RE: RADSAFE digest 3003 -- air pollution levels in urban areas

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

On Friday March 10, 2000 1:02 PM Bernard L Cohen[SMTP:blc+@pitt.edu] wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Reynolds, Harold wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 B. Cohen wrote:
> > > 
> > > >a 25% higher lung cancer rate in urban areas than in
> > > rural areas. This might be interpreted as a proportionately higher
> > > prevalence of smoking in urban areas.
> > > 
> > > I would think this is due to higher air pollution levels in urban
> areas.
> > > A doctor who performs autopsies told that he could see a difference in
> > > lung condition between urban and rural dwellers whether they were
> smokers
> > > or not.
> 
> 	--I have no way to determine this. For my study, the conservative
> thing was to assume that the difference was due to smoking -- by
> conservative, I mean most favorable for supporting the linear-no threshold
> theory.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>

FYI,

http://www.nandotimes.com/healthscience/story/0,1080,500180747-500238522-501
182294-0,00.html
Big rig exhausts cause 125,000 cancers over a lifetime, study says
Copyright © 2000 Nando Media
Copyright © 2000 Associated Press	
By H. JOSEF HEBERT 
WASHINGTON (March 15, 2000 6:38 a.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com)
 - Toxic chemicals in truck and bus diesel exhausts are responsible for at
least 125,000 cancers over a lifetime, according to a study by a coalition
of state and local air pollution control agencies. 
The state officials' report being released Wednesday comes as the petroleum
industry is stepping up a campaign to persuade the Clinton administration to
back off from plans for tougher pollution controls on diesel fuel. 
Although the new regulations for diesel, now under review at the White
House, would not go into effect until 2006, industry groups hoped the
current turmoil about diesel fuel prices - and to some extent supply - might
help sway the administration. 
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal, sent to the White House
Office of Management and Budget earlier this year, would sharply reduce the
sulfur content in diesel fuel and require other pollution improvements. 
An EPA spokeswoman, Kim Ruby, declined to comment on the proposal, except to
say it had been sent to the White House. Some industry groups and government
sources said it would require sulfur levels in diesel to be reduced from 500
parts per million to 15 per million by 2006, though the specifics could
still be changed. 
The state regulators, along with environmentalists and health advocates,
planned to release the new analysis on diesel and cancer risks, partly in
response to the industry push to try to get the EPA regulation withdrawn. 
"These (diesel) fumes are putting us at risk of cancer, a risk that can be
almost completely eliminated with modern pollution controls," said William
Becker, executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators. 
The group, which represents state pollution control officials, conducted the
analysis that concludes an additional 125,000 people would be expected to
get lung cancer during their lifetime as a result of exposure to chemicals
and soot from diesel fuel. 
Becker said there have been many epidemiological studies linking diesel soot
and lung cancer and that the 125,110 estimated of additional cancers was "an
extremely conservative figure" using the same methodology used by regulators
in California in estimating diesel-related cancers. 
"The actual numbers of cancers could easily be 10 times as high," maintained
Becker. 
Last year, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air
pollution control agency in the Los Angeles area, concluded that 70 percent
of the total cancer risks from transportation sources in the region came
from diesel emissions. 
Becker said his group's analysis used the California methodology and
extended it nationwide, using air pollution monitoring data from both
metropolitan and rural areas and accounting for population distributions. It
estimated 119,570 additional cancers in metropolitan areas and 5,540 such
additional cancers in rural areas nationwide. 
The state regulators as well as the American Lung Association and several
environmental groups including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and
the Clean Air Network, maintain these health statistics make a strong
argument for pressing ahead with the proposed EPA diesel rules. 
But in a letter earlier this week to the EPA, nine organizations
representing a variety of interests from refiners and oil companies to
convenience store operators and farm cooperatives, urged that the diesel
rule be withdrawn. 
"EPA's proposal for diesel sulfur is likely to reduce the supply of diesel
fuel as well as heating oil and even gasoline," they said in a letter to EPA
Administrator Carol Browner. 
The letter noted recent trucker protests about soaring prices and said the
EPA proposal was "a blueprint for future shortages of diesel and home
heating oil." 
Diesel prices have soared from a nationwide average of 96 cents a gallon a
year ago to more than an average of $1.50 a gallon, according to the Energy
Department, with prices in some areas of more than $1.86 cents a gallon. 
The increases have been attributed by the Energy Department to increases in
crude oil costs and supply shortages caused by a cutback in world oil
production. 
<><><><><><><><><>

Jaro
frantaj@aecl.ca
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html