Prioritizing health: EPA must seize opportunities to make our air cleaner

With the start of a new year and a renewed focus on staying healthy, your resolutions to exercise and eat better may come with a third goal: breathe cleaner air. Recent studies have shown that higher levels of particulate matter, an air pollutant, increase the risk of eight different heart-related diseases. Thankfully, this health goal doesn't require a gym membership.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue updated air quality standards (NAAQS) to regulate this pollutant any time soon. The EPA has been advised by the medical community to strengthen these standards to protect health, but the polluting industry opposes the economic cost of clean air, saying it is “too high.”

In 2019, air pollution was responsible for 6.7 million deaths worldwide. Fine particulate matter increases the risk of several causes of death in the United States, including lung cancer, heart disease, and dementia, making it arguably one of the most dangerous public health threats.

So how much does it really cost to improve our air quality?

As doctors, we do our best to treat patients with medication and lifestyle changes, but unless we clean the air and environment in which patients live, it is hopeless.

Particulate matter, also called soot or PM_2.5, which causes inflammation inside the lungs, worsening the risk of asthma attacks and hindering lung development in children. Higher exposure levels increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cognitive decline, as well as pregnancy complications.

Everyone is affected by breathing polluted air, but children, the elderly, and pregnant women are most at risk. This is why I and health care providers across the country are calling on the EPA to strengthen current standards for particulate air pollution, consistent with the scientific community's consensus to protect the health of our most vulnerable populations. The reason is.

The majority of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, an independent panel of expert scientific advisors to EPA, recommends reducing levels of fine particulate matter in the air from 12 μg/m.³ down to levels as low as 8μg/m³ From annual standards and 35 µg/m³ ～25μg/m³ On a 24-hour basis. The American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Heart Association all support these guidelines.

The negative health effects are of particular concern to communities of color, who are disproportionately exposed to high levels of particulate matter. A DC-based case study by Dr. Susan Annenberg, an air pollution expert and director of the George Washington University Climate Health Institute, examines the health effects of exposure to fine particulate matter, including heart disease, asthma visits, and asthma visits. The areas with the greatest impact are shown. Lung cancer and stroke occur at higher rates in black Americans.

But the good news is that regulatory processes like the proposed updated air quality guidelines could help address these health concerns. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that strengthening fine particulate matter standards would be most beneficial to the health of Black Americans and people of low socioeconomic status. Doctors need these strengthened rules to protect vulnerable patients.

It has been argued that tightening standards will have a negative impact on economic output. Industries such as mining, oil and gas, and manufacturing may need to adapt their operations to meet updated standards. But history tells a different story.

Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, health benefits have exceeded implementation costs by more than 30 to 1. In other words, we saved money by improving air quality and avoiding heart attacks, emergency room visits, and lost work days. EPA's own estimates show that the long-term economic benefits of stronger air quality standards outweigh the expected costs.

The success of regulations to date shows that efforts to clean the air are successful. The closure of a coal processing plant in Pennsylvania subsequently led to a decrease in emergency room visits for heart-related problems. When California retired eight polluting coal and oil power plants, birth rates rose in surrounding areas.

The health benefits are why doctors like me are calling on the EPA to fulfill its primary mission of protecting human health and the environment as quickly as possible. Clean air is a priority, not a privilege. While there is no perfectly safe level of air pollution, there is one thing you can do to make this year healthier by making your air cleaner through stronger standards for fine particulate matter.

Neelima Thummala isotorhinolaryngologist He is the co-director of Climate Health Research Institute at george washington university.