The Costs Of Particulate Matter To American Health

This blog post was written by Dr. Bonnie New, former Director of Health Professionals for Clean Air.

Physicians treating patients with respiratory symptoms look for underlying causes or aggravators, and that includes exposure to air pollution.

If that pollution involves particulate matter – also known as soot – their concerns intensify, because of its well-known negative health impacts.

Many studies demonstrate associations between short- and long-term exposures to fine particle air pollution (PM2.5) and cardiopulmonary disease and mortality.

PM2.5 exposure is also associated with:

  • endocrine and reproductive dysfunction, including pre-term and low birth-weight babies;
  • increases in lung cancer;
  • increases in the development of vascular disease; and
  • increases in diabetes mortality.

In addition to aggravating existing asthma and other lung diseases, PM2.5 has been linked to retarded lung growth and reduced lung function in children, and even with de novo (newly occurring) development of respiratory problems in infants and children. Research also shows that reductions in PM2.5 are associated with reductions in adverse health effects and improved life expectancy.

It’s important to state here that currently, there is no identified level of PM2.5 that is known to not make people sick.

The groups most susceptible to adverse health effects from PM2.5 are infants, children, teens, the elderly, and those with existing lung and cardiovascular problems. Taken together, this represents almost half of the U.S. population.

Impacts to the Economy

When we see the large impacts of pollution on health, it’s impossible not to notice the financial impacts as well.

The economic impact of preventable illness and death related to soot pollution in the U.S. is staggering, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. The functional impact on the lives of those affected and their families is also dramatic.

As doctors, we deal with not only the challenges of diagnosis and treatment, but with the sadness, frustration and pain of people who can not live normal lives and children who can not enjoy just being kids.

It raises anger in physicians to hear from those opposing health-based air quality regulations on the basis that such regulations would be “too costly”. It’s not like the costs are avoided if regulations are not put into place. The costs are simply shifted to our patients, and to the health care system. The costs are paid for in lives impaired and lives lost, in kids who can’t run and play, in increasing hospitalizations and people missing work and school because they’re sick.

Shifting costs like this from polluters to the general public makes for healthy business profits, but sick and unhappy people. As patient advocates, doctors have good reason to be angry. The public, those current and future patients and families, do too.

This entry was posted in Air Pollution, Particulate Matter. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. Posted December 11, 2012 at 4:30 AM | Permalink

    Saginaw mapped infant mortality at census tract level:

    http://www.mlive.com/living/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/04/saginaw_county_infant_mortalit.html

    "Infant deaths are a barometer for the health of the entire community," said Dawn Shanafelt, community health section supervisor for the Saginaw County Health Department. "If we can't protect our babies, we have a huge problem."

    Have any other UK researchers mapped infant mortality rates at electoral ward level and seen that wards exposed to PM2.5 emissions from incinerators and other industrial sources have high infant death rates, whilst wards free from such emissions have very low rates?

    http://ukhr.eu/incineration/westmidlandmap.pdf

    http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2008/06/17/nhs-puzzled-by-city-s-worst-in-uk-infant-mortality-rates-65233-21092039/

    http://www.birminghammail.net/news/local-news/mystery-as-brum-babies-die-young-65061

    http://www.ukhr.eu/incineration/tyseley.pdf

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/incinerator_emissions_and_high_i#incoming-321407

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/incinerator_emissions_and_high_i

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/12/06/health-impact-of-incinerators-must-be-studied-says-new-report-91466-32368938/

  • About This Blog

    Confluence of SJR, Old, and Middle rivers

    Advocating for healthier air and cleaner energy in Texas through public education and policy influence.

    Follow @EDFtx

  • Categories

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Featured authors

    Ramon AlvarezRamon Alvarez
    Senior Scientist

    Elena Craft
    Health Scientist

    Jim Marston
    Vice President, US Climate and Energy Program

    Marita Mirzatuny
    Project Manager

    Marcelo Norsworthy
    Transportation Research Analyst

    Kate Zerrenner
    Project Manager

  • Twitter activity