical's Emissions Are Much Higher Than Thought

Ready for another greenhouse gas?
Study finds chemical's emissions are much higher than thought
By Andrea Thompson
LiveScience
Thurs., Oct. 23, 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27345432/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27345432/print/1/displaymode/1098/

A potent greenhouse gas is at least four times more prevalent in the atmosphere than was previously estimated, a new study reports.

Using new analytical techniques, a research team in California made the first atmospheric measurements of nitrogen trifluoride, which is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal amount of carbon dioxide (though carbon dioxide is much more prevalent, and therefore still the key greenhouse gas of concern in terms of global warming).

In 2006, the amount of nitrogen trifluoride in the atmosphere, which could not be detected using previous techniques, was estimated at less than 1,322 short tons (1,200 metric tons).

The new research, funded by NASA and detailed in the Oct. 31 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that the actual amount was 4,630 short tons (4,200 metric tons) in 2006. Currently, about 5,950 short tons (5,400 metric tons) is estimated to be in the atmosphere. The estimates indicate that the amount of gas in the atmosphere is increasing by about 11 percent per year.

Emissions of nitrogen trifluoride were thought to be so low that the gas was not considered a significant contributor to global warming. It was not covered in the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement signed by 182 countries to reduce greenhouse gases.

Nitrogen trifluoride is about 17,000 times more powerful at trapping heat than is carbon dioxide, though current emissions of the gas only contribute about 0.15 percent of the total global warming effect contributed by human-produced carbon dioxide emissions.

Nitrogen trifluoride is one of several gases used during the manufacture of liquid crystal flat-panel displays, thin-film photovoltaic cells and microcircuits. Many industries used it as a replacement for perfluorocarbons, another type of potent greenhouse gas, because it was thought that only about 2 percent of the nitrogen trifluoride used escaped into the atmosphere.

Scientists have recently recommended adding nitrogen trifluoride to the list of greenhouse gases regulated by Kyoto in response to its growing use and concerns that its emissions are not well known.

"From a climate perspective, there is a need to add nitrogen trifluoride to the suite of greenhouse gases whose production is inventoried and whose emissions are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, thus providing meaningful incentives for its wise use," said study leader Ray Weiss of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.