Source: metoffice.gov.uk
Exposure to fine particulate air pollution during pregnancy through the first two years of a child’s life may be associated with an increased risk of the child developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a condition that affects one in 68 children, according to a University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health investigation of children in southwestern Pennsylvania.
The research is funded by The Heinz Endowments and published in the July edition of Environmental Research.
“Autism spectrum disorders are lifelong conditions for which there is no cure and limited treatment options, so there is an urgent need to identify any risk factors that we could mitigate, such as pollution,” said lead author Evelyn Talbott, Dr.P.H., professor of epidemiology at Pitt Public Health. “Our findings reflect an association, but do not prove causality. Further investigation is needed to determine possible biological mechanisms for such an association.”
Dr. Talbott and her colleagues performed a population-based, case-control study of families with and without ASD living in six southwestern Pennsylvania counties. They obtained detailed information about where the mothers lived before, during and after pregnancy and, using a model developed by Pitt Public Health assistant professor and study co-author Jane Clougherty, Sc.D., were able to estimate individual exposure to a type of air pollution called PM2.5.
This type of pollution refers to particles found in the air that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or 1/30th the average width of a human hair. PM2.5 includes dust, dirt, soot and smoke. Because of its small size, PM2.5 can reach deeply into the lungs and get into the blood stream. Southwestern Pennsylvania has consistently ranked among the nation’s worst regions for PM2.5 levels, according to data collected by the American Lung Association.
“There is increasing and compelling evidence that points to associations between Pittsburgh’s poor air quality and health problems, especially those affecting our children and including issues such as autism spectrum disorder and asthma,” said Grant Oliphant, president of The Heinz Endowments. “While we recognize that further study is needed, we must remain vigilant about the need to improve our air quality and to protect the vulnerable. Our community deserves a healthy environment and clean air.”
Autism spectrum disorders are a range of conditions characterized by social deficits and communication difficulties that typically become apparent early in childhood. Reported cases of ASD have risen nearly eight-fold in the last two decades. While previous studies have shown the increase to be partially due to changes in diagnostic practices and greater public awareness of autism, this does not fully explain the increased prevalence. Both genetic and environmental factors are believed to be responsible.
Dr. Talbott and her team interviewed the families of 211 children with ASD and 219 children without ASD born between 2005 and 2009. The families lived in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland counties. Estimated average exposure to PM2.5 before, during and after pregnancy was compared between children with and without ASD.
Based on the child’s exposure to concentrations of PM2.5 during the mother’s pregnancy and the first two years of life, the Pitt Public Health team found that children who fell into higher exposure groups were at an approximate 1.5-fold greater risk of ASD after accounting for other factors associated with the child’s risk for ASD — such as the mother’s age, education and smoking during pregnancy. This risk estimate is in agreement with several other recent investigations of PM2.5 and autism.
A previous Pitt Public Health analysis of the study population revealed an association between ASD and increased levels of air toxics, including chromium and styrene. Studies by other institutions using different populations also have associated pollutants with ASD.
“Air pollution levels have been declining since the 1990s; however, we know that pockets of increased levels of air pollution remain throughout our region and other areas,” said Dr. Talbott. “Our study builds on previous work in other regions showing that pollution exposures may be involved in ASD. Going forward, I would like to see studies that explore the biological mechanisms that may underlie this association.”
A biomass fire near Tracy continues to produce significant smoke impacts, affecting the air quality in three counties.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District said the smoke from the fire is being sent to San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties.
Smoke from the blaze can emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which can cause health issues such as asthma attacks, lung disease and increase the risk of heart attacks, according to the air district. Potentially vulnerable are those with respiratory conditions and older adults and children.
Firefighters extinguished the large fire that burned for several days, leading air officials to issue the health advisory.
Air district officials urge residents in these counties to avoid any prolonged exposure or heavy exertion, depending on local conditions, and to follow any orders relating to fire emissions given by their doctors.
via Tracy fire continues to impact air quality in three counties.
Swiss and German researchers have found that air pollution may impair cognitive function directly – independently of respiratory effects.
Scientists already know that air pollution can harm lungs, and that breathing problems, in turn, can cause cognitive deficits. But if people exposed to air pollution develop cognitive deficits, is this a direct result of impaired breathing? Or could pollutants harm the nervous system in some other way?
In a study of over 800 older women, researchers from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel and the Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine (IUF) in Düsseldorf, Germany found evidence supporting the latter theory: air pollution appeared to harm the subjects’ cognition independently of lung function.
Specifically, the subjects’ visuo-spatial cognition – their ability to process information about the nature and position of objects – was impaired. To determine this, the researchers administered a battery of tests typically used to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease.
According to IUF researcher Tamara Schikowski, one possible explanation for these results could be that particulate matter and other pollutants enter the central nervous system through the nose.
“This is the first time this research has been done, and the first time these results have been shown,” Schikowski told swissinfo.ch from Denver, Colorado, where she is presenting the findings at the 2015 American Thoracic Society meeting. “Further studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate our results.”
via Air pollution risk: beyond breathing problems – SWI swissinfo.ch.
Energy subsidies do not just gobble money. They help cook the planet too
BIG mistakes in economic policymaking abound. But it would be hard to find a worse one than energy subsidies. Recent research has shown that they enrich middlemen, depress economic output and help the rich, who use lots of energy, more than they do the poor.
But now a new working paper by the International Monetary Fund highlights another cost too: damage to the environment. Including this, the authors reckon that the total drag on the global economy caused by fuel subsidies now amounts to a stonking $5.3 trillion each year, or 6% of global GDP—more than world spends on health care. Poorer countries dole out the largest amount of subsidies; some spend up to 18% of their GDP a year on them. The lion’s share goes to coal, the most polluting fuel. By contrast renewable-energy subsidies, mainly given out in the rich world, amount to a mere $120 billion. And they would vanish if fossil fuels were taxed properly.
Defining subsidies is tricky. The simplest measure is the amount of taxpayers’ money used directly to keep a price artificially low. A broader one includes the costs borne by others, such as pollution, and exemptions from taxes. The IMF uses the wider definition to reach its $5.3 trillion figure. Seen more narrowly, the cost would be $333 billion. But this is only lower than last year because of falling oil prices.
A previous study in 2013 reckoned that the overall damage, including environmental costs, was $2 trillion. The much higher estimate released this week reflects more thorough study of the other health and environmental costs of subsidising fossil fuels. These include the costs of congestion and premature deaths caused by poor air quality, the long-term impact of global warming and the effects of extreme weather such as floods and storms. It estimates the long-term damage done by a tonne of CO2, for example, at $42. Many green-minded people think that figure (borrowed from the American government) is too low. But some economists argue that the inclusion of hypothetical climate-change costs is too sweeping.
Abrupt change is unlikely—making coal users pay its full cost would mean doubling prices. Subsidies attract a tenacious and vocal lobby. But the fall in the oil-price has provided a chance to cut subsidies. India, for example, has recently stopped using handouts to reduce the price of diesel. Egypt, Indonesia and Thailand are also reforming their subsidies. Ending them altogether, and taxing fossil fuels properly, the IMF reckons, would halve the number of deaths from outdoor air pollution, cut carbon-dioxide emissions by a fifth and save up to $2.9 trillion. It would also leave governments with lots of room to cut taxes, or increase spending on more useful things.
When you think of air pollution you may imagine smog filled cities from bygone times, but today our air quality has reached dangerous levels. Much of this pollution is from the dash for diesel and it’s now landed our Government in court.
Tonight Fiona Foster investigates why levels are so high and what’s being done to protect the nation’s health from the air we breathe.
Today our skies may appear cleaner than ever but in reality we are breathing in more harmful pollutants than we realise. And if you live in a big town or city, the quality of air can be so poisonous that it’s sending thousands of Britons to an early grave each year. The reason? Tiny invisible particulates and gases such as nitrogen dioxide that don’t darken our skies but leave a huge cloud over the nation’s health…
And where’s it all coming from? Well the main culprit pumping out these pollutants are lining the streets and motorways up and down the land is the diesel vehicle. Diesel produces fewer C02 emissions than petrol – so is contributing less to climate change. However, diesel vehicles can produce 22 times the amount of microscopic Particulate Matter and 4 times the amount of Nitrogen Dioxide – both a big concern for health as they can damage lungs and blood vessels and are a cause of heart disease and strokes.
And in East London, parents concerned about the effects of air pollution on their children’s health are out campaigning to raise awareness of this little known public health crisis. Leading the campaign is mum of three Shazia Ali-Webber who noticed effects to her family’s health when they moved from the Midlands to East London. She decided to find out just how bad levels in her area were by using tubes to capture the nitrogen dioxide in the air. Upon seeing how bad the levels were Shazia took to the streets to raise awareness and even included getting London based music group Navan to write a campaign song for school children to sing.
But just how at risk are you and your family up and down the country? We asked Professor Frank Kelly of King’s College London if he could help us find out levels of pollution with 4 willing volunteers around the UK. The 3 volunteers along with presenter Fiona Foster each carried a personal air quality measuring device with them for a 48 hour period. Manchester Cyclist Andy, Full time nurse and mum of three Davida from Wolverhampton, Leeds DJ Connor and our very own Fiona Foster, who is London based, get their pollution results back with some very intriguing results.
Dr Jennifer Quint is a respiratory specialist from London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and University College London NHS foundation. Dr Quint is heavily involved in studying the relationship between health and air pollution.
Over the past few years there have been a number of observational studies done both in this country and abroad which is suggested that people who are exposed to high levels of air pollution are at increased risk of death… that they are at increased risk of having heart attacks and strokes and that they are at increased risk of developing certain respiratory diseases such as COPD.” – DR JENNIFER QUINT
So concerned about the affect on our nation’s health Lawyer Alan Andrew, with Green law firm Client Earth, have brought a landmark case against our Government in a bid to force down levels of dirty air. On 29th April this year, in a unanimous decision, the UK Supreme Court has ordered the government to deliver plans to tackle air pollution by the end of the year.
Weak draft EU rules for coal plant emissions could result in 71,000 deaths and €52bn (£37bn) of health costs across Europe in the decade to come, according to new research published on Wednesday.
A Greenpeace investigation earlier this year found that the coal standards would be more lax than those in China, and the Guardian was able to corroborate claims by the green group that industry had helped to write the pollution rules.
The new study commissioned by Greenpeace and the European Environment Bureau analysed the impacts of the watered-down rules, and found that nearly 1,000 deaths and £500m of health costs a year are likely in the UK alone. But it said they could be prevented with technologies such as selective catalytic convertors.
Without these, thousands more cases of cardiac and respiratory illness that disproportionately affect children are foreseen by the study.
The paper forecasts a surge in asthmatic symptoms affecting over 2m children aged between five and 19, as well as 200,000 new cases of acute bronchitis among 6-12 year olds.
Christian Schaible, a policy manager for the European Environmental Bureau said: “The commission is opting for the cheapest techniques to reduce emissions but the health effects alone will be far more costly than the money saved by coal plant operators. These effects will also be felt by many thousands of European citizens, particularly children, in ways that money cannot quantify.”
The cost of installing plant technologies such as activated carbon injections to abate mercury emissions – associated with IQ loss in children – would be less than €0.02 per kilowatt hour, Schaible said.
The report’s findings emerged from a modelling study by an independent consultant to the European Environment Agency, which was then combined with emissions data.
The paper compared draft European commission emissions standards for pollutants such as nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM2.5) and mercury against the best available techniques.
The EU’s proposed new limits are currently awaiting examination by an EU working group later this year. After that, they are expected to be formally adopted within the bloc’s industrial emissions directive in 2016.
The updated directive would cut NOx and SO2 emissions by around 70% and 50% respectively. But the most effective technologies could deliver more than twice as much, according to the study.
“Proposed emission limits for mercury are so lenient that an estimated 85% of European plants are already in compliance and will not have to invest in retrofitting,” the report says.
The Guardian has previously revealed that despite claims by the UK to the contrary, energy industry representatives repeatedly and forcefully pushed for weaker pollution limits at meetings in Brussels.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said: “EU leaders have completely failed to stand up to the energy industry’s pervasive lobbying for weak air pollution limits. If these lax rules are adopted, hundreds of thousands of UK and European citizens will pay the consequences for their political leaders letting polluting industries off the hook.”
via Weak EU air pollution standards risk thousands of lives, says report | Environment | The Guardian.
How do I stop my glasses from misting up?
When using a mask with glasses, it is best to fit the mask first to get the correct fit with no seal leakage, then place the glasses in front of the nose clip on the mask. It is really dependent on the seal of the mask. Having adjustable nose pads facilitates a better fit than plastic moulded rims. A good seal around the nose and cheekbone will mean no leakage in that region which equals no misting. This is how/why glasses get misted up on the inside of the lens. In our experience most glasses wearers manage to figure a way of fitting glasses with a mask without them getting misted up.
For more frequently asked questions, go to Respro® Masks FAQ
Pollution Masks - The 'Original' and still the best - Established 1993 - Made in the UK 
Respro® Masks are reusable
