[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution
On this subject, a current abstract from NEJM (OTOH note that the principal
author is Samet :-) so you might take this with a grain of salt, EXCEPT that
it's in NEJM? not his "Am J of Epi"? (There's also a commentary on this here
that discusses the PM2.5 issue if you are interested.)
Regards, Jim
============
The New England Journal of Medicine -- December 14, 2000 -- Vol. 343, No. 24
Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987-1994
Jonathan M. Samet, Francesca Dominici, Frank C. Curriero, Ivan Coursac,
Scott L. Zeger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
Background. Air pollution in cities has been linked to increased rates of
mortality and morbidity in developed and developing countries. Although
these findings have helped lead to a tightening of air-quality standards,
their validity with respect to public health has been questioned.
Methods. We assessed the effects of five major outdoor-air pollutants on
daily mortality rates in 20 of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in
the United States from 1987 to 1994. The pollutants were particulate matter
that is less than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), ozone, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. We used a two-stage analytic
approach that pooled data from multiple locations.
Results. After taking into account potential confounding by other
pollutants, we found consistent evidence that the level of PM10 is
associated with the rate of death from all causes and from cardiovascular
and respiratory illnesses. The estimated increase in the relative rate of
death from all causes was 0.51 percent (95 percent posterior interval, 0.07
to 0.93 percent) for each increase in the PM10 level of 10 µg per cubic
meter. The estimated increase in the relative rate of death from
cardiovascular and respiratory causes was 0.68 percent (95 percent posterior
interval, 0.20 to 1.16 percent) for each increase in the PM10 level of 10 µg
per cubic meter. There was weaker evidence that increases in ozone levels
increased the relative rates of death during the summer, when ozone levels
are highest, but not during the winter. Levels of the other pollutants were
not significantly related to the mortality rate.
Conclusions. There is consistent evidence that the levels of fine
particulate matter in the air are associated with the risk of death from all
causes and from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. These findings
strengthen the rationale for controlling the levels of respirable particles
in outdoor air. (N Engl J Med 2000;343:1742-9.)
Source Information
>From the Departments of Epidemiology (J.M.S.) and Biostatistics (F.D.,
F.C.C., I.C., S.L.Z.), School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore. Address reprint requests to Dr. Samet at Johns
Hopkins University, School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Suite 6041,
Baltimore, MD 21205, or at jsamet@jhsph.edu.
ruth_weiner wrote:
>
> "Harmful to health" is quite different from "prospective death." Neither I
> nor anyone else has said that air pollutants, inhaled in enough quantity,
> are not harmful. Of course they are. SO2 inhalation is known to be fatal,
> but NOT IN THE CONCENTRATIONS IN AMBIENT AIR referred to in the Pope et al
> paper. Because apparently I did not make myself clear, let me give an
> analogy: I have inhaled bromine in the laboratory. It is corrosive, it
> hurt, I choked, I got some fresh air. It damaged my respiratory tract, but
> not permanently. This was about 30 years ago, and it has had no lingering
> effect at all.
>
> My statement was that excess deaths appear to occur in those whose
> respiratory systems are already somewhat compromised. I did NOT say or
> imply that damaging respiratory systems was OK, or that only people with
> compromised respiratory systems were HARMED by breathing some pollutants.
> Harm one can recover from (unlike death).
>
> There is also, by the way, no evidence that inhalation of small
> concentrations of air pollutants "builds up" and that there is a cumulative
> effect. To reiterate (since I seem to have been unclear, or at least
> misinterpretable): "Harm" is not "prospective death." I never discussed
> harm, only the notion that a putative, not very good correlation between
> mortality and pollution in some areas can be used to predict deaths, or that
> this fuzzy correlation identifies "particulate and sulfate air pollution" as
> a cause of death.
>
> Aren't some doses of ionizing radiation harmful without causing death?
> Isn't that why we treat cancer with radiation?
>
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Deaths from fossil fuel burning air pollution
>
> > All of the discussion by doubters leads me to ask some questions:
> > 1. Why do you think air pollution from fossil fuel burning is
> >not harmful to human health? There is a very large literature documenting
> >this harm-- do you believe it is all flawed? Are you familiar with
> >this literature?
> > 2. Isn't it just common sense to
> >believe that noxious and corrosive materials inhaled can be harmful? Can
> >you cite any studies that show that this air pollution is not harmful to
> >health? When you say that it is only harmful to people with degraded
> >respiratory and cardiovascular systems, what do you think caused these
> >systems to become degraded?
> > 3. If you believe that fossil fuel burning is not much more
> >harmful to human health than nuclear power, why do you favor nuclear
> >power?
> >
> > Bernard L. Cohen
> >Physics Dept.
> >University of Pittsburgh
> >Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> >Tel: (412)624-9245
> >Fax: (412)624-9163
> >e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
> >
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html