Air Pollution and Public Health, Research Paper Example

Air pollution is a significant issue, for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the effect it has on human health; we know instinctively that smog is bad, but do e rally know why? Do we rally know what is in the air pollution e can see –or the air pollution we can not see? It’s not just our breathing that is affected by air pollution; there are many health risks associated with air pollution, some of which may actually come as a surprise to some people. And besides the obvious, and not so obvious, health effects, there are the effects of air pollution on the health of the environment, and the long-term consequences that can result from all the poisons being pumped into the air. Fortunately, there are efforts being made to educate the public about the harmful effects of air pollution, as well as to help combat the effects o air pollution on the environment and on public health.

When we think of air pollution, most of us probably think of smog suspended over cities. But that is only one type of air pollution; there are many more, some visible, and some invisible. These different forms of air pollution are harmful in several ways; the two most obvious factors influenced by air pollution are its effects on climate change, and its effect on public health. Air pollution is loosely defined as any substance that has been introduced into the atmosphere though human activity that has a harmful effect on life and the environment (National Geographic, 2010).

The primary ingredient in air pollution is carbon dioxide. This substance is known as a “greenhouse gas,” as it traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, leading to global warming and other harmful effects on the environment. Though carbon dioxide is produced naturally by living creatures, it is produced on a larger, more concentrated scale by man-made sources, such as airplanes, automobiles, power plants, and other machines and facilities that employ the combustion of fossil fuels. Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, more carbon dioxide has been introduced into the atmosphere to raise the levels to their highest in millennia (National Geographic, 2010).

In addition to carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons are found in the makeup of air pollution. Methane is produced both by man-made and natural means, while chlorofluorocarbons are associated with refrigerants and aerosol propellants; now banned, these substances still remain in the atmosphere (National Geographic, 2010).

Along with these gases, sulfur dioxide is found in air pollution, and is a primary component of visible smog. Sulfur dioxide and other, similar chemicals are found in acid rain (an occurrence of these chemicals in rainfall which can have a damaging effect on living things as well as man-made structures and other things that are prone to exposure to the elements). These compounds also occur naturally; for example, they are produced in large amounts during volcanic eruptions. Still, their primary origin in contemporary times is from man-made sources (National Geographic, 2010).

Some industrialized nations have been taking steps to combat the effects of air pollution in an effort to stem the tide of climate change, as well s to limit the effects of such pollution on human health. Interestingly, though, lowered levels of sulfur dioxide, while helpful in some respects, may also serve to contribute to global warming, as its presence in the atmosphere helps to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. As it is eliminated, more sunlight is allowed to pass through the atmosphere, the heat from which can then become trapped by other greenhouse gases (National Geographic, 2010).

In order to lower the amount of air pollution, and thus lower the risk of climate change and harmful effects on human health, a number of different approaches may be taken. On an individual level, people can choose to fly less often, to cut back on driving, and to use less electricity (which decreases demand on power plants). Taking these steps is referred to as lowering one’s “carbon footprint” (which is the amount of carbon dioxide an individual emits into the atmosphere) (National Geographic, 2010).

Beyond what individuals can do, governments can also take steps to reduce air pollution. Some countries have joined in the Kyoto Protocol, which is an agreement to cut back on the amount o emissions produced by the participating countries. Other methods include levying taxes on carbon emissions in order to encourage conservation. For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on air pollution s a public health matter, and seek to examine both the causes and effects of harmful pollution as well as what efforts have been, and will be, taken to combat it and thus, hopefully, lower the risks to human health.

The facts about air pollution and its effects on human health are staggering, and often surprising. Consider the following:

• One study has shown that living in a major metropolitan area is riskier than living in a “hot zone” in the Russian city of Chernobyl
• The World Health Organization (WHO) blames air pollution for 2 million premature deaths annually
• Exposure to fine particulate matter raises the statistical likelihood of hospitalization due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases
• A recent study conducted in Germany showed a demonstrable connection between traffic fumes and hardening of the arteries
• A study in Scotland showed a connection between jogging near traffic sites and incidences of cardiac arrhythmia
• A study in Los Angeles has recently determined that the previously-reported health risks may have been grossly underestimated, and may be up to three times grater than previously understood

These are just a few facts about air pollution. One other fact that is starting to become clear is the connection between the health effects of air pollution and socio-economic status. The picture I becoming quite distinct: the lower down the socio-economic ladder, the greater the health risks, and the greater the impact of environmental factors on health. The are several reasons for this, notably, that those with fewer resources are less likely to receive adequate medical care, and are often faced with greater exposure to environmental hazards due to physical proximity to the effects of urban development, traffic, and other man-made sources of pollution.

The World Health Organization has compiled a list of factors they call the Social Determinant of Health. These are “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system” (WHO, 2010), and are “shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels, which are themselves influenced by policy choices” (WHO, 2010). According to the WHO, these factors are responsible for many of the inequities in health care delivery, as ell as in the prevalence of higher risk factors from environmental sources in lower socio-economic-scale regions of the world (WHO, 2010).

This connection between environmental factors is being explored not just by the WHO, but by many different agencies and individuals. A study by a group of leading researchers from several major universities further explored this emerging area of understanding. They found that “air pollution and poverty (are) priority areas for public health intervention” (O’Neill, et l, 2003) and that the overlap between these factors is an area that requires focused attention from researchers. Approximately 1 billion people live in poverty, 1.5 billion live in “polluted urban areas,” and a significant majority of people globally will be living in urban areas by 2025 (O’Neill, et al, 2003).

Further, the evidence is mounting that air pollution is much more dangerous than has previously been believed. Its effects are tied to everything from asthma to reduced life expectancy (O’Neill, et al, 2003). There does not appear to be a ceiling to these effects, and the increasing level of global air pollution from developing nations is significantly increasing the levels of pollution and the subsequent dangers (O’Neill, et al, 2003).

People in these urban areas are affected by air pollution in numerous ways. One of the substances in air pollution, ozone, damages lungs and reduces their proper function, and also serves to make the lungs more sensitive to the effects of other pollutants. Ozone does not just affect people with impaired breathing, such as those with asthma, but also affects those with healthy lung function. Even low amounts of ozone in the atmosphere can be harmful to lung function. Other substances in urban air pollution can have effects on lung function, induce asthma attacks, and contribute to cardiovascular disease (Walker, Barber, 2010).

As a matter of public health, many things have changed in the last century. A hundred years ago, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death. In the year 2000, chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease account for 80% of all deaths. As noted, there is a strong connection between socioeconomic status and health, and this is further complicated by the effect of environment on health issues. There is an established connection between air pollution and cardiovascular disease, as well as low socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease (Fielding, 2006).

A recent study conducted in Los Angeles County examined the rates of premature death from chronic disease and poverty. It was clearly established that those who lived in poorer areas were significantly more likely to suffer from premature death due to cardiovascular disease (Fielding, 2006). Further studies have shown a clear connection between air pollution, socioeconomic scale, and health issues.

A 2005 study conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the state of Maryland demonstrated that poor, predominantly African-American communities are susceptible to a greater risk of cancer from exposure to air pollution. The study showed that the poorer the community and the higher the proportion of African-Americans, the higher the risk of air-pollution-related cancer (Science Daily, 2005).

As noted previously, the effects of urban living serve to exacerbate the effects of air pollution on public health. Sources such as traffic are obvious culprits, as are “area sources” such as dry cleaners and gas stations, and “point sources” such as power plants and industrial sources, and various other sources, such as construction, heavy vehicles and airplanes (the last of which are more commonly spread among different areas). (Science Daily, 2005).

According to Benjmin Apelberg, the lead author of the study, “the inequity in risk from air toxins shown by this study represents yet another public health strike against that segment of Maryland’s population that can least afford it.” The study examined comparisons between cancer risk estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency to the racial, social, and economic statistics found in the 2000 Census report. The lifetime cancer risk, as determined by the EPA, was based on surveys of different sources o air pollution from around the nation, and takes into account air pollution sources from human activity (Science Daily, 2005)

The researchers concluded that those in the lowest quartile of median household income were anywhere from 15 to 100 times more likely to demonstrate a risk of cancer from air pollution. Communities with a higher proportion of African-Americans showed a risk that was three times higher than the average. The study also concluded that, as the number of white residents increased, the risk of cancer decreased (Science Daily, 2005).

The EPA’s cancer risk assessment considered four primary sources of air pollution: major emissions sources, area emissions sources, on-road vehicle sources, and off-road vehicle sources. The highest impact on cancer risk in Maryland came from the emissions of on-road vehicles such as automobiles. Next were the emissions from construction vehicles and farm equipment, and by sources such as repair shops and dry cleaners. In every aspect of the study, “significant and consistent disparities” in cancer risk were seen to be linked to income disparities (Science Daily, 2005).

The study concluded what many similar studies have found: that there is a strong link between urban living, air pollution, and risks to public health. Low-income communities with predominantly African-American populations have a greater likelihood , statistically, of being in proximity to sources of pollution such as roadways. On the other hand, the cancer risk from industrial sources was seen to be more equitably spread both geographically and socio-economically (Science Daily, 2005).

Studies have long shown that those living in poorer communities have a higher exposure to stressors that can lad to health problems; it is only recently that the connection between these factors and environmental factors has been established (Science Daily, 2005). It is possible to conclude, according to the researchers, that policies designed to lessen air pollution can have a significant effect on the health of these affected populations (Science Daily, 2005). The authors suggest that these urban areas be the focus of policies that aim to reduce the amount of air pollution and emissions from vehicles, and sources such as shops and dry cleaners. They assert that proper planning and zoning can serve to alleviate many of these sources of air pollution; beyond that, it is up to individuals to take what steps they can to help reduce sir pollution, such as driving less, and using public transportation (Science Daily, 2005).

The more studies that are conducted, and the more accurate the data, the more significant the connections among these factors become. Connections have been established between air pollution and hospital admissions, and air pollution and atherosclerosis. Efforts are continuing to more specifically determine which of the various components of air pollution are the most significant contributors to increased health risks (Schwartz, 2006). Also, studies are attempting to determine the effects of time-sensitive fluctuations of air pollution (such as that associated with rush-hour traffic) and incidents of specific health crises, such s myocardial infarctions (Schwartz, 2006).

Given the health risks associated with air pollution, the question arises of what individuals can do in response to those risks. The state of Maryland has number of outlets for information about air quality and combating the effects of air pollution. For example, the site <http://www.washco-md.net/air_qual.shtm> offers some helpful information. Washington County, in conjunction with the EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment has coordinated the Air Quality Action Days Program. It is an initiative partnering government, various public organizations, and environmental groups in an effort to spread information about actions to be taken when air quality is bad, such as avoiding outdoor exercise and staying out of traffic when possible (Washington County, 2010). Other suggestions include:

• Refuel cars after dusk and limit driving.
  Put off any painting until later.
• Don’t use aerosol consumer products.
• Avoid mowing lawns with gasoline-powered mowers.
• Start charcoal with an electric or chimney-type fire starter instead of lighter fluid.
• Take public transportation or carpool.
• Try telecommuting.

The Maryland Commission on Climate change has compiled a detailed report on the effects of air pollution on climate change, as well as the effects of air pollution on public health (Dickerson, 2010). The report also goes into further detail about measures to be taken by public and private institutions, as well as individuals, in response to air pollution. The response to air pollution as a public health issue must be twofold; the first, and most immediate response must be to take action to limit exposure to air pollution, through avoiding sources of pollution whenever possible. Second, but perhaps more importantly, efforts must be undertaken by individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments to limit the output of air pollution. It is clear how dangerous air pollution is, and we must recognize the dangers before it is too late.

Works Cited

“Air Pollution Comes From Many Sources.” National Geographic: Environment. National Geographic, 2010. Web. 20 Jun 2010. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview.html>.

“Air Quality Forecast.” Washington County, MD. Washington County Government, 2010. Web. 15 Jun 2010. <http://www.washco-md.net/air_qual.shtm>.

Dickerson, Russell R. “Climate Change and Air Quality in Maryland.” Maryland Commission on Climate Change (2008): n. pag. Web. 17 Jun 2010. <http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~RAMMPP/Climate_Change_and_Air_Quality.pdf>.

Fielding, Johnathan E. “Premature Deaths from Heart Disease and Stroke in Los Angeles County.” Cities and Communities Health Report. Community of Los Angeles Department of Health Services, 2006. Web. 20 Jun 2010. <http://lapublichealth.org/epi/docs/CHR_CVH.pdf>.

“Leading Health Indicators.” Healthy People 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Web. 26 Jun 2010. <http://www.healthypeople.gov/LHI/>.

“Maryland’s Poor, African-American Communities Suffer Disproportionate Cancer Risk From Air Pollution .” Science Daily 17 June 2005: n. pag. Web. 18 Jun 2010. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050616060850.htm>.

Putatunda, Rita. “Air Pollution Facts.” Buzzle.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 20 Jun 2010. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/air-pollution-facts.html>.

Schwartz, Joel. “Commentary: Air Pollution.” American Journal of Epidemiology 164.5 (2006): 434-436. Web. 20 Jun 2010. <http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/164/5/434>

Walker, Bailus, and Jesse Barber. “Air Quality and Public Health.”Journal of the National Medical Association 89.6 378-380. Web. 19 Jun 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2608148/pdf/jnma00373-0016.pdf>.

References for Further Study

Frumkin, Howard. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports 117. (2002): 201-212. Web. 16 Jun 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Urban_Sprawl_and_Public_Health_PHR.pdf>.

“Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene.” Environmental Health Tracking. N.p., 2002. Web. 16 Jun 2010. <http://eh.dhmh.md.gov/tracking/>.

“Air and Radiation Programs.” Maryland Department of the Environment, 2010. Web. 17 Jun 2010. <http://www.mde.state.md.us/Air/air_quality/index.asp>.

Texas Air Quality Study. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, 2005. Web. 25 Jun 2010. <http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/texaqsII/visitors.htm>.