For the first time in 35 years, the EPA has proosed setting a new one-hour standard and establishing a roadside monitoring network for nitrogen dioxide, a widespread, noxious air pollutant.
March 11, 2009. Long-term exposure to ozone smog increases the risk of death from respiratory causes, according to a study published in today’s New England Journal of Medicine.
This week a coalition of health and environmental organizations released an agenda the Obama Administration and Congress should pursue to protect the air we breathe.
A stunning new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that average life expectancy in U.S. cities has increased nearly three years over recent decades, and approximately five months of that increase, or 15 percent, came because of reduced fine particle air pollution.
There is a very interesting article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Obama Administration has an opportunity to restore scientific integrity to the process for setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Long-term exposure to particulate matter elevates the risk of mortality in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) according to a new study of Medicare patients in 34 U.S. cities.
An investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) an arm of the Congress, as found that EPA has largely disregarded key recommendations from its Children’s Advisory Committee, particularly with respect to proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAAQS).
In recent weeks, much attention has been focused on the air quality in Beijing, China and its potential impact on athletes and even spectators.
This summer we are seeing increased ozone alert days across the nation due in part to a change in the EPA air quality standard for ozone.
If you are heading to the beach this holiday weekend, you may be interested in a novel program instituted in Galveston, Texas.
The summer hasn't officially begun yet, but we are already seeing ozone levels worse than the EPA's new standard.
Cessation of smoking has a beneficial effect on lung function, but the effect of reductions in air pollution on lung function has not been studied in adults until recently. It is normal for lung function to decline with age. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is the first to explore whether a decline in air pollution over time can attenuate this decline.
"'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Benjamin Franklin, 1789 Over the past several years, scientists and policy makers have increasingly debated the issue of uncertainty in the scientific base of information that underlies public health policy decisions. What do we mean by “uncertainty”? One way to think of scientific uncertainty is the lack of precise knowledge of the “scientific truth.” Despite our best efforts, we can only reduce but never completely eliminate uncertainty through obtaining more information. In fact, you can think of the scientific method itself as an approach to obtaining more information that (hopefully) reduces uncertainty and improves our understanding of the “scientific truth”.
I often get inquiries from citizen groups that are looking for presentations on the health effects of air pollution.
The ancient Greek poet and scholar Callimachus once was heard to quip "A big book is a big nuisance." The American Lung Association's recent "State of the Air" report is indeed big -- but it is anything but a nuisance
Last week I attended a Senate oversight hearing on the undermining of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. A subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was investigating the Agency’s failure to follow the recommendations of its own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee when revising the air quality standards for soot and smog.
I run a project for the American Lung Association tracking the EPA review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards define what constitutes “clean air” in America.
Thanks for writing in to our State of the Air website. As has happened every year, we’ve managed to make some people very unhappy about how we characterized the air in their community (we hear you, Pittsburgh!) and left others wondering about our data—or lack of data—in their community. I’ll try to answer some of the early ones and respond to the Pittsburgh questions tomorrow.