California ARB Report Finds Fine Particle Air Pollution Responsible for 9,000 Premature Deaths in State Each Year; Based on US EPA Peer-Reviewed Study
01 September 2010
|
|
| Map of California air basins and PM2.5 monitoring network. Source: ARB. Click to enlarge. |
Approximately 9,000 people in California are estimated to die prematurely each year as a result of exposure to fine particle pollution, according to a new report issued by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Fine particle pollution, smaller than 2.5 microns—less than a human hair which averages 70 microns in diameter—is the product of a variety of sources including particles in the exhaust of diesel engines.
The ARB report and its methodology were based on recent science assessments completed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These assessments were required as part of the federal agency’s periodic review of the national air quality standards for fine particle matter, or PM2.5. The review, undertaken as a public process every five years, was completed this spring and included peer review by the federal Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
There is no question particulate pollution is causing premature deaths here in California and nationwide. This study is further evidence that we are on the right track, and ARB will continue to work with truckers and equipment owners to clean up diesel emissions, improve our air quality and protect public health. ARB is committed to reducing this staggering statistic because one premature death is one too many.
— ARB Chairman Mary Nichols
As a result of its review, the US EPA concluded that there is a causal relationship between exposure to fine particle pollution and premature death. A causal relationship indicates the highest level of scientific certainty.
This initial US EPA review was followed by a related risk assessment report released in June that estimated premature deaths nationwide from exposure to fine particulate pollution.
The US EPA and its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee considered evidence from multiple peer-reviewed studies, and the estimates of premature death were based on a key nationwide study of exposure to fine particle pollution involving about 500,000 people and 116 US cities, including Los Angeles and Fresno.
ARB used the same methodology and risk factors the peer-reviewed US EPA report used and applied it to the entire state, drawing on California-specific data from 90 fine-particulate monitoring stations to estimate the number of premature deaths that can be linked to this pollution.
ARB’s report estimated that 9,200 premature deaths in California are associated with fine particulate pollution on an annual basis, with a statistical range from 7,300 to as high as 11,000 premature deaths each year. California has the most extensive particulate monitoring network in the nation.
Very fine particulate pollution is particularly dangerous since it burrows deep into the lungs where it can enter the bloodstream and harm the heart and other organs. Fine particulate pollution poses an especially critical health danger for children, the elderly, and people with existing health problems. While it is recognized that exposure to PM2.5 is linked to cardiovascular disease, the report focused only on premature deaths and did not estimate increased hospitalizations or other health impacts.
ARB efforts to reduce fine particulate pollution are driven by the need to protect public health and also by federal clean air requirements that mandate aggressive action to meet national clean air standards. Missing compliance deadlines could result in the loss of federal transportation funds and other federal sanctions.
In 1998, ARB declared particles in diesel exhaust a Toxic Air Contaminant, a designation that required the Board to take measures to reduce the risk. The Diesel Risk Reduction program was instituted by ARB in 2000. Since then ARB has adopted many regulations to reduce diesel emissions including those from trucks, construction equipment, cargo handling equipment at ports and rail yards, transit buses and trash trucks among others.
The ARB has conducted extensive outreach through its website, The Truck Stop and the Diesel Hotline (866-6DIESEL) over the last year to ensure companies and truck owners are aware of available financial assistance. In 2006, voters approved Proposition 1B, a $1-billion bond initiative to transition to cleaner technologies and clean up emissions from school buses, heavy-duty trucks and diesel equipment. Additionally, up to $140 million annually is available through the Carl Moyer grants which are designated for early or extra emission reductions. There is also a low cost truck loan program under AB 118 to help truckers access financing before regulatory deadlines.
Resources
Unfortunately, deniers will refute all of this.
Many EU countries are moving schools away from highways for the same reason.
We (the majority) will, sooner or latter, realize that pollutants from our industries and vehicles have very negative impacts on our health and are a huge financial burden for everybody.
Will the majority dare do something about it?
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 September 2010 at 06:42 AM
At the risk of being labeled a "tinfoil hat" I gotta think the sheeple are just too well led away from the real concerns. Just look at the Tea Party.
And before anybody calls me a lefty pinko for attacking these guys.
Posted by: ai_vin | 01 September 2010 at 10:33 AM
You don't have to believe any of that, just read it with an open mind.
Posted by: ai_vin | 01 September 2010 at 10:47 AM
Doesn't drug and alcohol use contribute to premature deaths? Gang wars & violence? Last time I checked California was the pot and gang capital of the US.
Posted by: ejj | 01 September 2010 at 10:48 AM
Here is one case where I agree with ai_vin and Harvey D. Unlike their reflexive statist mommyism, I agree that Diesel exhaust is injurious. How injurious is subject to debate, but I won't even go there.
Our beknighted fellows always cackle about the advanced virtuous, socialist States of Europe. I always believed EU was actually trying to kill off its older people to make its national health care solvent. Therefore, they have half their vehicles powered by much dirtier Diesels than California and the US allows, under their purposely lax regulations, specifically for that purpose. How else can you possibly explain their very poor, toxic emission regulation, yesterday, today and as far as we can see into the future?
I thought just like in the US however, cancer incident rates, corrected for all the other killers that used to get you first, have been plunging there as well. For certain, cancer cure rates are soaring, as cancer death rates drop.
That would beg the question of just how dangerous these toxic emissions really are, especially compared to what we used to endure. But it is certainly exaggerated.
Even back then with no emissions controls, people were not dropping dead in the streets, and only occasionally, in London coal smoke smogs.
I actually support the CARBite idiots in their attempts to emplace Level III SULEV II toxic emissions on diesels to match the Zero toxic emission levels already achieved by Otto ICEs, but not even mandated by law. Inexplicably, the domestic selling automakers produce Zero emission ICEs even when not required by the highminded and super virtuous, selfless, CARBite saints. The E-V-I-L auto makers, who putatively are only concerned with the last buck of profits, are inexplicably doing more than they must.
As soon as they promulgate that regulation, California can abolish the CARB, as their day has come and GONE!
After all, what more is needed after all vehicles, cars, trucks, rail locomotives, boats, ships, construction and farm equipment must be totally clean, non-polluting, zero emission machines?
Posted by: ExDemo | 01 September 2010 at 12:19 PM
Yes, diesel exhaust is rife with PM 2.5 and smaller, which embeds itself in lung tissue. Some propose replaceable filters to remove this from diesel exhaust (much as air filters clean ingoing air), though I haven't seen an analysis on this to cover replacement cost, efficacy, power loss, etc.
An unusual (though general) agreement with Stan (ExDemo) can be celebrated...
Posted by: Will S | 01 September 2010 at 12:53 PM
Are Europian diesels really that much dirtier? Sure the regulations on what comes out the tailpipe are not as strict but with their higher fuel prices most of their vehicles use less fuel per mile so less pollution should be getting into the air per mile. Also Europian cities are different in ways that let people drive less: They are denser[shorter distances to travel] and have more developed LRT systems.
Does anyone have actual data?
Posted by: ai_vin | 01 September 2010 at 04:41 PM
Will_S: Remember marijuana joint smoke embeds itself in lung tissue too. California leads the nation in users of "medicinal" marijuana for people with "prescriptions"...so why isn't that being discussed as being related to the premature deaths? Gang violence leads to premature deaths also.
Posted by: ejj | 01 September 2010 at 06:04 PM
ai_vin: A former president campaigned on the slogan "It's The Economy Stupid!"...IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID! What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by: ejj | 01 September 2010 at 06:07 PM
A diesel with particulate filter (DPF) has cleaner exhaust than the urban background air. DPFs are particularly effective on the smallest particles. In Europe, there is a limit for particle number emissions, (i.e. the smallest particles) from diesel cars and the same will come also for heavy-duty engines. CARB has proposed ro regulate particle number emissions at a level 10 times higher than Euro 5. The level has been chosen so that gasoline cars should be able to meet the limit without using a particle filter. US EPA has not even proposed a limit for particle number yet.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 02 September 2010 at 05:47 AM
All particles, fine and small, are detrimental to our lungs. Cigarette/cigar smoking was responsible for millions of lung diseases including non-curable lung cancers. Who doesn't know somebody who has died from lung cancer in the last 20 years or so?
Prevention is a lot cheaper than trying to cure environmentally induced and man-made diseases.
We are slow learners and deniers don't help much.
We too often prioritize quick profit over our own health and of our own children.
Meanwhile, curative medicative medicine organisations and individuals are racking in up to 18% of the GNP and making quick fortunes. They will not support (much lower cost) preventive medicine. It is not in their immediate financial interest.
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 September 2010 at 08:47 AM
Peter, do you have any substantive references to DPF performance (and penalties)?
Posted by: Will S | 02 September 2010 at 01:31 PM
Spark ignition engines typically emit smaller particles than diesel engines and are an important source of fine particles and nanoparticles.
-A recent study in Colorado concluded that up to 2/3 of the fine particle mass emitted by vehicles was from spark ignition engines.
– New gasoline direct injection engines emit much higher particle concentrations than conventional engines and may approach diesel levels under some conditions
Source: Measurement of Engine Exhaust Particle Size, University of Minnesota, David B. Kittelson, Feb 17, 2000
Compared to diesels, a bigger contribution to airborne nanoparticles emissions made by gasoline engines especially DISI direct injection spark ignition engines has been recognized.
Source: Measurement of PM Emissions From Gasoline Direct Injection Engines, Longfei Chen, August 2008, University of Oxford
According to my 15 minutes of research the scientist are saying the opposite of CARB? Or am I way off on this one? And Why???
Posted by: jason.thompson | 02 September 2010 at 04:25 PM
This press release and comment section is going to be embarrassing for one of us. Hope I'm not going crazy but there is that possibility so I need a second opinion from the audience.
Posted by: jason.thompson | 02 September 2010 at 04:33 PM
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/european-automo.html
Looks like this conversation about diesel vs. spark ignition ultrafine particles has taken place before. Is there new research?
Posted by: jason.thompson | 02 September 2010 at 08:38 PM
Will_S
I have made a couple of measurements myself; even on my own car. However, I will not refer to those this time. A nice paper that shows that diesel exhaust after DPF is cleaner than background air was published already in 2003. The paper is: SAE Paper 2003-01-0286. It can be obtained from SAE (www.sae.org). It is not for free. I could give you many other references but I think you should start with this one.
The real problem in measurements on diesel cars with DPF is the measurement method, where the particle level in ambient background air (which is used to dilute and cool the sample) is too high and there might be a "carry over" effect from previous tests on dirtier cars. These circumstances were taken into account in the paper I mentioned. You need to know that if you compare with other studies. Some results: The particle level in background air was 40 times higher than in the exhaust. The filtered air used to dilute and cool the exhaust in the so-called CVS tunnel had a level 20 times higher than the vehicle exhaust. This means that if you measure directly in the dilution tunnel, you will only measure the tunnel background. The researches in this paper used a Swiss-developed equipment to directly dilute exhaust with "super clean" (HEPA filtered) dry air. This is the only way to find out the "real" particle level from a car with DPF. With this method, it was shown that the exhaust was much cleaner (40 times) than the lab background air. I have no doubts about that the air on the streets in the USA are dirtier than this level. It is fair to mention that you can have operating conditions when the particle level from DPF cars can be higher than in these tests. But, it is also fair to recognize that the level can be lower than in background air.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 03 September 2010 at 12:50 AM
Jason
Thanks for the tip about the previous discussion! Now I can just refer to that discussion and do not have to make a long list of references to justify my statement.
Of course there is new research in this field but I think it is fair to point to a source where the first discovery was made.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 03 September 2010 at 01:08 AM
Some thing doesn’t add up, commiefornia has the toughest air quality in the nation and effectively set the national standards of tier 2 bin 5 for all vehicles including diesels thus keeping fuel efficient euro 5 cdi turbo engines out of the states, and now they tell us that pm2.5 from diesel is killing people ? oh right because all the class 8 trucks hauling freight around can operate until model year 2010 totally unfiltered right I see so the average citizen cannot have a efficient diesel but city municipal trucks think garbage, city busses, school buses ect can spew unfiltered exhaust at will. Typical leftist govt ideals do as I say not as I do.
Posted by: TXGeologist | 03 September 2010 at 03:31 PM
The grandfather clause maybe? Could it be that the tier 2 bin 5 standards are for new vehicles but all those city municipal trucks, city buses, school buses can spew unfiltered exhaust because they were already bought and payed for? What standards are used for NEW/future city trucks and buses?
Posted by: ai_vin | 03 September 2010 at 10:54 PM
test
Posted by: ai_vin | 04 September 2010 at 11:00 PM
ai_vi,
You asked how bad curent EU auto diesel specs are.
I would think that a good little green mommyist would frown on any citizen purchasing a car that produces more pollution every moment he drive it, than 1000-1500 cars of his neighbors, combined. That sir is what the EU current standards allow, over the current US T2B5 regulations long in force.
Sometime in 2014 and 2016 they will tighten to so-called EU V and EU VI regulations. Than your unfriendly neighbor will be pouring out only 900 times as much pollution as every one else of his neighbors, provided we don't tighten some more, by then.
And for what? So he can poison his neighbors to save a measly 5 or 10 mpg in every gallon of more expensive diesel that he purchases? Pennies for him, and Death for his neighbors, some nice guy.
Knowledge is the basis of my affirmation of diesel regulation; and why I support the tightening to SULEV II sub-T2B2 levels that will make our phony friend and neighbor produce something like 10,000 times as much pollution as his neighbors. (Actually it infinitely more since the US vehicle is now totally clean and emits ZERO pollution.)
Imagine an old clunker, needing a ring job; and belching a thick haze of blue smoke out of his tailpipe as he drives down the road. We have all seen them. Just because its invisible, unlike the blue haze belcher today, doesnt't change the fact that our EU diesel is sold just equivalent like that blue haze, belching death trap.
Fully fifty percent of European cars are those invisible blue haze belching equivalent, pollution pigs. Along with the gross effrontery to propagandistically label it as a "Clean Diesel", and receives affirmation from, phony, green, cloacal cavities, in the supposedly Green EU movement!
Clean Diesel my arse. EU Greens are as phony as the old EAST Bloc Commissars of Pollution control.
Posted by: ExDemo | 05 September 2010 at 04:19 AM
Peter XX.
Your assertions are a crock. US regs are tougher now than the EU will even project to have even in 2030.
Here are the true references. SULEV II is sub-T2B2. EU V & VI in 2016 merely are more cover, comparable to T2B6 or T2B7, for essentially doing nothing.
Think! If EU diesel were 10 times cleaner, why would it be so tough to federalize diesels for sale in America without l000s of dollars of more pollution controls?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/123901/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/123901/page001.html
You should note that the US regulations apply to all vehicles from 1 lb GVWR to 8500 GVWR. While the EU creates several smaller categories with lesser weights and easier specs to meet. You also have to correct for grams/km and grams/mile. Go inspect the category that includes 8500 GVWR to get a realistic view of EU regulations for all cars and light trucks including EU VI going into force in early 2016, and comparable to US regs.
By then CARB will have issued its Lev III regulation,(probably early 2011), which require all cars and light trucks, gasoline or diesels to produce no more toxic emissions than an EV! In other words nothing, a ZERO emission Vehicle, and perfectly clean. Its the end of the line for regulation. There is nothing cleaner than Clean. In California CARB admitted that 25% of cars already meet sub-T2B2, aka SULEV II; obviously not a single one is a diesel.
They have not discussed an effective date yet; but past CARB history is for a very early phased implementation and then a back down when it proves impossible.
Posted by: ExDemo | 05 September 2010 at 05:01 AM
ExDemo
Please read the Paper I gave a tip about! You could learn something from that...
Euro V and VI apply to heavy-duty engines, not to light-duty vehicles. Euro 5 and 6 are for cars. With that flaw, you have showed me that you do not know much about EU regulations. I do not bother to comment on all the other mistakes you have made.
US EPA does not even concern limiting the small particles that cause most health effects. Why? Not invented here, perhaps... maybe because the measurement methods have been developed in Europe, not in the USA. I already commented on the CARB proposal. The level they propose for the future is about 10 times higher that Euro 5. You have to accept that fact. EPA has not proposed anything.
How clean would a diesel car have to be before you would accept it? Today, the particle level is similar to background air. The paper I hinted about showed much lower level but when you take other driving conditions into account, about equivalent is fair to say. Do diesels have to be 10 times cleaner, 100 times cleaner or what... to be accepted?
By the way, why would zero emissions be a goal? I can see no point in going beyond Euro 6 and T2B5 (average for the fleet). Reducing emissions in other sectors is more cost effective. In the USA, for example, you could shift focus from cars to your coal-fired power plants.
Continuing this discussion with you, ExDemo, is pointeless, so I will end here.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 05 September 2010 at 12:44 PM
You are concerned with trivialities. PM 2.5 effects are tiny and tertiary at best.
EU toxic emissions regulations are backward and stink, despite the strength of Green politics. I can only conclude that like their old East Bloc commissars, they don't really give a damn, and its all posturing or bribe taking.
Y'all have forced Americans to pay to develop toxic emissions cleanup technologies. They are developed now, and your automakers build cars incorporating them to sell here, so what is your excuse that they don't use them there, now?
You act as if emissions from a tailpipe that are breathable and is news in Europe. But it has long been true here. Most police department in the US, have long since disbanded their "garage-suicide" squads, specializing in handling a death in a garage full of toxic gas. They just can't succeed in killing themselves doing it anymore. Welcome to the club.
I travel to Europe frequently and every time I climb off the plane I am overcome with Diesel "Stink", like I was stuck behind a smelly diesel bus for the several minutes it takes to adjust and ignore it. It just continues to worsen over the years. Go ahead and preach, how y'all are concerned.
I recall a discussion with an EU defender who argued at that time, your HVOC evaporative levels were lower. He was correct, but the EU had done nothing. Diesel fuel is simply not as volatile as gasoline. In any case, HVOC limits were tightened in the US as planned, and that "benefit evaporated".
Typical. EU 5 and 6 or EU V and VI are concerned with genuine toxic emissions, but are at least 30 years behind US standards for no good reason; and falling further behind every day. California and its fourteen sisters, will soon require Perfectly Clean cars, no matter the motive method. Y'all can but won't, match 1980s stateside standards.
The only areas we are equal in toxic emissions, is the International MARPOL Annex VI Treaty negotiated by the Bush Administration et al, for "tiered marine emissions". The coming Tier III and Tier IV limits will go into effect worldwide at the same time. Your marine insurers have co-operated to pull the fangs of Flags of Convenience non-compliance. No one can dare to sail without insurance, and that is only issued with maritime emission compliance, enforced by all marine insurers worldwide. It was a novel, masterstroke mechanism of nongovernmental enforcement.
We have cleaned up our environment and have the cleanest Air, cleanest Water, and superior land waste handling in the world. We emit no net CO2, as if that mattered. You have phonies everywhere, lots of talk, and... dirty cars and poisoned citizens.
But I will read the paper to which you referred.
Posted by: ExDemo | 06 September 2010 at 08:57 AM
PeterXX,
would you like me to arrange a pipe of this :Quote: " A diesel with particulate filter (DPF) has cleaner exhaust than the urban background air." cleaner air to your house?
PeterXX,
Stan/Sas/Exdemo Goracle Or whoever it m9ight be today TXGeologist (NOT) ?
Knows this:
"Euro V and VI apply to heavy-duty engines, not to light-duty vehicles. Euro 5 and 6 are for cars. With that flaw, you have showed me that you do not know much about EU regulations. I do not bother to comment on all the other mistakes you have made."
Perfectly well amongst others but chooses to ignore facts unashamedly.The blatant purposeful ignorance of certain repeat offenders on this site is . About the same as any other media.
PeterXX,
If you really believe this;
"A diesel with particulate filter (DPF) has cleaner exhaust than the urban background air." would you like me to arrange a pipe of this cleaner air into your house?
I think SAAB were forced to recant such idiotic advertisement of their products.
I can't believe I'm caught up with such a waste of space.
Posted by: Arnold | 15 September 2010 at 10:27 PM