Coal miners ‘black lung’ and frackers ‘white lung’ are examples of such ailments

From an Article by Eglė Krištopaitytė, Health News, January 20, 2023

Climate change impacts all aspects of our lives, including our health. From inflammation caused by wildfire smoke to diseases-carrying vectors migrating to new areas, the threats associated with changing climate are here to stay. [It can get worse! See Paul Brown’s challenge.]

This past year 2022 was the world’s 6th-warmest year on record since 1880, according to the latest report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Millions of Americans have experienced the consequences of climate change firsthand, as the country endured 18 separate disasters, including hurricanes and droughts, damages of which exceeded $1 billion. Moreover, these disasters resulted in the deaths of 474 people.

In 2021, an international group of medical professionals suggested that rising temperatures due to climate change was the greatest threat to global public health. Scientists expect temperatures to continue increasing this year. In 2024, they could set a new global record.

In an interview with Healthnews, Juan Aguilera, MD, PhD, MPH, a director of Translational Environmental and Climate Health at Stanford University, explains how climate change damages our mental and physical health.

Wildfire smoke causes inflammation; wildfires also cause public displacement and property damages.

Aguilera says that climate change impacts different aspects of our lives. For example, rising temperatures prolong drought periods, leading to the drying of the forests’ soils. When weeds and bushes are not hydrated enough, the fires tend to expand and cover wider areas.

“Smoke contains many different particles that are harmful to human health, with some being small enough to go into the respiratory system and even to penetrate deeply into the circulation,” he told Healthnews.

Once in blood circulation, particles cause inflammation which, in the long term, could lead to heart diseases, stroke, hardening of the arteries, and even cancer. According to Aguilera, scientists are now learning that wildfire smoke may also affect the immune system, making people weaker against any other types of diseases.

The effects of climate change are also linked to mental health problems. For example, living in an area where wildfires may occur can be a source of anxiety. “You never know when a wildfire will occur, how big and wide it is going to be. You may be in danger and need to evacuate your home. Following the news also might be a source making anybody feel anxious,” Aguilera, MD, added.

Moreover, harmful particles from wildfire smoke may affect neurons and, therefore, mental health.

“As we learn more about how these smaller particles affect our entire bodies, we can also explain issues related to mental health,” he says.

Extreme climate events are more frequent now. Climate change also exacerbates extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and thunderstorms, eventually leading to flooding. This causes more humidity within the homes, which can result in mold, Aguilera explains. For some, mold may cause mild symptoms, such as sore throat, coughing, or wheezing. However, those with asthma or people allergic to mold may have severe reactions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2022, flooding caused by Hurricane Ian led to a spike in potentially deadly infections caused by Vibrio vulnificus, also known as “flesh-eating” bacteria. Over 60 cases of infections and 11 deaths were reported in Florida.

“Mosquitos and other vectors are getting adjusted to conditions where the climate is changing. They reach areas where there usually aren’t mosquitos, ticks, or any other vectors,” Aguilera added. Researcher says that as climate changes, the pollen season is expanding to up to ten months; therefore, pollen allergies will become more frequent.

How to protect yourself from pollution? Air pollution is one of the drivers of climate change. In 2021, about 67 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, research reveals more or more harm of pollution to human health. For example, a study from last year found that unborn babies have black carbon particles in vital organs, such as the liver, lungs, and brain, as early as the first trimester.

Another study demonstrated that women in their late 40s and early 50s who were exposed long-term to air pollution with nitrogen dioxide and ozone saw increases in their body size and composition measures.

So how to protect ourselves from toxic pollutants? Aguilera says that while not everybody will be able to move out of regions that are exposed to air pollution, we can take some lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the steps is to follow the air quality index, which allows tracking of real-time air pollution conditions on a certain day.

“Vulnerable groups, such as pregnant, elderly people, children, and people with asthma, may want to consider some personal barriers, such as wearing a mask. Depending on your situation, it might be an N95 mask,” he says. In addition, air purifiers may help to trap these particles and reduce the amount of pollution inside the houses.

Aguilera explains that in the United States, some low-income communities live closer to freeways and roads, meaning that there are higher levels of air pollution coming from the traffic.

“Some homes don’t have proper insulation, and because of impending climate change, people who live there may suffer from heat stress or heat stroke. Measures to protect themselves, such as better cooling devices or air purifiers, cost money and are not necessarily accessible to everybody,” he adds.

Researcher says that the first step in achieving health equity is an awareness that our actions do affect not only ourselves but also people in other countries. “In Africa, they deal with severe droughts and shortages of food because of how climate changes make soils less fertile in some areas,” he says.

References & Sources ~

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2022 was world’s 6th-warmest year on record.

2. The New England Journal of Medicine. Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health.

3. The University of Aberdeen. Babies have air pollution in their lungs and brains before they take their first breath.

4. The University of Michigan. Air pollution tips the scale for obesity in women.

5. Kaiser Family Foundation. Climate Change and Health Equity: Key Questions and Answers.

Particulate matter affects the lungs, the heart and the brain

From an Alert by Amanda Andrews, KDKA News 2, CBS News, April 24 @ Noon

MON VALLEY (KDKA) — The Allegheny County Health Department has issued an air pollution warning for the Mon Valley area.

The warning started late this morning and continues through tomorrow.

Health officials warn that individuals with health conditions such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema should be careful during this time.

The department also stated that “companies most significantly contributing to particulate pollution … are required to temporarily reduce particulate emissions.”

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

Allegheny County Health Department, @HealthAllegheny

An Air Pollution Warning has been issued for the Mon Valley for the remainder of today and into tomorrow. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard for the Mon Valley has been exceeded at an official monitoring station in the Mon Valley and is likely to continue.

Extensive frac sand mining is damaging thousands of acres

Public Announcement from FracTracker, Public Lab, & Save the Hills Alliance, February 8, 2021

“Undermined,” is an audio story featuring interviews with three residents impacted by the Hi-Crush Mine in Augusta, Wisconsin.

Christine Yellowthunder, Tom Pearson, and Terence O’Donahue give first hand accounts of their struggles for clean air and water, healthy farmland, and sustainable livelihoods amidst broken promises from frac sand companies.

Listen here: “UNDERMINED: VOICES FROM THE FRONTLINES OF FRAC SAND MINING”

The perils of fracking are well documented, but the impacts from mining frac sand are less widely known. In this OpenHour, we speak with the people fighting for clean air and water, fertile farmland, & sustainable livelihoods in fenceline communities from across the midwest.

Fracking is an extractive technology that has spread across massive landscapes and unzoned, small towns in the USA as industry has purchased up land rights to conduct operations. Mining for silica sand, use of chemicals, and local water all are pumped into the ground to release small pockets of oil & gas. We will hear directly from community members who have been bringing their communities together to unite in the struggles for healthy homes and justice amidst broken promises from frac sand companies.

About Frac Sand Mining in Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, etc.

To learn more about frac sand mining, see FracTracker’s collection of aerial imagery, and explore the collection of articles and interactive maps, please visit our informational page below:

Get the Scoop on Frac Sand Mining

Coal-fired power plants generate fine particulate pollution

From an Article by Lisa Friedman, New York Times, May 20, 2019

Photo: The Hunter power plant in Castle Dale, Utah, which burns an estimated 4.5 million tons of coal a year.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.

The E.P.A. had originally forecast that eliminating the Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with a new measure would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year. The new analytical model would significantly reduce that number and would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules if it is formally adopted.

The proposed shift is the latest example of the Trump administration downgrading the estimates of environmental harm from pollution in regulations. In this case, the proposed methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires. Many experts said that approach was not scientifically sound and that, in the real world, there are no safe levels of the fine particulate pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

Fine particulate matter — the tiny, deadly particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream — is linked to heart attacks, strokes and respiratory disease.

The five people familiar with the plan, all current or former E.P.A. officials, said the new modeling method would appear in the agency’s analysis of the final version of the replacement regulation, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which is expected to be made public in June.

Asked on Monday whether the new method would be included in the agency’s final analysis of the rule, William L. Wehrum, the E.P.A. air quality chief, said only that the final version would include multiple analytical approaches in an effort to be transparent. He said the agency had made no formal change to its methodology.

“It’s a very important issue, and it’s an issue where there has been a lot of debate over what the right approach is,” Mr. Wehrum said.

The E.P.A., when making major regulatory changes, is normally expected to demonstrate that society will see more benefits than costs from the change. Experts said that, while benefits would appear on paper in this case, the change actually disregards potential dangers to public health.

“Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. He called the expected change a “monumental departure” from the approach both Republican and Democratic E.P.A. leaders have used over the past several decades and predicted that it would lay the groundwork for weakening more environmental regulations.

“It could be an enormously significant impact,” Mr. Revesz said.

The Obama administration had sought to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan by pushing utilities to switch away from coal and instead use natural gas or renewable energy to generate electricity. The Obama plan would also have what is known as a co-benefit: levels of fine particulate matter would fall.

The Trump administration has moved to repeal the Obama-era planand replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which would slightly improve the efficiency of coal plants. It would also allow older coal plants to remain in operation longer and result in an increase of particulate matter.

Particulate matter comes in various sizes. The greatest health risk comes from what is known as PM 2.5, the range of fine particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. That is about one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.

The E.P.A. has set the safety threshold for PM 2.5 at a yearly average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. While individual days vary, with some higher, an annual average at or below that level, known as the particulate matter standard, is considered safe. However, the agency still weighs health hazards that occur in the safe range when it analyzes new regulations.

Industry has long questioned that system. After all, fossil fuel advocates ask, why should the E.P.A. search for health dangers, and, ultimately, impose costs on industry, in situations where air is officially considered safe?

Mr. Wehrum, who worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for chemical manufacturers and fossil fuel businesses before moving to the E.P.A., echoed that position in two interviews. He noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.

“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Mr. Wehrum acknowledged that the administration was considering a handful of analyses that would reduce the prediction of 1,400 premature deaths as a result of the measure.

He called the attention given to that initial forecast “unfortunate” and said the agency had included the figure in its analysis to show the varied results that can be achieved based on different assumptions.

Mr. Wehrum said the analyses the agency is conducting “illuminate the issue” of particulate matter and the question of what level is acceptable for the purposes of policymaking. He said new approaches would allow for public debate to move ahead and that any new methods would be subject to peer review if they became the agency’s primary tool for measuring health risks.

“This isn’t just something I’m cooking up here in my fifth-floor office in Washington,” Mr. Wehrum said.

Roger O. McClellan, who has served on E.P.A. advisory boards and as president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, an industry-financed research center, said that the data for health risks below the particulate matter standard was weak and that he did not accept the argument that agencies must calculate risk “down to the first molecule of exposure.”

“These kinds of approaches — that every molecule, every ionization, carries with it an associated calculable health risk — are just misleading,” Mr. McClellan said.
To put the matter in perspective, most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits. On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn’t mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 m.p.h., or even 25.

Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary disease specialist who is dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, said the most recent studies showed negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard. “It’s not a hard stop where we can say ‘below that, air is safe.’ That would not be supported by the scientific evidence,” Dr. Samet said. “It would be very nice for public health if things worked that way, but they don’t seem to.”

Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit research organization that is funded by the E.P.A. and industry groups, acknowledged there was uncertainty around the effects of fine particulate matter exposure below the standard.
He said it was reasonable of the Trump administration to study the issue, but he questioned moving ahead with a new system before those studies are in. “To move away from the way this has been done without the benefit of this full scientific peer review is unfortunate,” he said.

Denver smog is very unhealthy; Mountains are barely visible!

From an Article by Andy Bosselman, Denver Streetsblog, March 6, 2019

Today from downtown Denver, the peaks of the Rocky Mountain foothills were barely visible through the brown cloud of pollution that covered the region with an unhealthy level of fine particulate matter.

At six p.m., Denver’s air quality index measured 162, an unhealthy level more than three times worse than the moderate rating of 51 now in Beijing. The pollution triggered health warnings across the northern Front Range.

Colorado’s “brown cloud” is an increasingly frequent reminder of the Denver-Boulder metro’s car dependency and the impact of the state’s oil and gas production, which the industry projects will generate $12.5 billion in revenue this year.

Kyle Clark, a News 9 anchor, reported that 30 to 40 percent of ozone levels — a related form of pollution that is not responsible for the brown cloud — result from the state’s oil and gas industry. Traffic generates similar levels, he tweeted. He also pointed out the irony of today’s extreme air quality problems with the intense oil and gas industry lobbying that happened at the state capitol today as legislators considered sweeping environmental reforms.

Reducing car dependency could help the region achieve clearer air, and Denver has plans to do exactly that. But the city is better at setting goals than achieving them. In Denver’s Mobility Action Plan, officials set a strategic goal of reducing single occupancy vehicle commutes from 73 percent of trips to 50 percent.

The city plans to supplement current bus service with a high-frequency transit network. The proposal is part of the long-term planning process known as Denveright, which will be finalized later this year.

But there are no concrete plans for the city to come up with the funding needed to provide the improved transit service promised in the plans.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Department of public health warned all people in the area to “reduce prolonged or heavy exertion” today and tomorrow, especially “people with heart or lung disease, older adults, and children.”

Looking northeast from a downtown high-rise, it was almost impossible to see a nearby refinery. A crown of smog usually hovers over its buildings. But today its dirty halo blended into the thick haze of visible pollution that extended as far as the eye could see.

industrial pollution from ethane cracker chemical plant

From an Article by Remy Samuels, The Pitt News, October 5, 2015

Despite the promise of creating 600 permanent jobs, the ethane cracker plant being built about 40 minutes northwest of Pittsburgh by car continues to face scrutiny from environmental groups.

Shell Chemical Appalachia decided in 2012 that Beaver County would be the site of a new $6 billion plant to manufacture plastics. Shell chose the Beaver County location because of its proximity to natural gas supplies and because the majority of North American polyethylene — the most common plastic — customers are in a 700-mile radius of Pittsburgh.

In a statement published on its website, Shell said it expects to employ around 6,000 people for the facility’s construction, support 600 permanent employees and create an economic boom in Southwestern PA.

The plan to build the plant — dubbed a cracker plant because it takes oil and gas and “cracks” it into smaller molecules to produce ethylene, a building block for plastic — concerns environmentalists who say this plant will emit excessive pollution, which will increase Pittsburgh’s already high pollution levels. In the American Lung Association’s 2017 report, Pittsburgh ranked eighth for annual particle pollution out of 184 metropolitan areas.

Junior Sarah Grguras — a sustainability program assistant in Pitt’s Student Office of Sustainability and an environmental studies and ecology and evolution double major — is familiar with current and historical air pollution issues in Pittsburgh. She said pollution from the plant is going to diminish Pittsburgh’s air quality.

“It’s going to turn Pittsburgh into cancer alley,” Grguras said. “It’s not a long-term help, and it’s not a sustainable industry.”

Following a lawsuit, the Clean Air Council and the Environmental Integrity Project — two environmental advocacy groups — made a deal with Shell to install four “fenceline” monitors, or pollution detectors, along the perimeter of the facility. This will allow the surrounding community to receive updates on a public website if the plant’s emissions are linked to air pollution and exceed a certain threshold.

Based in Philadelphia, Joseph Minott, 63, who is both the executive and chief counsel for Clean Air Council, said even though this deal was made and Shell will install monitors, pollution will still occur.

“What our lawsuit did was try to make sure that the technology they use at the plant is the best technology, so it will minimize the impact on the local citizenry,” Minott said. “But it does not ensure that the plant will not be emitting any pollution.”

When asked specifically about the precautions Shell Oil Company is taking in order to prevent pollution, Ray Fisher, a spokesperson for Shell Oil Company, wrote in an email that the plant will utilize the “best technology available to control emissions along with fenceline monitoring” and Shell will make the data available to the public.

“In addition, we worked with the Commonwealth to offset emissions in a manner that will create better air quality over time,” Fisher wrote in the email. Fisher did not answer specific questions regarding how Shell plans to prevent shale emissions.

Emeritus Professor of Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health Bernard Goldstein, 78, is concerned about the impacts the plant will have on the environment and public health. Goldstein explained the plant utilizes the nearby wet gas from Marcellus Shale — a unit of sedimentary rock that contains untapped natural gas reserves — to convert methane and other gases into plastics.

Since the petrochemical plant is so large, it will be subject to both state and federal regulations, including those from the Environmental Protection Agency. Goldstein said he is not as concerned about the plant itself because of this oversight.

“The pollution that I’m most concerned about comes out of the drilling and obtaining the shale gas, which is then used as feedstock for this chemical plant,” Goldstein said.

Goldstein said the construction of the cracker plant will create more sources of shale gas emissions. Goldstein and Evelyn Talbott, an epidemiology professor at Pitt, agree that, because the drill sites are small — but numerous — these sites are not regulated as well.

“When you’ve got 20,000 sites, how could you possibly check them everyday?” Talbott said.

Shell did not respond to questions about the specific types of pollution detectors it will use around the plant and whether these small drilling sites can produce additional shale emissions.

The EPA has standards that regulate six different air pollutants. Talbott said ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are two pollutants that the plant could potentially emit, which could lead to health problems.

“Ozone … is bad for your lungs and is related to asthma. Nitrogen dioxide is also a pulmonary irritant that can cause pulmonary and respiratory disease,” Talbott said. “If you boil water and turn on your gas stove, there is a certain amount of NO2 that is a fossil fuel emission, so in the Marcellus Shale industry there’s bound to be nitrogen dioxide.”

From an economic standpoint, companies such as Marcellus Shale Coalition see this project as a game changer. President of Marcellus Shale Coalition, David Spigelmyer, released a statement June 7, 2016, saying that Shell’s decision to build the plant is “welcomed news.” The Pitt News called the Marcellus Shale Coalition several times and did not receive a response over the course of four business days.

However, environmentalists Grguras and Minott said there are other ways to create jobs without harming the earth. They said evidence supports more long-term jobs will be with green energy — such as solar, wind and geothermal.

“The green economy, where other countries are way ahead of us, produces far less pollution, employs more people and is more sustainable,” Minott said. “We seem stuck on fossil fuels in Pennsylvania.”

Many are worried about the fate of Pittsburgh’s air, but at the same time, many see the promise of jobs as a positive outcome.

“It’s a trade-off,” Talbott said. “Everyone wants jobs and for our economy to flourish, but I think there’s a lot of concern by environmental groups that the pollution is not going to be curbed and it could be a problem.”

PM-2.5 and smaller are extremely dangerous

From an Article by Robert Ferris, CNBC, September 21, 2017

Add kidney disease to the list of health problems associated with air pollution.

A team of scientists from Washington University in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System found an association between tiny particulate matter and kidney disease in two different data sets.

The scientists compared Veteran Affairs data on kidney disease with data on air pollution from two separate sets: satellite data from NASA and information from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Their study consistently found that risk of kidney disease rose along with air pollution levels across the continental United States.

As might be expected, many of the areas of the U.S. at greatest risk tend to be more heavily populated. The part of the country with the lowest risk overall is a section that runs roughly from Montana through West Texas. There are pockets of lower-risk areas in other places, but much of California and the Eastern half of the United States are more vulnerable.

The scientists published their results in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

It is important to note that this only found an association with air pollution — the study did not conclusively determine pollution to be the cause of kidney disease.

But the fact that the study found the association in both the EPA data set and the NASA data set is compelling, said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, a senior author on the study and an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, in a statement.

“The beauty of using both EPA and NASA data is that the agencies used two distinct techniques for collecting data, yet the results were similar,” he said. “This constellation of findings suggests that chronic exposure to air pollution is a significant risk factor for the development and progression of kidney disease.”

The study focused on a type of pollution called PM 2.5, which is particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size. This particular form of pollution can come from myriad sources, including vehicle emissions, fossil fuel power plants, wildfires or even campfires.

Scientists say the particles can enter the bloodstream once they are breathed into the lungs.

Air pollution has been linked to health problems as varied as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and weight gain. The study’s authors say that one of those conditions could be responsible for kidney damage, rather than the pollution itself.

They also noted that the population they studied was mostly older white male military veterans, so the results might not apply to other populations. The scientists tried to account for confounding factors, but there could still be additional variables, such as diet or genetics, or even other environmental factors such as exposure to heavy metals.

But the data show a clear association.

“In our analyses, the risk of chronic kidney disease and its progression was most pronounced at the highest levels of fine particulate matter concentration,” Al-Aly said in the release. “This suggests further study is needed for a broader assessment of the global burden of kidney disease attributable to air pollution.”

Air quality has improved in the United States in recent decades, but Al-Aly pointed out that there is no safe level of exposure to PM 2.5; even low levels can increase risk.

Other parts of the world have serious problems with hazes of pollution. China has even had to essentially shut down entire cities for days at a time. Just breathing Beijing’s air might be as bad as smoking 40 cigarettes a day.

DPMC at http://pipelineupdate.org

Roanoke Times Op-Ed: Governor’s Role in Pipeline Review

David Sligh says Virginia’s governor can and must protect us from bad pipeline projects

From the Opinion-Editorial by David Sligh, Roanoke Times, February 23, 2017

David Sligh is conservation director for Wild Virginia, an investigator for the Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition, an environmental attorney, and a former senior engineer at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. He lives in Charlottesville.

Contrary to assertions in a February 13th Roanoke Times editorial (“Showmanship”), Virginia’s governor will play a decisive role in determining whether major interstate natural gas pipelines can be built across our state. To play that role correctly, the governor must do two things: make certain the regulatory process for state environmental review is complete and open to the public and empower environmental regulators to reject the projects unless they can ensure full protection of Virginia’s waters. The evidence currently in the public record makes approval impossible for both pipelines.

An overriding problem with the Times’ editorial is the assertion that “[t]he agency that will determine whether the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline go forward is a federal one, not a state one.” This claim, in that it denies Virginia’s authority to reject these pipelines and the governor’s legitimate role, is patently false. Congress explicitly reserved states’ authorities to veto federally-permitted projects, to protect state waters. That authority comes from section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which empowers states to grant or deny a “water quality certification” and forbids federal approval without that certification.

The editorial implied that “environmentalists” are naive or ignorant in being “convinced an anti-pipeline governor could still thwart the pipelines by directing the Department of Environmental Quality to withhold certain permits by find[sic] the pipelines violate the Clean Water Act.” I am neither naive nor ignorant about these matters, having worked on them for more than 30 years, as a VA-DEQ regulator and an attorney working with citizens in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

I do not expect and would never propose that a governor “direct” the VA-DEQ to do anything that’s not supported by science and law but the governor cannot be divorced from the regulatory process. The governor leads the executive branch and is responsible for the soundness of state agency decisions.

The Times’ editorial implied that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo improperly ordered environmental regulators to reject a 401 certification for a pipeline. The evidence does not support that implication nor are pipeline company claims that the decision was “arbitrary and capricious” supportable.

In reviewing the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s decision denying 401 approval for the Constitution pipeline, one finds that the agency cited many areas where the applicant failed or refused to provide the necessary data and analyses or prove water quality standards would be upheld. Many other cases exist where states rejected 401 certifications, for a wide variety of federally-licensed projects. One example pertinent here is Connecticut’s denial of a 401 certification for the Islander East Pipeline, which the federal appeals court upheld.

It is important to note that many of the deficiencies in information and water quality problems cited by the New York DEC apply for both the ACP and MVP. The Virginia DEQ’s own comments on the draft environmental impact statement for the MVP contain dozens of areas in which the company has failed to provide necessary data and where valid impact analyses are missing. Likewise, the U.S. EPA, the Forest Service, and citizens have identified a large body of missing or inaccurate information for MVP.

Citizens have, for many months, sought assurances from Governor Terry McAuliffe and his top officials that the state would conduct a full and open regulatory review for each of these pipelines. We have yet to obtain those assurances. The state must conduct individual section 401 reviews, with public involvement, for each pipeline but VA-DEQ staff indicated this may not happen.

Instead, agency employees said these pipelines might be covered under blanket approvals issued for a category of small projects with minimal impacts. Such an approach would be illegal and we will not accept it. Neither should the governor. VA-DEQ’s requests for sufficient information and adequate protections for MVP cannot remain mere suggestions or requests for proper regulation by FERC. They must become legal mandates from the VA-DEQ.

I again call on Governor McAuliffe to commit to full, public reviews for both ACP and MVP. I make the same call to all those asking to be Virginia’s next governor, because the timeline for decision may well extend into the next administration. I urge all other public officials, all concerned citizens, and The Roanoke Times editorial board to join in this call. I thank Tom Perriello for supporting a fair and open process and for recognizing the enormous harms these pipelines would impose on Virginia’s environment and its people.

Look also for more Pipeline Update information.

Particles Transported to the Brain

The Polluted Brain is Under Intense Study

From an Article by Emily Underwood, Science Magazine, January 26, 2017

Los Angeles, CA—In a barbed wire–enclosed parking lot 100 meters downwind of the Route 110 freeway, an aluminum hose sticks out of a white trailer, its nozzle aimed at an overpass. Every minute, the hose sucks up hundreds of liters of air mixed with exhaust from the roughly 300,000 cars and diesel-burning freight trucks that rumble by each day.

Crouched inside the trailer, a young chemical engineer named Arian Saffari lifts the lid off a sooty cylinder attached to the hose, part of a sophisticated filtration system that captures and sorts pollutants by size. Inside is a scientific payload: particles of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, black carbon, and heavy metal at least 200 times smaller than the width of a human hair.

The particles are too fine for many air pollution sensors to accurately measure, says Saffari, who works in a lab led by Constantinos Sioutas at the University of Southern California (USC) here. Typically smaller than 0.2 µm in diameter, these “ultrafine” particles fall within a broader class of air pollutants commonly referred to as PM2.5 because of their size, 2.5 µm or less. When it comes to toxicity, size matters: The smaller the particles that cells are exposed to, Saffari says, the higher their levels of oxidative stress, marked by the production of chemically reactive molecules such as peroxides, which can damage DNA and other cellular structures.

Some of the health risks of inhaling fine and ultrafine particles are well-established, such as asthma, lung cancer, and, most recently, heart disease. But a growing body of evidence suggests that exposure can also harm the brain, accelerating cognitive aging, and may even increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.

The link between air pollution and dementia remains controversial—even its proponents warn that more research is needed to confirm a causal connection and work out just how the particles might enter the brain and make mischief there.

But a growing number of epidemiological studies from around the world, new findings from animal models and human brain imaging studies, and increasingly sophisticated techniques for modeling PM2.5 exposures have raised alarms. Indeed, in an 11-year epidemiological study to be published next week in Translational Psychiatry, USC researchers will report that living in places with PM2.5 exposures higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) standard of 12 µg/m³ nearly doubled dementia risk in older women.

If the finding holds up in the general population, air pollution could account for roughly 21% of dementia cases worldwide, says the study’s senior author, epidemiologist Jiu-Chiuan Chen of the Keck School of Medicine at USC.

Deepening the concerns, this month researchers at the University of Toronto in Canada reported in The Lancet that among 6.6 million people in the province of Ontario, those living within 50 meters of a major road—where levels of fine pollutants are often 10 times higher than just 150 meters away—were 12% more likely to develop dementia than people living more than 200 meters away.

The field is “very, very young,” cautions Michelle Block, a neuroscientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Nonetheless, it’s a “hugely exciting time” to study the connections between pollution and the brain, she says. And if real, the air pollution connection would give public health experts a tool for sharply lowering Alzheimer’s risks—a welcome prospect for a disease that is so devastating and that, for now, remains untreatable.

Demented dogs in Mexico City in the early 2000s offered the first hints that inhaling polluted air can cause neurodegeneration. Neuroscientist Lilian Calderón-Garcidueñas, now at the University of Montana in Missoula, noticed that aging dogs who lived in particularly polluted areas of the city often became addled, growing disoriented and even losing the ability to recognize their owners. When the dogs died, Calderón-Garcidueñas found that their brains had more extensive extracellular deposits of the protein amyloid b—the same “plaques” associated with Alzheimer’s disease—than dogs in less polluted cities.

She went on to find similarly elevated plaque levels in the brains of children and young adults from Mexico City who had died in accidents, as well as signs of inflammation such as hyperactive glia, the brain’s immune cells. Calderón-Garcidueñas’s studies didn’t have rigorous controls, or account for the fact that amyloid b plaques don’t necessarily signal dementia. But later work lent weight to her observations.

Those tubes of fine particles from the Route 110 freeway have played a key role. In a basement lab at USC, Sioutas and his team aerosolize the pollutants with a hospital nebulizer, then pipe the dirty air into the cages housing lab mice that have been engineered to contain a gene for human amyloid b. Control animals housed in the same room breathe clean, filtered air. After a designated period—220 hours over several weeks, in a recent experiment—the team hands the rodents over to colleagues at USC, who kill the animals and check their brains for signs of neuro-degeneration.

Caleb Finch and Todd Morgan, USC neuroscientists who combine studies of aging and the brain, are in charge of the analysis. In mice that breathed the dirty air, they have found, the brain’s microglia release a flood of inflammatory molecules, including tumor necrosis factor a, which is elevated in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease and has been linked to memory loss. The pollution-exposed mice also showed other signs of brain damage, the group has reported in several recent papers: more amyloid b than in the control mice and shrunken and atrophied neurites, the cellular processes that extend from neurons toward other cells.

Just how the fine airborne particles might travel from a rodent’s nasal cavity to its brain is a mystery. But a research team led by Günter Oberdörster at the University of Rochester in New York has used traceable, radioactive specks of elemental carbon to demonstrate that inhaled particles smaller than 200 nanometers can get through the delicate tissues lining a rodent’s nasal cavities, travel along neurons, and spread as far as the cerebellum, at the back of the brain, triggering an inflammatory reaction.

To understand what the animal studies might mean for people, however, scientists need to correlate air pollution exposure with human brain scans and with results from rigorous cognitive testing.

That’s not easy to do, as long-term, historical data on pollution exposures are scarce in the United States and many other countries, says Kimberly Gray, a program administrator at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Durham, North Carolina.

But in a September 2016 review of 18 epidemiological studies from Taiwan, Sweden, Germany, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all but one showed an association between high exposure to at least one component of air pollution and a sign of dementia. The review, published in Neurotoxicology, included a 2012 analysis of 19,000 retired U.S. nurses, which found that the more fine particulates the nurses were exposed to, based on monitoring data near their homes, the faster they declined on cognitive tests. For every additional 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air they breathed, their performance on tests of memory and attention declined as if they had aged by 2 years, says Jennifer Weuve, an epidemiologist at Boston University, who led the analysis.

Imaging studies also suggest that pollution attacks the human brain. In a 2015 analysis of brain MRI scans of people enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study, a long-term cardiovascular study in New England, researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston found that the closer people had lived to a major roadway—and thus the more PM2.5 they had likely been exposed to—the smaller their cerebral brain volume. The association held up even after adjusting for factors such as education, smoking, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Shortly after that study was published, USC’s Chen reported another example of brain shrinkage: In 1403 elderly women, the total volume of white matter—the insulated nerve fibers that connect different brain regions—decreased by about 6 cubic centimeters for every 3.5-µg/m³ increase in estimated PM2.5 exposure, based on air monitoring data from participants’ residences for 6 to 7 years before the brain scans were taken. Chen’s white matter findings are consistent with studies of cultured neurons, which show that exposure to PM2.5 can cause myelin—the fatty insulation that wraps around neuronal axons—to “peel up at the ends, like a Band-Aid,” Block says.

I think [air pollution] will turn out to be just the same as tobacco—there’s no safe threshold, said Caleb Finch, University of Southern California.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

PM-2.5 Airborne Particulates Near Frac Sand Operations

By Kristin Walters, Jeron Jacobson, Zachary Kroening, and Crispin Pierce, PhD, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire

Abstract

The rapid growth of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction in the U.S. has led to 135 active “frac” sand mines, processing plants, and rail transfer stations in Wisconsin. Potential environmental health risks include increased truck traffic, noise, ecosystem loss, and groundwater, light, and air pollution. Emitted air contaminants include fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and respirable crystalline silica. Inhalation of fine dust particles causes increased mortality, cardiovascular disease, lung disease, and lung cancer. In the authors’ pilot study, use of a filter-based ambient particulate monitor found PM-2.5 levels of 5.82 to 50.8 micro-grams per cubic meter in six 24-hour samples around frac sand mines and processing sites. Enforcement of the existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3 is likely to protect the public from silica exposure risks as well. PM2.5 monitoring around frac sand sites is needed to ensure regulatory compliance, inform nearby communities, and protect public health. 

See the full report here:
http://files.ctctcdn.com/e5446506501/99b2f2d3-fb0f-437d-b362-32f62bc4e360.pdf

Conclusion

With rapidly increasing frac sand mining, processing, transportation, and use in hydraulic fracturing, health departments and elected officials face unanswered questions about potential health risks. This research, together with other data of a similar nature we have collected, is suggestive of an increase of ambient PM2.5 levels as a result of these activities. We propose the establishment of longer-term PM2.5 monitoring with both direct reading and FRM particulate samplers, as well as silica- specific monitoring efforts, to ensure regulatory compliance, inform nearby communities, and protect public health.

Source: Journal of Environmental Health, Volume 78, Number 4, pp. 8 – 12, November 2015

See details on the frac sand industry in Wisconsin at:
http://www.ccc-wis.com