This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

International Cancer Research Body Declares Soot Pollution a Known Carcinogen

NRDC Switchboard's picture
  • Member since 2018
  • 532 items added with 317,508 views
  • Oct 19, 2013
  • 863 views

Air Pollution and Illness

John Walke, Clean Air Director/ Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C.

A new report from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency announced the classification of outdoor air pollution and particulate matter as known human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) independently reviewed over 1,000 of the latest scientific studies on air pollution across five continents to conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that with increased levels of air pollution and particulate matter (commonly known as soot pollution), cancer risks increase too. As my colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass noted, “[t]he link is strongest for lung cancer, but bladder cancer was also flagged as a risk.”

This places particulate matter and outdoor air pollution in the company of asbestos, plutonium, silica dust, ultraviolet radiation and tobacco smoke. The IARC lists all of these as “Group 1” carcinogens (the highest classification) that are known to be carcinogenic to humans.

Beyond causing cancer, the report confirms that “[a]ir pollution is already known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases.” These findings have been confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and the 2010 Global Burden of Disease report, which estimated that particulate matter worldwide caused “over 2.1 million premature deaths and 52 million years of healthy life lost in 2010 due to ambient fine particle air pollution.”

Despite this overwhelming scientific consensus that “[t]he air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances”, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly attacked the extensive science on this pollution in an effort to undermine health-protective EPA standards that limit soot pollution.

In 2011, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) asserted at a congressional hearing on EPA clean air standards that even though he is not a “medical doctor” there is no “medical negative” to particulate pollution. In response to this astonishing statement, the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics wrote the Congressman expressing “shock[] at such statements.” These doctors stated that they “see in the patients we treat what [] the scientific literature lets us know to expect: that air pollution makes people sick and cuts lives short.”

But the political attacks did not stop there. For a June 2012 hearing attacking clean air safeguards and particulate matter science, House Republicans on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee declined to invite respected scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, Health Effects Institute, American Heart Association or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, all of which have found a causal relationship between particulate matter and mortality. Instead, House Republicans chose to invite a Texas state official who presented outlier testimony that “[s]ome studies even suggest PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer.”

Most recently, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) of the House Science Committee subpoenaed EPA to seize confidential patient data underlying one study showing the linkage between particle pollution and premature death. I’ve outlined the problems with this outrageous witch hunt here.

While House Republicans waste time attacking well-established science that clearly shows the devastating health impacts from air pollution, the IARC’s report tells us that “[t]here are effective ways to reduce air pollution and, given the scale of the exposure affecting people worldwide, this report should send a strong signal to the international community to take action.” Denial by politicians won’t reduce this deadly pollution. Only health-protective standards will.

The IARC report underscores the urgency of cleaning up the sources of dangerous particulate matter―such as dirty diesel fuels and dirty coal plants, both in the U.S. and globally―to limit the outdoor air pollution that we know leads to heart attacks, asthma attacks, premature death and now, cancer.

Photo Credit: Soot and Cancer/shutterstock

Discussions
John Miller's picture
John Miller on Oct 19, 2013

There is no question that particulate materials (PM) can be harmful and the impact is a function of the type of PM, the PM concentration and the health condition/status of the exposed individuals.  However, referencing asbestos, plutonium(?), silica, UV (? which is not a PM) and tobacco smoke is déjà vu of the 1970’s when the original Clean Air Act was implemented.  Asbestos use was banned over 40 years ago and its residual exposure addressed by OSHA, EPA and various building codes & standards.  Plutonium was never allowed or an issue to the U.S. generation Public.  Silica was initially identified as the ideal replacement for asbestos insulation.  Its’ PM hazards were not identified until some years after replacing large amounts of asbestos, and, appropriate regulatory, manufacturing and worker/user safety (OSHA) actions were immediately implemented once the hazard was known.  All of these PM issues have been properly addressed many years ago.  Why smoking, the No.1 PM health issue in the U.S. past/present, has not been banned is a question that has gone unanswered.

The debate and apparent concerns recently have been how much is too much or wasteful regulation.  All stationary Industrial facilities and the vast majority of mobile PM source emissions (with the possible exception of Commercial construction vehicles, biomass/wood burning, smoking, natural dust storms, etc.) have generally been reduced by 98%+ since the 1970’s.  Reducing most Industrial/Mobile PM emissions further or significantly is very costly with highly debatable benefits.  Perhaps it’s time to recognize that our available financial resources are limited within the U.S. and begin to actually prioritize addressing/further controlling PM sources.  The first priority should likely be addressing the No.1 cause of heart attacks, premature deaths and cancer by ‘banning all smoking’ (this also should include the growing and politically popular recreational marijuana that exposes all users to at least the same PM hazards as common cigarettes). 

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Oct 20, 2013

John,

We are constantly bombarded with praise from RE advocates for Germany even though it produces more and more soot from burning coal, trash, and various plant products as “renewables”.

Soot is not only a carcinogen, but also implicated in the disappearance of arctic Ice. You can show us you are more than a partisan and a hypocrite if you  criticize Democrats and renewables advocates who wish to burn wood, trash, and various plants and plant products which in turn produce soot.

Are you willing to criticize them, John?

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Oct 20, 2013

Paul, I’m not sure I understand you point or question.  When it comes to burning gaseous, liquid or solid fuels the emissions should all meet the same evolving PM 2.5 standards that are being developed to address significant respiratory health issues.  The health effects are generally similar for emissions caused by burning biomass/wood fuels, fossil fuels or most any combination of wastes.  It does not matter what your political tilt is, the fact is that preventing excessive exposure to PM 2.5 or greater air emissions can and does affect people’s respiratory health.  Since the dawn of Civilization, wood smoke has been and can be a significant hazard to people in the immediate area or shortly down-wind of this historic source of PM pollution.  As in the past, installing proper ventilation today in the homes of many Residents within Developing Countries would be a huge first step to controlling and preventing hazardous levels of PM (smoke) inhalation.  Within the U.S. curtailing the use of wood for home heating can help prevent excessive exposure in many local communities.  Refer to an article on a recent suit filed by different States against the EPA.  

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Oct 20, 2013

John,

I meant to direct my points to NRDC, and not to you. Apologies. For some reason I can no longer edit it.

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Oct 22, 2013

John,

 

Apologies once again, TEC has not responded to my request to re-enable editing. I used the name John because it appeared benith the Image used by nrdc, and “nrdc” is not a human as far as I could tell. Please see the image below:

 

 

 

 

 

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Oct 23, 2013

No problem Paul.  I understand your frustration in trying to edit your comment.  Unfortunately the only consistent approach is to edit your last comment.  I respect and look forward to reading your future thoughts on a broad range of subjects.  Keep up to good work.

NRDC Switchboard's picture
Thank NRDC for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »