iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

State Of The Air 2011: Air Quality Report Reveals High Pollution Levels In U.S. Cities

State Of The Air

First Posted: 04/27/11 08:29 AM ET Updated: 06/27/11 06:12 AM ET

NEW YORK -- The American Lung Association's newest State of the Air report is a bit like getting a 53 on your math test after you got a 49 on your last one. Yes, you've improved, but you’re still failing the class.

Though the report, released Wednesday, states that air quality has improved in some places, over 154 million people are still threatened by dangerously high pollution levels nationwide. Some cities, like Los Angeles and Pittsburgh, reduced their overall pollution levels, yet their year-round particle pollution levels are still higher than the national standard, and Los Angeles County is still ranked on all three “25 Most Polluted Counties” lists. In other words, things are improving, but they're still not good enough.

The 2011 State of the Air Report, which is based on data from 2007 to 2009, reports on levels of pollution from monitoring sites across the U.S. The report focuses on two specific types of pollution -- ozone and particle pollution -- because according to the ALA, these types are most responsible for the country's air pollution problem.

Ozone air pollution is different than the ozone layer found in the stratosphere, which provides a necessary barrier from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Rather, ozone air pollution, which is found at ground level, is harmful to breathe and is the primary ingredient in smog. Contributors to ozone pollution include tailpipe and smokestack emissions.

The ALA has shown that breathing ozone pollution shortens lifespans. Studies have linked high ozone level exposure to death from cardiac arrhythmia, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases.

Particle pollution, meanwhile, is caused by a mix of particles found in the air we breathe. While we may be able to cough or sneeze to keep out larger particles, our natural defense mechanisms don’t protect us from the smaller ones, which are often one-seventh the diameter of a single human hair. These particles, produced by motor vehicles and burning fossil fuels in factories, can get trapped in the lungs or even pass into the bloodstream.

Year-round exposure to high levels of particle pollution has been linked to death from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. Children have experienced slower lung function growth, and children living near roads with heavy traffic have been hospitalized for asthma attacks in increasing numbers. The California Air Resources Board estimates that over 9,000 people in the state die prematurely each year from breathing particle pollution.

Just how prevalent are these potentially life-shortening pollutants?

More than half of Americans live in regions with dangerous levels of air pollution, according to the report: “Almost 154.5 million Americans are living in the 366 counties where they are exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution in the form of either ozone or short-term or year-round levels of particles,” it reads.

And nearly half (48.2 percent) of Americans live in areas with unhealthful ozone levels. 388 counties have levels that place residents at risk of decreased lung function and respiratory infections. Moreover, the report suggests that the number of people affected by this pollution is actually much larger than reported, since nearby counties without monitoring sites were not counted.

To counteract this problem, the American Lung Association has proposed lowering the air quality standard for ozone from 75 to 60 parts per billion. The EPA is expected to announce whether or not it will implement a more protective standard this summer.

With respect to particle pollution, meanwhile, eight cities had year-round levels above the national standard: Bakersfield, Calif.; Los Angeles; Phoenix, Ariz.; Visalia, Calif.; Hanford, Calif.; Fresno, Calif.; Pittsburgh; and Birmingham, Ala. On top of that, nearly 61 million Americans live in areas that experienced short, sustained periods of harmful spikes in particle pollution. These spikes can increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and early death. Sixteen of the cities that had the highest short-term levels of particle pollution received worse rankings in the report than they had in previous years.

The report states that people with asthma, diabetes and cardiovascular disease are most at risk of being affected by air pollution. (It should be noted that the ALA is not necessarily saying that air pollution causes these conditions, but rather that people who suffer from these conditions are at greater risk of being affected by them.) In Bakersfield, the city with the highest levels of particle pollution, there were over 16,000 cases of pediatric asthma, over 43,000 cases of adult asthma, and nearly 185,000 people with cardiovascular disease.

There were also 170,000 people living in poverty in Bakersfield -- and the report found that poorer people are often exposed to higher levels of pollutants. Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of national policy and advocacy for the ALA, explained the correlation in an interview with HuffPost. "Usually communities that surround power plants, or are near a major highway, tend to be lower income, less expensive property, than housing that is further away from those sources," she said. "It’s less challenging for an industry to build a plant near a poorer community than it is to build near a wealthy community.”

The report did contain a few bright spots. Some cities, like Honolulu, Hawaii, and Santa Fe, N.M., were ranked among the cleanest in the nation. Moreover, each of the 25 cities with the most ozone pollution improved their overall air quality since last year's report, and 15 of the 25 cities reported their best years yet. The improvements in these cities, which include Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia and New York City, were due partly to reductions in coal-fired power plant emissions and the transition to cleaner diesel fuels. Yet these examples were the exceptions, not the rule, in a report packed with bad news.

Nolen discussed the annual backlash the ALA faces when the State of the Air report is released. "We get criticized for ... making the public aware of the air pollution in their community," she said. "Sometimes the fact that there still is an air pollution problem is not a message that people want to hear."

But hear it they must, especially at a time when members of Congress are targeting the Clean Air Act. Rather than supporting the EPA's efforts to decrease emissions of harmful pollutants, Congressional Republicans are fighting an amendment to the Clean Air Act that would implement long-overdue regulations. These rules would limit the amount of toxins emitted by coal-burning power plants, which the State of the Air report cites as one of the largest contributors to particle pollution, ozone pollution, and global warming. Another ALA report released earlier this year found that particle pollution is estimated to kill about 13,000 people per year. Yet Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), whose home state derives more than 90 percent of its power from coal, plans to introduce legislation to delay the amendment.

Meanwhile, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has made striking efforts to lessen the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act. With respect to Upton, Nolen said, "The American Lung Association is absolutely astonished that he does not seem to appreciate the significance of the Clean Air Act. The EPA just released a study looking at the last 20 years and estimated that last year alone, the standards put together under the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives."

The American Lung Association has offered the public a list of ways to help protect the Clean Air Act, and it suggests Americans contact politicians and officials at the EPA to express their concern. More information on this year's State of the Air report can be found here.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

NEW YORK -- The American Lung Association's newest State of the Air report is a bit like getting a 53 on your math test after you got a 49 on your last one. Yes, you've improved, but you’re still fa...
NEW YORK -- The American Lung Association's newest State of the Air report is a bit like getting a 53 on your math test after you got a 49 on your last one. Yes, you've improved, but you’re still fa...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 159
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
prlabella
Retired policeman, retired banker, active liberal
01:45 PM on 05/24/2011
Some say the stats don't show a correlarion between fossil fuels and air quality. Either they have their head in the sand (maybe the sand acts as a filter) or they own oil and coal stocks. I'm old enough that I probably won't be around this wonderful world when the problem becomes so critical that it will be too late but my grand children will. It is hard to believe that you can hardly find one Republican that agrees with global warming and it's causes or one Democrat that doesn't. Proof that it is just a political stance? I think so. I will remember those stances when I next vote or campaign.
photo
cambo
On the grand MN's side.
01:30 PM on 04/29/2011
The bright side is that technology will save you all. Solar will be the main source of energy in less than 20 years and of course all vehicles will be electric. There will be a time when it will be ilegal to drive a car with a combustion engine, it`s just a shame it isn`t now.
photo
cambo
On the grand MN's side.
01:22 PM on 04/29/2011
I can only imagine future generations shaking their heads in disbelief when they look back at our crappy societies aka toxic wasteland.
The sad part is that not many people get it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheAnarchist
Taxes Don't Pay For Anything
06:20 PM on 05/01/2011
You are really the OPTIMIST. F & F

20 years from now we will be in the midst of global water wars.

Equally devasting, we will have ignored the 15 years of warnings about the danger of methane (CH4) accumulation which is 23 times more dangerous as an atmospheric green house gas than CO2. The billions of tons being released now through ground seepage due to fracking, and the gradual and widening GHG feedback effect causing thawing of permafrost and the subsequent release of millions of tons of CH4 will generate extremely violent weather globally.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5545850/millions_at_risk_from_methane_gas_explosion.html?cat=9

We already have evidence that CH4 isn't completely oxidizing to CO2, its stopping at HCHO, formaldehyde and in sufficient concentrations or long exposure acidosis creates mass kills in bees, frogs, bovine, birds and mammals living or playing in snow near marsh like areas. For children the dangers have allready been reported, nationwide, with excessive nose bleeds.

HCHO eviscerates soft tissue. http://imjussayin.webs.com/amethanemasskill.htm
There are no "official" government agencies measuring the morning occurrence of HCHO. They are aware of its occurrence but probably don't want to tell the public until they have a system with which to ameliorate the impacts. One researcher links autism to HCHO exposure.

http://www.im-jus-sayin.com/formaldehydefrogkill er.htm

Then there's the likelihood that the Fossil Fuel Freaks in their psycopathic greed will drill into methane hydrates generating a Storeagga effect.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
01:12 PM on 04/29/2011
Don't live in cities its a good place to starve.

We have wood pellet power.
Hydro-electric power.
Local food.
Like sweet potatoes? Buy them from the farm.
Put them in sand for the winter.
Great grass fed beef and raw cows milk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
11:20 AM on 04/29/2011
Not bad enough, according to conservatives.
photo
Left of Right
Want to default your country? Default your job!
01:15 AM on 04/29/2011
If you vote republican you will get rid of the EPA and pollutants will become much worse. Really.
If you don't believe me, email your republican representatives, if you have one, and ask them to save the EPA. You will eventually get a reply back that says "unfortunately, the cuts will have to be made."

If you would like to see what you are breathing and who is putting it in the air, and how much, go to www.scorecard.org and put in your zip code.

Also, it doesn't matter greatly if you live well away from cities. Coal particulates are carried around the planet by winds. (Even Florida gets a lot of sand/dust/particulates from the Sahara in Africa!) Over 30,000 deaths per year are contributed to coal particulates in the U.S..

Oh, and Mother Earth has lungs too. She does not do so well either with our pollutants. Better to work our way towards green energy alternatives and start now, it's going to take awhile!
12:15 AM on 04/29/2011
Save the energy. Use small car, smal refrigerator, small Air con, etc. Can we do it?
02:52 AM on 04/29/2011
Of course we can. Question is, will we, and if we do is it in time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trespanieli
11:40 PM on 04/28/2011
Republicans need to talk less.
11:07 PM on 04/28/2011
people need to care more
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Reno Fickler
Head Lifeguard/Dead Sea Marina
10:09 PM on 04/28/2011
Like Kermit said, "Being green ain't easy."
I own an independent emissions testing station for gas powered vehicles. During my 25 year tenure, 'BAD' air days went from 242 down to 4 in my city. Glad to help!
Now it's your turn. Do something!!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brian Workman
04:50 PM on 04/28/2011
In All Large Cities; All Cabs will have to be electric powered, or no permit licence issued! No gas powered Cabs! That will clean up the air by more than 50% in five years!?!?!?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
03:59 PM on 04/28/2011
Dont live in Cities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck02k6d-_nI
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
11:21 AM on 04/29/2011
Cities are the most efficient use of resources.
 
Don't live in rural areas.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:44 PM on 04/28/2011
A major flaw with this ton of statistics is the absence of strong correlations between disease and bad air. I expect bad air is bad for you, but if you do the math (which is missing from this study) the rate, for example, of asthma is around 6% in the best and the worst cities. The entire report does not even include the word 'correlation', nor do any of the many data columns normalize the data to show percentage risk. I did math samples at least 20 different ways, and could not find correlation. Why?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cruisedoc
Physician, centrist, independent (x-dem)
02:39 PM on 04/28/2011
Nice article. Believable? Well, some - maybe. So what makes a physician & registered democrat (1972-2011) so skeptical? I know better. Unfortunately, I know how easily data is manipulated ...and all about 'experimenter bias'. One thing for sure, never, ever, trust data coming from a gov. agency that has to justify it's own existence. Has the EPA done good? Sure it has, especially in the area of water quality. But it did so over the past 20 yrs. on a fraction of the budget. The EPA budget has been increased in the past 2 years by 120%. So, when someone yells about budget cutters as 'not caring about the fishies', it's hype. We'ld have to go a long way just to cut back to levels of 2 yrs. ago. Regarding the 160,000 saved lives - that all depends on the study design, etc. It could be 10 times that, and it could be a small fraction of that. Only one entity knows for sure ....and he is not of this earth (from Indiana Jones). The EPA is gearing up to impose 'cap & trade' like policies. This will do nothing (without global cooperation - & India & China aren't budging) except represent the biggest tax increase in history. So, who trusts the government?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lw1
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
08:59 AM on 04/29/2011
Do you also disbelieve the science of climate change and acid rain. I see only benifits to cleaning the air and damn the cost. We are producing more gas and the price is going out the roof. I say bring on clean energy fast.
http://www.good.is/post/drill-baby-drill-fails-american-oil-production-spikes-under-obama-prices-still-soar/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cruisedoc
Physician, centrist, independent (x-dem)
10:41 AM on 04/29/2011
I really almost see a reply as a waste of time. Remember your words, 'damn the cost', so you can explain it to your grandkids. Yeah, bring on the clean energy - and when you find something that is realistic, let me know, PLEASE. In the mean time, doubling folks electric bills will only crash an already fragile economy. Keep in mind, I was an environmental biologist, probably before you were born. Is global warming real, sure. If the US UNILATERALLY takes extreme measures, it won't do hoot. Without China & India we may make a difference of a fraction of 1 degree in about 50 years, and if we crash the economy doing it, we will cause extreme hardship for virtually nothing. PS: Damn the cost? OK, you pay for it - your country is borrowing as it is.
09:33 AM on 04/29/2011
You wrote: One thing for sure, never, ever, trust data coming from a gov. agency that has to justify it's own existence"

Correct. If you study the amount of government revenue revenue/allowances for clean air directed to the state of California, you would see around 40-50%. It is as if California sucks up the taxpayer dollar for its inability to clean up their own mess. Frankly, the EPA is a tool for the state of California, and their demands on the general fund is enormous. They will not take responsibility for themselves, and the California lobby/environmentalists/politicians insure that the rest of the nation enable them (like an alcoholic) to continue their destructive path. The fact remains, since the state is caught in a convergence of dead air between ocean and mountains - their air quality will always remain poor.
photo
SolarPowerGuy
Ph.D., Immunology; Solar power @ home; Green Party
07:51 PM on 04/30/2011
Ummm.... excuse me?

Maybe California gets a disproportionate share of EPA funds, however:

1) Yes, you have observed that California has a unique geography and climate. Air pollution accumulates here in part because of our large air basins; and the total lack of rain out here, six to eight months of the year. Back East, rain brings a lot of that air pollution to the ground -- and turns it into water pollution. Nice trade, I guess. Now, how is that fact of nature the fault of California's environmentalists and politicians? If we chased industry out of this state, you'd be screaming about how anti-business Californians are.

2) When you look at ALL Federal government programs -- not just cherry-pick the minuscule EPA budget item -- California only receives $0.78 for every $1.00 it contributes!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:14 PM on 04/28/2011
The tornadoes sure cleared the skies of a lot of pollution.