California Air Pollution Kills More People Than Car Crashes, Study Shows

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.

"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.

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."

Comments

[darthdarcy]

We can use Hydrogen for buses in the cities rather than diesel which produces NO2 a know carcinogen, since they share a centralized fuel depot..!

We can grow Industrial Hemp and produce tons of biol fuel and this crop eats tons of CO2 as it grows..!

Also a lot of California's pollution blows in from the huge pollution in China and it's coal burning but also their huge Coal Seam Fires along the pollution band and these fires can now be put out with existing technology..!

[JuniorNorman]

Uber GubaNator vetoed HEMP TOO!
try this combo to save fuel;
Fitch Fuel Catalyzer
Halo Spark Plugs
Turbinator
25% better mileage
20% more tourque
NOX cut 70%
Less particulates Catylytic convertors last longer.

[sheila]

schwarzenegger blocks every attempt to clean up CA from green building codes to diesel reduction programs, then goes on TV bragging about how "mean and green" he is. people need to see through this crappy actor's PR machine and look at his record. he consistently vetoes legislation passed by our elected reps that would help CA, in order to favor Big Energy, Big Developers and Big Business.

he is republican, through and through, even though his press team knows how to repackage him for sound bytes without ever doing anything environmentally useful. suing the EPA is grandstanding. legislating port cleanup and diesel truck reductions and green building codes and incentivizing residential solar would actually make a difference.

[Twinkie]

incentivizing? lol

[Gasparilla]

Yeah, it's a word. In the dictionary.

[patianneb]

I once lived in the San Joaquin Valley and one of the main problems is that in addition to its own pollution, gift packages arrive from both the LA Basin and surrounds and the Bay Area due to prevailing wind patterns.
As for its own filth, try the fact that something like 20-25% of the cows in the UNITED STATES confined in the "happy cow" dairy industry CAFO's (or confined animal feeding operations) live poop and die there..... not to mention the chicken "factories" etc., etc., etc.

[ajm8127]

But, you know, CA shouldn't have the ability to determine its own mileage standards for automobiles. Its not like the US is so big the forefathers thought that each state should govern itself. Oh wait, they did.