- HOME
- About
- Support PSR
- Environment & Health
- Nuclear Weapons
- Safe Energy
- Resources
- Press Room
- Chapters
Make a difference in the challenge to confront global warming and prevent nuclear war and the development and use of nuclear weapons.
Tell President Obama to abolish the Nuclear Loan Guarantee Program.
Last Friday I again testified before the EPA on the health impacts of air quality. This time the subject was particulate matter. Once again, I was encouraging the EPA to follow through on a positive step it has proposed.
"Particulate matter" consists of extremely small airborne particles, generated primarily from coal combustion, oil combustion, and traffic. They’re distinguished by size as coarse particulates, with a diameter of 2.5-10 microns (PM10), and fine particulate, with a diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). We’re talking extremely small. By way of comparison, a human hair is about 70 microns in diameter.
Back in 1997 the EPA proposed standards for PM 2.5 emission levels, and strengthened those standards in 2006. Unfortunately, EPA undermined its own rules by allowing coal and industrial plants to measure coarse particulates, or PM10, as a surrogate for PM 2.5.
They are now proposing to end those practices and return to a requirement to measure – and limit – PM 2.5.
That’s a very important thing to do. The health impacts of PM 2.5 are much greater than the impacts of PM 10, due to differences in the ways and the extent to which the smaller 2.5 particles penetrate the human body.
Small particles of particulate matter travel deep into the lungs, reaching the alveoli, the tiny air bags in the lungs whose thin walls allow oxygen to enter the blood. There, the particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter can pass through the alveoli walls and travel through the blood stream to other organs. As a result, not only the respiratory system but also the cardiovascular system and the neurological system are exposed to damage.
And it does cause damage! Among PM 2.5's impacts on the human body are:
Respiratory:
Neurological:
Cardiovascular:
Sometimes the increases in the rates of increased incidence appear small, on the order of a single percent. But when you consider the large number of cases of heart disease, even a small percentage uptick translates into a very large effect when measured in terms of total hospital admissions, patient morbidity and mortality, and the cost of health care, time lost from school and work, and simple human suffering.
In short, the danger to health posed by PM 2.5 is widespread, severe, and costly. I was glad to get the opportunity to tell that to the EPA.
If you agree that the EPA, to protect human health, should end the PM 10 “surrogate” policy and regulate PM 2.5, please post your comments online. You have until March 15.
Thank President Obama for his courageous and health-protecting decision not to permit construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require the chemical industry to ensure chemicals are safe before they go on the market. Ask your Senator to support health-protective chemicals policy by making a call today.
The Spanish-language version of the PSR report, "Hazardous Chemicals In Health Care," written with the American Nurses Association and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), details the first investigation of environmental chemicals found in the bodies of health care professionals. Read more »
Read PSR’s October, 2009, report: "Hazardous Chemicals In Health Care." Of 20 health care professionals tested for the presence of industrial chemicals in their bodies, all 20 had at least 24 individual chemicals present, many of which are associated with chronic illness and physical disorders. Read more »
Happy holidays from the Environmental Health Policy Institute! This holiday season we highlight some of our favorite tools and resources for health professionals and others concerned about the health effects of industrial chemicals. Read more »
Comments