A new commentary found that power plants’ use of these devices saved up to 9,100 lives and up to $100 billion in health costs in 2023. These estimates reveal the substantial health benefits that could be at stake if the next presidential administration implements policies that aim to weaken the Clean Air Act and limit the regulatory authority of the EPA.
Air pollution control devices (APCDs) prevented up to 9,000 deaths and saved up to $100 billion in health costs in 2023, according to new estimates published in an American Journal of Public Health editorial.
But these public health benefits will be sharply reduced in future years if a future presidential administration implements the environmental policies outlined in Project 2025 and the America First Agenda, write researchers from Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH), the Sierra Club, the Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Both far-right policy platforms are gunning to dismantle environmental regulations, including by weakening the Clean Air Act, the bedrock 1970 federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate emissions of major air pollutants at power plants. Thanks to EPA policies that require or encourage power plants to use APCDs, SO2 emissions decreased by 93 percent and NOx emissions dropped by 87 percent between 1995 and 2022, translating into a massive decline in coal-related excess deaths, from 40,000 in 2000 to 1,600 in 2020, the commentary states.
If Project 2025 and/or the America First Agenda federal policy platforms are adopted by the next administration, APCD use could plummet and severely jeopardize the health of the public, the authors argue.
“Air pollution control devices and other provisions of the Clean Air Act are a bedrock part of the public health infrastructure in the United States,” says Dr. Jonathan Buonocore, assistant professor of environmental health at BUSPH, and lead author of the commentary. “This work serves to remind us how important the Clean Air Act is, and that there are big public health benefits to protecting or strengthening it.”
To capture the environmental and health ramifications from a potential reduction in APCD use if Project 2025 or the America First Agenda is enacted, the team calculated changes in SO2 and NOx emission levels based on a hypothetical “worst-case” scenario in which power plants ceased use of existing APCDs.
The researchers estimated that SO2 emissions would be 2.9 times higher and NOx reductions would be 1.8 times higher if power plants—many of which are coal-fired—stopped operating APCDs. The team used a reduced complexity model to estimate the health benefits from emissions reductions if APCD use continued at these plants. They found that, in 2023, APCDs at power plants captured about 1.2 million tons of SO2 and 1 million tons of NOx emissions, which would prevent between 3,100 and 9,000 premature deaths in 2023 and save between $35 billion and almost $100 billion in health costs.
"Power plants are not the highest contributors to air pollution-related public health risk anymore in the US, thanks to federal policies that drastically reduced the emissions of SO2 and NOx from this sector over this time period,” says Saravanan Arunachalam, Deputy Director, Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Any future efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act may elevate this sector back to the top again, and further increase the overall disease burden for Americans.”
Even with these substantial health benefits, these models underestimate the additional health benefits of a reduction in emissions from APCD use, including lower risks of stroke, heart attacks, and asthma in adults, as well as low birth weight, preterm births, asthma onset, and other respiratory or developmental issues in children, the authors point out.
Although these health benefits are nationwide, the highest benefits occurred from emissions reductions at power plants in Appalachia, the Midwest, and the Mountain West. More than 85 percent of these reductions were attributed to a sharp decline in SO2, mostly from coal-fired plants. While the researchers note it is unlikely that future policy changes would eliminate all APCD use, these new estimates quantify the health consequences that are at stake—as well as the future health benefits that could remain—depending on changes to the EPA’s authority under a potentially weakened Clean Air Act.
“Health benefits from APCDs may be concentrated in specific locations, but these results show that strong environmental regulations benefit everyone,” says Dr. Mary Willis, assistant professor of epidemiology at BUSPH.
Importantly, any future policies that strip the EPA of its current regulatory authority would also exacerbate racial inequities in health and likely curtail other climate policies at all levels of government, the authors write. Policies that reduce APCD use would heavily burden environmental justice communities, a majority of which are people of color or low-income populations who already experience the harms of other environmental hazards at disproportionate rates. Increases in power plant air pollution emissions would also offset gains in cities with climate action plans driving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the electrification of buildings and transportation.
The authors point out that federal policies that strip regulatory authority for harmful practices can lead to near-term health consequences.
“These misguided plans to unravel pollution protections and undermine the Clean Air Act would jeopardize the health and safety of millions," says Jeremy Fisher, principal advisor on climate and energy for the Sierra Club. "Lives are on the line and the American people deserve more thorough accountability and oversight of polluting power plants, not less."
Air pollution policy and climate policy are ultimately health policy, says Dr. Jonathan Levy, chair and professor of the Department of Environmental Health at BUSPH and senior author of the commentary. “These policy platforms targeting the EPA threaten to take us backward and make Americans less healthy.”
The commentary was also coauthored by Dr. Frederica Perera, professor emerita of environmental health sciences and special research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health; Dr. Daniel Prull, deputy director of research, strategy and analysis for the Sierra Club; Dr. Patrick Kinney, Beverly Brown Professor of Urban Health at BUSPH; and Brian Sousa, research data analyst in the Department of Environmental Health at BUSPH.
Media Contacts:
Jillian McKoy, jpmckoy@bu.edu
Christopher Schuler, christopher.schuler@sierraclub.org
Emily Williams, emilywilliams@unc.edu
Timothy Paul, tp2111@cumc.columbia.edu
About Boston University School of Public Health
Founded in 1976, Boston University School of Public Health is one of the top ten ranked schools of public health in the world. It offers master's- and doctoral-level education in public health. The faculty in six departments conduct policy-changing public health research around the world, with the mission of improving the health of populations—especially the disadvantaged, underserved, and vulnerable—locally and globally.
About the UNC Institute for the Environment
The UNC Institute for the Environment (IE) develops multidisciplinary collaborations to understand major environmental issues and engage myriad academic disciplines, public and private partners, and an informed and committed community. Through IE’s air and water research centers, its public service and outreach, sustainability initiatives, and field sites and experiential education programs, the IE provides interdisciplinary forums for faculty, students and community partners to meet pressing environmental challenges.
About the Sierra Club
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person's right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.
Journal
American Journal of Public Health
Method of Research
Commentary/editorial
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Federal Policy Platforms and Public Health: Reinforcing the Benefits of Air Pollution Control Devices at Power Plants in the United States
Article Publication Date
24-Oct-2024
COI Statement
J. J. Buonocore has received consulting fees from Avanti Group and Skeo Solutions and grants from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Well-come Trust, Login5, the Global Methane Hub, the Liberty Mutual Foundation, the Home Energy Efficiency Team, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, the New York Community Trust (NYCT), and the Institute for Global Sustainability at Boston University. He also serves as a scientific adviser for HEET. M. D. Willis has received grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Health Effects Institute (HEI). S. Arunachalam has received contracts and grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Highway Administration, the National Academies’ Airport Cooperative Research Program, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, the Northeast States for Coordinates Air Use Management, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, HEI, Alberta Energy, the National Wildlife Federation, the EDF, the Wellcome Trust, the Energy Foundation, and the Barr Foundation. In addition, he has received consulting fees from the Los Angeles World Airport Authority and NYCT and expert testimony for the US Department of Justice, the North Carolina Department of Justice, and the Colorado Public Utility Commission. P. Kinney has received consulting fees from the EPA, Industrial Economics, and Abt Associates and grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NIH, the Barr Foundation, HEI, and the Wellcome Trust. B. Sousa has received funds from the Boston University Institute for Global Sustainability. J. I. Levy has received consulting fees from Industrial Economics for a project funded by the California Air Resources Board and grants from the EPA, the FAA, and NIH.
Asthma is currently an incurable disease that severely impairs quality of life, with recurring symptoms such as wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath. As of today, about 4 percent of the world’s population suffers from asthma, with more than 30 million new cases arising annually. Evidence suggests that long-term exposure to air pollution of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is an important risk factor for developing asthma. However, inconsistencies in findings from earlier epidemiological studies have left this potential health risk open to debate, as some studies observed an increased risk while others found no association.
To resolve this controversy, Dr. Ruijing Ni, the first author of the study published today in the journal One Earth, and her colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry have conducted a comprehensive global meta-analysis with researchers from China, the USA, and Australia. The research team determined the data from 68 epidemiologic studies from 2019 conducted across 22 countries, including those in North America, Western Europe, East Asia, South Asia, and Africa. They conclude that there is now sufficient evidence with high confidence level to support an association between long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and asthma.
11 percent of new cases of asthma in Germany are attributable to particulate matter
“We estimate that globally in 2019, almost a third of asthma cases are attributable to long-term PM2.5 exposure, corresponding to 63.5 million existing cases and 11.4 million new cases. In Germany, the pollution may have been responsible for 11 percent of new asthma cases, which corresponds to 28,000 people. We also find that the risk of asthma associated with PM2.5 is much higher in children than in adults, reflecting the age-related vulnerability”, says Dr. Ni.
Typically, the full maturation of lung and immune function is gradually completed until early adulthood. As a result, children may be more susceptible to air pollution exposure, which can lead to airway oxidative stress, inflammation, and hyper-responsiveness, as well as changes in immunological responses and respiratory sensitization to allergens. All these factors play a role in the development of asthma.
Further using these data, the research team established exposure-response curves for both childhood and adult asthma. Such curves are widely employed to quantitatively assess health risks by illustrating the relationship between the level of exposure to a particular substance, e.g., PM2.5 and the magnitude of the effect it produces, e.g., asthma risk. The exposure-response curves were determined by incorporating evidence from countries and regions across various income levels, which capture the global variation in PM2.5 exposure. “This initiative is important for quantifying global health effects of air pollution,” comments Prof. Yuming Guo, an epidemiologist from Monash University.
Countries with different income levels and particulate matter pollution considered
Populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are typically exposed to higher concentrations of air pollution and bear a greater burden of PM2.5. In contrast, research on the health effects of PM2.5 has been limited in these regions previously, with the majority of studies conducted in North America and Western Europe. Consequently, attempting a global health impact assessment of PM2.5 exposure necessitates extrapolating exposure-response associations observed in high-income countries to LMICs. The approach may introduce large uncertainty due to the differences in air pollution sources, healthcare systems, and demographic characteristics between high-income countries and LMICs.
The inclusion of evidence from several LMICs mitigates the limitation in approach and enables the exposure-response curves to be applicable to assess city- to global-scale attributable burden of asthma, as well as asthma health benefits associated with air pollution reductions, e.g., health benefits obtained from policy-driven reductions in air pollution under different scenarios.
“Our findings highlight the urgent need for policymakers to enforce stringent legislation to continuously combat air pollution, while personal protective measures, such as wearing masks, can also help reduce individual exposure and mitigate the risk of asthma,” emphasizes Prof. Yafang Cheng, the corresponding author of the study and the director at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry.
The study was conducted by researchers from Max Planck Institute for Chemistry (Germany), Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (China), University of Washington (USA), and Monash University (Australia).
Method of Research
Data/statistical analysis
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Long-term exposure to PM2.5 has significant adverse effects on childhood and adult asthma: A global meta-analysis and health impact assessment
Article Publication Date
25-Oct-2024
Burning incense can pose health risks for those with allergies and asthma
Symptoms include headaches, respiratory dysfunction and skin sensitivity
American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology
BOSTON (Oct. 24, 2024) – In many cultures, it is common to burn incense for religious and cultural practices, including meditations, celebrations and spiritual and ancestral worship. A new medically challenging case being presented at this year’s American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting in Boston warns that, for those with allergies and asthma, health problems from burning incense can be a significant risk to adults and children.
“Our patient was an 87-year-old woman with history of asthma and COPD, on oxygen therapy, who presented with unexplained shortness of breath,” says Gomeo Lam, BA, lead author on the paper. “A detailed history revealed daily incense burning. We recommended she stop burning incense, which the patient did not want to do as burning joss stick incense daily allowed her to express homage and veneration for ancestors. We then advised she use electric incense devices, which resulted in improvement of her symptoms.”
The paper points out that burning incense poses health risks including headaches, respiratory dysfunction, dermatologic sensitivity and allergic reactions. Incense fumes contain carbon, sulfur, nitrogen oxides as well as formaldehyde, and other polycyclic aromatic volatile compounds which are carcinogenic. Per gram burned, particulate matter generated from incense is 45 mg versus 10 mg from cigarettes.
“People who burn incense may not realize that family members, including children, who are exposed to secondhand smoke, face health consequences,” says allergist Mary Lee-Wong, senior author of the study and ACAAI member. “Similar to tobacco smoke, thirdhand incense smoke may linger in furniture, clothing, and other articles, dissipating for months afterward.”
The authors point out that, besides health implications, incense combustion contributes to air pollution and can be a fire hazard. They recommend that when counseling patients who burn incense, health practitioners consider the sacred significance of incense burning, but also recognize that health risks from this practice cannot be overlooked. After screening patients for incense use, healthcare practitioners can recommend replacement with electric or aromatic vapors; simulated visuals; improved ventilation; and limiting burn time as approaches to mitigate harms and improve symptoms.
Abstract Title: HEALTH HAZARDS FROM CULTURAL PRACTICES: INCENSE BURNING (Abstract below - image included with online abstract)
Presenter: Gomeo Lam, BA
For more information about allergies and asthma, or to find an allergist in your area, visit AllergyandAsthmaRelief.org. The ACAAI Annual Scientific Meeting is Nov. 9-13. For more news and research from the ACAAI Scientific Meeting, go to our newsroom and follow the conversation on X/Twitter #ACAAI24.
About ACAAI
The American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) is a professional medical organization of more than 6,000 allergists-immunologists and allied health professionals, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill. Founded in 1942, the College fosters a culture of collaboration and congeniality in which its members work together and with others toward the common goals of patient care, education, advocacy, and research. ACAAI allergists are board-certified physicians trained to diagnose allergies and asthma, administer immunotherapy, and provide patients with the best treatment outcomes. For more information and to find relief, visit AllergyandAsthmaRelief.org. Join us on Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram and X/Twitter.
M163
HEALTH HAZARDS FROM CULTURAL PRACTICES: INCENSE BURNING
G. Lam*1, A. Wu2, H. Bao3, S. Gomez4, M. Lee-Wong5, 1. Suwanee, GA; 2. Hempstead, NY; 3. Bronx, NY; 4. Brooklyn, NY; 5. New York, NY.
Introduction: Incense, as coils, cones, powders and sticks, is widely used for religious and cultural practices. Usage includes meditations, celebrations, deodorizations, in addition to spiritual and ancestral worship. Health problems from incense burning are numerous.
Case Description: An 87-year-old woman with history of asthma and COPD, on oxygen therapy, presents with unexplained shortness of breath. Detailed history taking disclosed temporal relationship with incense burning. Recommendation to stop burning incense was denied as burning joss stick incense daily allows patient to express homage and veneration for ancestors. Subsequently, advice to use electric incense devices resulted in improvement of patient's symptoms.
Discussion: Burning incense poses health risks including headaches, respiratory dysfunction, dermatologic sensitivity and allergic reactions. Incense fumes contain carbon, sulfur, nitrogen oxides as well as formaldehyde, and other polycyclic aromatic volatile compounds which are carcinogenic. Per gram burned, particulate matter generated from incense is 45 mg versus 10 mg from cigarettes. Studies report family members, including children, exposed to incense burning suffer from secondhand smoke health consequences. Like tobacco smoke, thirdhand incense smoke may linger in furniture, clothing, and other articles, dissipating for months afterwards. Besides health implications, incense combustion contributes to air pollution and can be a fire hazard. Understanding the role, cultural sensitivity and sacred significance of incense burning is vital but health risks from burning incense cannot be overlooked. Screening patients for incense use, in addition to replacement with electric or aromatic vapors, simulated visuals, improved ventilation, and limiting burn time can be explored with impacted patients.
Journal
Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology
Method of Research
Case study
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
HEALTH HAZARDS FROM CULTURAL PRACTICES: INCENSE BURNING
Article Publication Date
24-Oct-2024
