By Moms Clean Air Force

Ring in the New Year with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe, join us for a Virtual Townhall to discuss clean air and the importance of reducing harmful carbon emissions.

Last year, moms, dads, uncles, aunts, sons and daughters had the chance to talk about how EPA should regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants–which contribute 40% of the U.S. carbon emissions that are warming up our planet–at EPA listening sessions held around the country. Now Administrator McCarthy and Acting Administrator Janet McCabe want to hear from YOU.

What are your clean air and climate wishes for 2014?

Make your voice heard! The EPA wants to hear from YOU, and we’re making it easy for you to get in touch with Administrator McCarthy and Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe through a variety of channels:

EMAIL: Submit your question for Administrator McCarthy and Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe via email to climatevoices@momscleanairforce.org

FACEBOOK: Submit your questions on our Facebook page, using the hashtag #CleanAirMoms

TWITTER: Submit your questions using the hashtag #CleanAirMoms AND join us for a Twitter Event with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe.

We are honored to be joined by a great group of partners for this historic event:

Green For All

Healthy Child Healthy World

WHAT: Twitter event with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe. We will be discussing climate change and carbon pollution standards, and why strong standards are so important–for the sake of health and the environment.

WHEN: Wednesday, January 8, 2-3pmET/11am-12pmPT

WHERE: On Twitter! RSVP HERE

HOW: Follow hashtag: #CleanAirMoms and @CleanAirMoms, @EPAlive, @GreenForAll, @Healthy_Child

WHO: You, your friends, and you friends’ friends! Be sure to RSVP and invite a friend!

PRIZES: We will give away 3 Moms Clean Air Force fab prize packs during the event, make sure to RSVP to be eligible to win. Additionally, YOU CAN WIN just by RSVPing! Click here for a chance to win Amazon and Honest gift certificates, a Global Giving card, and Klean Kanteen bottles.

Spread the word! Share this tweet with your friends on Twitter:

Join me! @CleanAirMoms Twitter Event w/ EPA Admin Gina McCarthy @EPAlive! 1/8  2pmET Prizes! http://ow.ly/rRjTQ #CleanAirMoms

>> Tweet this <<

a Rafflecopter giveaway

By Danny Shanahan

What every parent needs to know about soot:

WHAT IS SOOT? 

Soot is an environmental contaminant. It is the result of the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. You can see soot belching from the exhaust pipes of diesel trucks as well as smokestacks; it accumulates on your windowsills if you live near a major road.

Soot is the common name by which we refer to “particulate matter” or particle pollution—a complex mixture of tiny particles and liquid droplets formed in our air from metals, acids, and chemicals like sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industrial boilers, manufacturing, oil refining, motor vehicles, and wood stoves.

Particulate matter, or PM, as it is often called, can be so small that it can only be detected with an electron microscope. Those particles enter our lungs without our even knowing it.

The composition of soot is different depending on where you are. In the northeast, for instance, a larger portion of the particles are made up of sulfur (most likely because they come from transportation sources).

The actual size and composition of the particles makes the biggest difference with respect to our health.

IS SOOT JUST DIRTY? 

No. Soot is deadly. Soot causes thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart attacks each year.

The size of those tiny particles is directly linked to the terrible trouble they cause. Particles smaller than a speck of dust, and less than 1/30th the width of a human hair, can easily pass through the nose and throat, penetrate and embed in the lungs, and enter the bloodstream.

The smallest particles cause the largest amount of damage because they can penetrate furthest into the lungs and in some cases react directly with DNA.

In 2013, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency reported that air pollution is laced with cancer-causing substances and should now be classified as carcinogenic to humans.

WHERE DOES SOOT COME FROM? 

The most significant sources of soot are diesel engines, vehicle tailpipes, coal plant smokestacks, oil refineries, and fires—the burning of large forests for agricultural purposes produces soot, and so does the use of grills, fireplaces and cookstoves for cooking and heating.

Currently, more than 70 million Americans live in areas that are in violation of the health standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That’s 70 million people exposed to spikes in fine particle pollution at levels that EPA deems unsafe.

HOW IS SOOT CONNECTED TO GLOBAL WARMING? 

Soot is a major cause of global warming. While carbon pollution gets most of the headlines, soot is a very important contributor to the problems caused by climate change.

Climate scientists refer to black carbon—the main component of soot—as a “climate forcer.”  Soot particles absorb radiation from the sun and can hasten the melting of snow and ice cover when they fall to the ground.

THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT SOOT? 

We can do something about soot pollution–quickly! But we have to fight for strong soot regulations.

We have good, affordable equipment to cut soot emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks—particle traps and filters. We can take the worst-polluting vehicles off the road. We can use low-emission diesel engines and equipment. We can clean up large industrial boilers, coke ovens, and brick kilns.

This means we can protect our health—and especially the well-being of those most vulnerable to soot, our children and our elderly.

LEARN MORE ABOUT COAL POLLUTION AND SOOT HERE

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Dominique Browning

All year ’round, we make inspirational cards to use in our social media efforts–especially on Facebook. We always know when we strike a chord, because the “Likes” shoot way up.

We know that you have plenty of people you like — and love — in your lives. So we gathered a batch of our cards for you to share with friends.

Don’t forget, LOVE is our biggest source of renewable energy!

SHARE A MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE MESSAGE HERE

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Lori Popkewitz Alper

Salem Harbor,
Massachusetts

President Obama recently announced he was ordering the federal government to increase its use of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2020, nearly triple the amount currently used. The President’s plan to use renewables is part of a larger action to combat climate change, limit pollution and promote U.S. energy independence.

While the president is taking steps towards renewable energy an ongoing battle persists in New England, with sparks flying high as parties argue the merits of a proposed natural gas power plant.

A 692-megawatt gas-fired power plant has been cleared for construction on the waterfront in Salem, Massachusetts, about 16 miles north of Boston. The plant is currently a coal-fired power plant that’s been in operation since 1951. It has been responsible for large amounts of air pollution and toxic coal ash. New Jersey-based Footprint Power, backed by Representative Keenan, has proposed to convert the coal-and-oil-fired power plant into a natural gas facility.

Natural gas has taken off in New England and the impact has been measurable with carbon emissions dropping 21 percent since 2007.

A New England advocacy group called the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has stepped in to stop construction of this new gas-powered plant by filing an appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to overturn the state board’s approval of construction of the $800 million Salem plant.

According to Shanna Cleveland, a senior CLF attorney spearheading the appeal, the appeal was filed because no “credible evidence” was presented that showed how the Salem plant will comply with greenhouse gas emission limits in the 2008 Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA).

The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) was signed into law in Massachusetts in 2008:

“…created a framework for reducing heat-trapping emissions to levels that scientists believe give us a decent chance of avoiding the worst effects of global warming. It requires reductions from all sectors of the economy to reach a target of a 25% reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050.”

According to the CLF:

“Footprint Power and Representative Keenan have claimed that the proposed natural gas plant somehow will benefit the climate, but in doing so they seem to ignore that this new power plant would be capable of emitting over 2 million tons of carbon dioxide a year – a significant problem if we’re going to de-carbonize the electric grid by 2050, as necessary….The bottom line is that while natural gas may burn cleaner than coal and oil, it is still a fossil fuel with significant carbon emissions. Locking in new natural gas infrastructure means locking out zero-carbon technologies like wind and solar.”

Is Natural Gas the Answer?

In the short term natural gas plants have relatively low upfront costs and they can roll with the fluctuation in power demand. Gas is also seen as an immediate way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is however concern that without a new pipeline infrastructure in place to supply gas generators, gas prices are likely to rise and service to customers could be spotty during winter weather. Throw in the possibility of stricter emissions standards and natural gas might not be as appealing in the long-term.

Stay tuned for part two: Gas v. Renewable Energy: What Does the Future Hold for New England and Beyond?

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Moms Clean Air Force

This is an exclusive Moms Clean Air Force interview with Pennsylvania’s Senator Bob Casey:

MCAF: What is unique about protecting Pennsylvania?

Senator Casey: Pennsylvania is a large and diverse state. We understand the unique benefits that our natural resources hold the critical importance of protecting our communities and our children.

As a parent (if you are) are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of PA?

As a parent and as a Senator, the health and safety of our children is my top priority. It is imperative that we enact smart policies that protect our communities, leverage clean energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Pennsylvania Constitution ensures the right to clean air and clean water and Pennsylvanians should have nothing less.

Why is a bi-partisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

As a Senator, I have an obligation to seek out opportunities for common ground. Working across the aisle is critical to passing measures that benefit and protect Pennsylvanians. Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for the future of our nation and the health and safety of our children.

Is there anything you would like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members?

I am honored to represent more than 12 million Pennsylvanians. Protecting our children is a critical priority of mine. That means working to ensure kids have a safe environment, nutritious food to eat and a bright future.

PLEASE JOIN MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE

By Marcia G. Yerman

As we enter into the final month of the year, it’s natural to take an inventory. As I reflected on the 2013 environmental front, the nagging image of climate deniers immediately came to mind. There are several members in the United States Congress that I find positively scary…right up there with the Koch Brothers and the power of Big Oil.

Then, in a truly Zen moment, I took a deep breath and let that image dissipate. Rather, I thought of all the amazing people and actions that have been on my radar over the past twelve months. They are on the front lines of activism to heal the planet. They are lawmakers and scientists, but also people in all walks of life who are standing up to make a difference through personal actions.

Here are a few that are on my radar. They push the boundaries every day and give me hope:

• The Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change: With Senator Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) helping to lead the charge, this group works to bring public visibility and representational support to the need for instituting policy initiatives around climate change.

• Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA): The Chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, Boxer stood her ground through numerous difficult hearings. Remember the 136 days it took to confirm Gina McCarthy as EPA administrator? Currently, she has been demanding answers about the chemical and gas odors that have been emanating from a local pumping facility operated by Allenco Energy Company. Residents in the University Park neighborhood have become ill. In this vicinity, there are four schools (from elementary to college level) and a childcare center. Children have been suffering from persistent nosebleeds and respiratory ailments.

• Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): My home state senator, who I had the opportunity to meet and interview, Gillibrand has seen the devastating effects of extreme weather firsthand. She witnessed the impact of Hurricane Sandy throughout the hard hit areas, and has been vigilant in fighting to make sure homeowners get federal help. As a committee member of the EPW from the majority, she has been a vocal advocate for the environment, working to counterbalance the extreme views of several minority Senators.

• Dr. Robert Bullard: I wrote about him and used Dr. Bullard as a repeated source on stories dealing with environmental inequities. He is referenced as “the father of Environmental Justice.” Bullard built the original framework for understanding and reframing an essential part of the environmental equation.

• Documentary Filmmakers: This year has seen a plethora of movies that have delved into concerns including flame retardants in furniture, toxins in every day products, fracking, climate change, and global trash. Titles to check out: Toxic Hot Seat, Unacceptable Levels, Gasland 2, Trashed.

• Women Grassroots Leaders: Back in 1970, Lois Gibbs and Love Canal became household names when Gibbs fought a toxic dump near her son’s elementary school in New York state. Penny Newman fought a similar battle in California in 1979, taking on local government when the Stringfellow acid pits overflowed into her community due to heavy rains. This year, Kimberly Wasserman was recognized with a Goldman Environmental Prize for her fight to protect her neighborhood on Chicago’s southwest side. In a largely Latino district, where respiratory disease and children’s rate of asthma were greatly elevated, Wasserman founded the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. She canvassed other parents to discuss the pollution from the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired power plants. Pushing back against the coal industry, she was instrumental in closing numerous facilities. She stated, “We’re not alone in this world and everything that we do has an impact.”

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

Sometimes we have to ratchet up our naptime activism.

After hundreds of you signed letters to Senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee about strengthening a toxic chemicals bill, Anneka and I printed up your letters and went to the Hill to deliver them.

At issue is the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, a bill that could protect generations of Americans from toxic chemical exposures – but only if it is strengthened. Senators are right now in discussions about how to improve the bill, so we wanted to bring the Moms Clean Air Force perspective directly to their offices, in hard copy form.

We visited five Senate offices and spoke with staffers at each one, explaining what moms want to see in an improved bill:

• It should protect vulnerable populations–including pregnant women, infants and children.
• It should establish solid deadlines for determining the safety of all chemicals in use today.
• It should cut red tape so EPA can do its job, and we can start getting hormone disruptors, neurotoxins, and carcinogens out of our bodies, fast.

On the same day, Moms Clean Air Force members and concerned citizens around the country were calling their Senators to deliver the same message. It felt great to be adding to those voices with our petition delivery. Every voice counts – especially when we work together.

Thank you to our members – for your signatures, for your phone calls, and for your motherlove.

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Ronnie Citron-Fink

As the first snow fell, the dogs and I watched the white powder quickly turn to ice. This put a temporary kibosh on our walk along my rural road. With snowy spirits dampened, we’d have to wait for the snowplow. I headed back to my computer to see when the icy mix was going to end and came across this headline: “Environmental Group Warns Of Fracking Waste on NY.”

Wait a minute, my state has moratorium on fracking! As natural gas development in surrounding states wrecks havoc on their air and water, fracking is currently on hold in New York State. We’re waiting to see whether or not Governor Andrew Cuomo will ban or allow natural gas development. So far, he’s heeded public outcry and is letting science lead policy by waiting for a health-impact review.

Yet, as frosty winter takes hold in New York, more than a dozen municipalities have received state approval to spread a natural gas byproduct on their roads for deicing, dust control and road stabilization. This fluid is called production brine.

A local New York environmental group, Riverkeeper, which focuses on the health of the Hudson River, says the state has approved the use of fracking waste fluids on our roads, even though studies have not been conducted to determine whether there are harmful impacts.

According to Capital New York, Riverkeeper is not officially opposed to fracking, but it wants the gas industry to be heavily regulated and ensure safety, should Gov. Andrew Cuomo decide to lift the moratorium that has been in place since 2008. As Riverkeeper scientist, Bill Wegner says,

“The biggest concern is the carcinogens; you don’t want that to get into drinking water supplies…It can also contain naturally-occurring radioactive materials. And while chloride is contained in the road salt commonly used across the country, it is far more concentrated in fracking waste. Some of the brine is a waste product that comes from natural gas storage facilities. Thirteen municipalities received state permission to use fracking brine, which comes out of wells, and 10 use brine that is removed from natural gas after it has been stored for a while. Both contain pollutants.”

As if this wasn’t enough to make this snow-loving gal pack up the pooches and move south, Riverkeeper attorney, Misti Duvall added,

“…the use of fracking brine in the state is concerning because it’s not easy to tell what is in the mix being applied to roads. In fact, Riverkeeper found the state doesn’t always track the source of the brine. What’s more, the state also permits the storage of waste that comes from high-volume hydrofracked wells in Pennsylvania or West Virginia, which have much higher concentrations of dangerous chemicals…It’s difficult to track where that fluid is coming from and where it is going…In addition to road spreading, we are concerned about disposal of fracking waste at New York landfills and wastewater treatment facilities that are unequipped to handle it.” 

I dug into this further and found other states are also grappling with this potentially harmful issue:

“Bruce Duncanson of Lincoln, Ohio, said he organized neighbors in his hometown to ask public officials to reconsider spraying of fracking wastewater brine on the local roads to melt ice during the winter. Several municipalities in Ohio and beyond have used fracking wastewater by-products to de-ice roads.”

New York State Senator Terry Gipson said he hopes the state will ban the use of fracking waste as a de-icer:

“We have a bill in committee right now that would ban the use of fracking wastewater as a de-icer in New York State…”

What’s so bad about spreading this untested, unregulated, polluting de-icer on New York’s snowy roads?

Everything.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

In the midst of increasing information about the ubiquity of our exposure to industrial flame retardants, the revision of a 40-year-old furniture flammability standard in California last month could dramatically reduce or the amount of flame retardants added to foam-filled furniture in the future. As reported in the Chicago Tribune:

“For decades, U.S. manufacturers have filled upholstered furniture with pounds of toxic chemicals to comply with a flammability standard set by a single state, California.

The obscure rule, known as Technical Bulletin 117, brought flame retardants into homes across the country. American babies came to be born with the highest recorded average concentrations of the chemicals among any infants in the world.

But [last month], California threw out the 38-year-old rule and approved a new one that furniture manufacturers can meet without using flame retardants.”

Under the old standard, upholstered furniture sold in California had to meet an open flame test, which required that it withstand ingnition from direct contact with an open flame for a certain number of seconds. With furniture filled with inherently flammable polystyrene foam, meeting that standard required the use of chemical flame retardants. The new standard abandons the open flame test, and instead requires that upholstered furniture resist ignition from smoldering objects on the surface, a much more common cause of fires.

California’s new standard can be readily met with surface treatments and physical barriers. It gives manufacturers the option of meeting the standard without using chemicals, although chemicals are still permitted. As it’s phased in over the next year, it will be up to consumers to learn how products are meeting the new standard. We will have to ask our retailers: Are you meeting the California flammability standard with chemicals in foam (i.e., business as usual)? Or are you meeting the standard through physical barriers instead?

Flame retardant chemicals are linked with health problems such as decreased fertility, birth defects, neurological problems, and hyperactivity. They are added in prodigious amounts to upholstered furniture, crib mattresses, electronics, and building insulation. And they are found in the bodies of virtually all Americans.

Because flame retardant chemicals persist in the environment, this new standard does not solve the problem of how we are going to dispose safely of all the chemical-laden furniture already in our homes, schools, and offices. Nor does it address the liberal use of these chemicals in electronics and building insulation. But at least it provides an opening for manufacturers to take flame retardant chemicals out of new upholstered products. And I, for one, will be demanding that they do, for the sake of my children’s health.

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Moms Clean Air Force

Bisphenol-A, or BPA, is a hot topic – one we know many moms are concerned about because BPA is everywhere!

Moms Clean Air Force is partnering with BPA expert Dr. Laura Vandenberg and the Environmental Defense Fund’s Dr. Sarah Vogel for a Google+ Hangout discussion of this controversial chemical.

Moderated by MCAF co-founder and senior director, Dominique Browning, this is a special opportunity to hear from renowned experts on an important family health issue.

WHAT: A conversation about BPA — what you need to know and an update on the latest research.
WHEN: Tuesday, December 17th 1pmET/10amPT
WHERE: Google+ Hangout
WHO: A discussion between Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Vogel, moderated by Dominique Browning.

Please submit questions for Dr. Vandenberg or Dr. Vogel to info@momscleanairforce.org or on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ using the hashtag #BPA101. We will select a handful of questions to be addressed at the event.

Can’t make it to the live Hangout? The video will live permanently on our video page after the event. Be sure to check it out!

What is BPA?

Starting in the 1950s, BPA was used in polycarbonate plastics, including water bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups, plastic dinnerware, toys, food can linings, dental sealants, and thermal paper products such as cash register receipts. Its production skyrocketed. By 2000, the US produced over 2 billion pounds of BPA annually, and global production was around 6 billion pounds. It is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world. (For an exhaustive and enlightening discussion of the public health and policy issues surrounding BPA, see the new book by EDF’s Sarah Vogel.)

As BPA production expanded, so did BPA’s access to our bodies. The chemical is ubiquitous. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that BPA can be found in the bodies of nearly all Americans, as determined through urine tests of a representative sample of Americans in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, also called NHANES.

BPA gets into our body through our food and water. We ingest it. It stays in our bodies for a relatively short amount of time – a couple of days. That the CDC found BPA in almost everyone means not only that exposure is widespread, but that it’s constant. Click here to learn about the latest research, suggesting BPA is still everywhere!

We hope to see you at the Hangout!

Cartoon: Danny Shanahan

RSVP HERE

 TELL YOUR SENATORS: PROTECT OUR FAMILIES FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS

By Moms Clean Air Force

This excerpt was written by Amanda Mascarelli for the Washington Post:

These days the baby aisle shelves are lined with products proudly announcing: “BPA-free.” As a mom and a consumer, this is reassuring. BPA (bisphenol A), a chemical used in the production of plastics and many other products, has been linked to a variety of health problems such as reproductive disorders, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A 2003-2004 national health survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in more than 93 percent of 2,517 urine samples from people age 6 and older.

In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration stated that BPA was safe for use in food-related materials such as plastic food containers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including containers for liquid infant formula. Last year, the FDA ruled that BPA could no longer be used in the manufacturing of baby bottles and sippy cups; this action came after the chemical industry and major manufacturers had abandoned the use of BPA in those products.

But the chemical is found in many other common items: medical devices, dental sealants and compact discs, to name a few. Even paper receipts from the grocery store and ATM machines often contain BPA. In short, it’s pretty hard to avoid the chemical.

In the past few years, the FDA has expressed greater concern about BPA. In 2009, the National Institutes of Health launched a $30 million, five-year program in collaboration with the FDA and the CDC to examine long-term health outcomes associated with developmental exposure to BPA. Research from this effort will be pouring out over the next few years. But the studies already emerging continue to add to the evidence that the safety of BPA is highly uncertain.

These and many other studies have converged on a central message: Even at low levels and particularly during prenatal development and early childhood, exposure to BPA — known to mimic the hormone estrogen — can have subtle but detrimental effects.

When chemicals such as BPA mimic hormones, it leads to what’s called endocrine disruption. “The effect is not necessarily toxic in the traditional sense,” says Sarah Vogel, director of the health program at the Environmental Defense Fund and author of “Is it Safe? BPA and the Struggle to Define the Safety of Chemicals,” but it is a disruption.

Hormonal signals work the way a lock and key work. We have receptors (the locks) that receive signals from hormones (the keys). “[BPA] is almost like a little master key because it can fit into many of these little locks that are in your body and in your cells,” says Emilie Rissman, a behavioral neuroendocrinologist at the University of Virginia.

Rissman and other researchers are finding that when humans and other animals are exposed to BPA during critical developmental windows such as in the womb and in infancy, the chemical can scramble cellular signals and leave lasting biological effects…

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

TELL YOUR SENATORS: PROTECT OUR FAMILIES FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan exclusively for Moms Clean Air Force:

Clean air is essential for the health of our people and the health of our economy. For the people of New Hampshire to live the healthy, productive lives that they deserve, our air needs to be as clean as possible.

In New Hampshire, we have a strong history of protecting the natural resources that make our state so special and are taking major steps to reduce emissions that harm our air. But other states aren’t doing the same, and New Hampshire – along with other East Coast states – is paying the price.

Downwind states, such as New Hampshire, have aggressively reduced air pollution emissions, and as a result the air in these states is significantly cleaner than it was 30 years ago, but there are still times when ozone reaches unhealthy levels. However, even if the people of New Hampshire took every car off every road in our state, we would, at best, reduce ozone by only three percent on bad air days. And on those bad air days, New Hampshire receives more than 95 percent of its air pollution from upwind states.

That’s because much of our pollution comes from upwind states – states that do not live under the same federal requirements that we do; states that are reaping economic benefits and advantages from poisoning New Hampshire’s air.

That’s why New Hampshire joined seven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States in petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require upwind states to reduce air pollution generated within their borders, which causes asthma, respiratory disease, and other public health problems downwind. We are asking the EPA to require those states doing the polluting to live under the same rules as our states.

Industries and electric power plants in downwind states have already invested heavily in pollution-control technologies, and if additional emissions reductions were required from states like New Hampshire, they would come from their smaller sources at greater cost. The cost of removing an additional ton of pollution in downwind states (including New Hampshire) is estimated at between $10,000 to $40,000 – compared to as little as $500 a ton in upwind states, where even some of the basic control technologies have not been installed.

That is why I am calling on states around the country to join us in taking common-sense steps to address air pollution.

It is unacceptable for our citizens to suffer from poor air quality because of the inaction of upwind states. We need these states at the table, joining with us to improve the air quality across our country.

We are calling on the EPA to hold those states accountable and help bring them into the Ozone Transport Region process so we can improve the lives of all of our people. The petition cites decades of inaction by the upwind states during which time the eight Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states have spent tens of billions of dollars to reduce their own air emissions, and it would require upwind states to take actions consistent with the air pollution efforts of the downwind states through the use of readily available control technologies and reliance on cleaner fuels to generate power.

We hope that upwind states will recognize the impact of air pollution in our communities and come to the table to improve the quality of life for all of our people.

Thank you to everyone whose efforts are helping to ensure clean air for our people. Your work is critical to maintaining our high quality of life, and I look forward to continuing to work together to build a stronger, cleaner, more innovative New Hampshire.

Governor Maggie Hassan was sworn in as the 81st Governor of New Hampshire on January 3, 2013. Governor Hassan and her husband, Tom, the principal of Phillips Exeter Academy, are the proud parents of two children, Ben (25) and Meg (20). They live in Exeter along with the family dog, Honey Mae.
Contact Maggie at: http://www4.egov.nh.gov/nhgovernor/comments.asp

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Diane MacEachern

Though we have a tendency to associate air pollution with summer smog, winter isn’t a completely benign season as far as our lungs are concerned. After all, winter’s the time when people burn wood in their fireplaces or crank up a space heater or kerosene stove, all the while keeping their houses closed up tight to stay warm. Coal-fired utilities are still burning fuel to meet heating demands, which means they’re generating “particle pollution,” microscopic air particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs, potentially causing serious health problems. Harsh weather and cold temperatures may force people to drive more than walk, bike or use mass transit, increasing tail pipe emissions. And people may spend more time idling their cars in winter than summer, hoping to warm up the engine and get the heater going before they have to drive off in a cold vehicle.

INDOORS

Indoors, those tight houses may be keeping you warm – but they also could be causing toxic chemicals from burning fuel to build up. Some people experience headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, and watery eyes from air pollutants commonly associated with burning wood, propane, kerosene or natural gas. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, though most “combustion” appliances, as they’re called, are safe, it’s always a good idea to take precautions to stay healthy.

For example, a wood-burning stove or fireplace never should smoke. If yours does, check the damper to make sure smoky air can escape up the chimney, not into your house. A working carbon monoxide detector is another must-have. Why? When wood doesn’t burn completely, the resulting smoke contains a variety of chemicals, including carbon monoxide (CO). Though it’s an odorless, colorless gas, don’t be fooled. Exposure to CO impinges on your blood’s ability to carry oxygen, one of its main functions. You can get a digital detector that will warn you with a loud series of beeps when carbon monoxide reaches dangerous levels. It should go without saying that every home needs a fire detector, whether there’s also a fireplace in the house or not.

If you have a supplemental generator for your home, make sure it is installed outside, rather than indoors, and a good distance away from doors, windows, vents or any other entry points into the house. Carbon monoxide is the culprit here, too. It’s toxic, can accumulate quickly, and linger for hours. In high enough levels it can kill; please don’t take the risk.

Use exhaust fans, like those you have in the bathroom or over your stove in the kitchen, to help ventilate those rooms. They’ll circulate the air and reduce the likelihood of mold, mildew and bacteria. And remember to change the air filters on your HVAC system regularly to trap dust, dander and other allergens that can proliferate in winter months.

OUTDOORS

Outdoors, don’t give up walking just because the temperature has dropped! If it’s not icy or too snowy, dress warmly and enjoy hoofing it anyway.

If you do drive and want to warm up the car before you take off, Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recommends idling no longer than 30 seconds. Idling generates nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), both of which pollute the air and can make people sick. There’s an economic cost to idling, too. According to DEQ, “ten seconds of idling can use more fuel than turning off the engine and restarting it. A car idling for two minutes uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to drive one mile.”

In other words, a car that’s idling gets zero mpg – but it’s still costing you money.

Plus, many components of a vehicle, such as the wheel bearings, tires and suspension system, warm up only when the vehicle is moving. If you’re worried about your kids getting into a cold car, keep a couple of blankets in the back seat for them to cuddle under until the heater kicks in.

For more ways to save energy in the winter or any time, here’s my list of Top Ten Ways to Save Energy and Money at Home.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Laura Michelle Burns

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think of ladybugs? I think of sweet little red bugs who munch on aphids in rose beds? We’ve had swarms of them all over our garden beds. I’m noticing something odd — their color is different than they were in past years. The red color is dull and their little spots are more frequent.

In my biology and ecology classes, the topic of microevolution came up as part of the adaptive skills of nature. The first time I heard about this phenomenon was in reference to the Peppered Moths in England. Their wings became darker in response to increased soot in the air from industrialization. Because they had darker wings, they were no longer easily visible to the birds who fed on them. In the years that have passed, we’ve seen darker moths and a return to the lighter-colored ones. This may be attributed to stronger clean air laws.

Climate change impacts so much of our world, now even the sweet little ladybug has been impacted. The coast of the Netherlands is home to another microevolution. If you picked up a two-spot ladybug on the coast thirty years ago, you’d most likely saw a beetle with black spots on a red shell. But inland, a two-spot ladybug would have red spots on a black shell. The coastal areas have more sun and are therefore warmer, so the ladybugs don’t need the black shell to reflect the heat of the sun.

Now, three decades later, researchers are finding quite a few more red shelled ladybugs inland. The University of Cambridge’s ecological geneticist, Paul Brakefield has studied the two-spotted ladybugs. And while they don’t yet know the exact change in temperature that causes the ladybugs spots to change, it is clear that there is only one genetic protein that is responsible for the coloration of their spots. In 1980, 10% of the ladybugs near the coast had black with red spots, and 90% were red with black spots. But in the last 25 years of sampling, Brakefield and his associates found more and more of the red with black spotted ladybugs, even further inland. When Brakefield first started to do his research, he was able to catch hundreds of the ladybugs for his data counts, now he can hardly gather enough for a sample. As the Earth’s warming trend is predicting, there are limited numbers of red-spotted ladybugs.

The moths in London and the ladybugs in the Netherlands rely on their coloration to survive; one needs it to hide from predators and one to warn predators to stay away. As the climate changes and the spots on the insects evolve, they will have to adapt their locations or eventually disappear. So as we work to save the future of our planet, let’s not leave the tiniest creatures of our beautiful Earth behind.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Danny Shanahan

A note from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Many of our daily activities cause emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, we produce greenhouse gas emissions from burning gasoline when we drive, burning oil or gas for home heating, or using electricity generated from coal, natural gas, and oil. Greenhouse gas emissions vary among individuals depending on a person’s location, habits, and personal choices. For example:

• The quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from your home electricity use depends on the types of fuel your power plant uses to generate the electricity and the amount you use.
• The quantity of greenhouse gases emitted from your furnace and boiler depends on the efficiency of these items, the size and insulation of your house, and the amount and type of fuel used.
• The quantity of emissions from your car or truck depends on how much you drive, what your vehicle’s fuel efficiency is, and how you drive (e.g., the amount of time spent idling in traffic).
• In addition, the more recycling you do will reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, as well as the greenhouse gas emissions that result from processing of raw materials.

Do you know what your carbon footprint is? Try EPA’s household GHG emissions calculator to estimate your annual greenhouse gas emissions.

More about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change HERE.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS

By Molly Rauch

It seems everywhere researchers look these days, they find toxic flame retardant chemicals.

Last month the Center for Environmental Health released a report on flame retardants in children’s furniture. The Center commissioned a Duke University researcher to test the foam in 42 products. All but four were found to contain flame retardants linked to cancer, infertility, obesity, and other health problems.

The furniture was purchased from Walmart, Target, Kmart, BabiesRUs/ToysRUs, Buybuybaby, and other major retailers.

I know my couch is full of toxic flame retardant chemicals. (Yours probably is too.) So it’s not that these results are surprising. It’s just that these chairs are so cute, I can hardly believe what’s inside them. You know those squishy, tiny loungers – special kid-size chairs or sofas, just for your little reader, branded with Thomas the Tank Engine, Cinderella, Shreck, Spidey, and Elmo. And what a great image it conjures: my child will sit in her cozy chair, reading!

How ironic. The four flame retardant chemicals identified in this study – Firemaster 550, TCPP, Chlorinated Tris or TDCPP, and Butylated Triphenyl Phosphate – are linked to hormone disruption and cancers. And they’re coming from furniture items that play directly into a parent’s desire to nurture our child’s growth and development.

Flame Retardants Do Not Protect Us From Fires

One thing flame retardants are not linked to: Preventing deaths in actual fires. These industrial chemicals, which now pervade so many of our consumer products, don’t even work to provide the fire safety benefit claimed by the manufacturers.

As Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times:

“These flame retardants represent a dizzying corporate scandal… The story goes back to the 1970s, when the tobacco industry was under pressure to make self-extinguishing cigarettes because so many people were dying in fires caused by careless smokers. The tobacco industry didn’t want to tinker with cigarettes, so it lobbied instead for requiring flame retardants in mattresses and couches.

“This became a multibillion-dollar boondoggle for the chemical industry, but studies showed that flame retardants as actually used in sofas don’t prevent fires.”

The Center for Environmental Health suggests that parents avoid products that contain foam. Instead, purchase furniture with polyester fill, or products made of wood, wool, canvas, and other natural materials.

Gymnasts Exposed to High Levels of Flame Retardants

As further evidence of widespread exposure to flame retardant chemicals, a recent small study of 11 college gymnasts shows that the athletes had high levels of BDE-153, a breakdown product of the flame retardant PBDE, in their blood. Their levels were comparable to workers who face high occupational exposure to this chemical, such as foam recyclers. Gymnasts often practice in “pits” filled with blocks of chemically-treated polyurethane foam.

PBDE comes in three forms (penta, octa, and deca), and several states have banned some forms of the chemical due to concerns over health effects and its persistence in our bodies. But foam products containing these chemicals stay in our homes for years if not decades – some of the foam blocks in the pit where gymnasts practice can be decades old – and since the flame retardant chemicals are not bound to the foam, they can continue to migrate into the air for the life of the product.

Mardi Gras Beads: Spiking Your Celebration With Toxic Chemicals

And another product that contains flame retardants at high levels: plastic Mardi gras beads. A new study from Michigan-based nonprofit The Ecology Center found high levels of lead, bromine, chlorine, phthalates, and several hazardous flame retardants in plastic Mardi gras beads and holiday beaded garland. Because of the chemical composition of the beads and the internal structure of the product, researchers concluded that recycled plastic was the likely filler ingredient in the beads.

And whereas recycling sounds like a good idea, this study highlights some of the potential problems. Because there are so many plastic products that contain flame retardant chemicals, recycling a mixed plastics stream can lead to new routes of exposure to potentially toxic chemicals.

Photo: Center For Environmental Health

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Ronnie Citron-Fink

With the passing of former South African president, Nelson Mandela, his profoundly memorable quotes fill us with wisdom and optimism.

“We owe our children – the most vulnerable citizens in any society – a life free from violence and fear.”

When I taught elementary school, I dealt with resolving conflicts often. Arguments would escalate quickly without intervention.

“He scribbled on my desk.”
“Why did you scribble on his desk?”
“She called me a bad name.”
“It’s not OK to call people bad names…and it’s not OK to scribble on desks.”
“Now what do we do?”
“You say, Sorry, I’ll clean it up.”

With raw emotion, children acknowledge their feelings and learn to take responsibility for their actions. We accept that very young children are self-centered. As they grow, they become more and more egalitarian — fairness balances selfishness.

We have a similar emotional reaction to climate change. Scientific data, numbers, graphs and disease rates tell facts. But the problem riles up pure emotion – worry, fear. Why?

…because many politicians are more interested in selfish greed than serving the people who entrusted them with their lives.
…because we don’t want to see our children’s future at the mercy of an unstable climate.
…because dirty power companies threaten our children’s health by suing for the right to pollute.

Whoa! Who would do that?

American Electric Power (AEP), the top emitter of mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide in 2011, is a party to the lawsuit challenging the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in court. That case is being heard in the DC Court of Appeals on December 9th.

“Part of being optimistic is keeping one’s head pointed toward the sun, one’s feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair.”

At Moms Clean Air Force, we know parental worry motives people to take action. We need to take back our power and not let polluters continue to spew powerful neurotoxins into our air that damage the brains, lungs and hearts of unborn babies, infants and toddlers.

“When people are determined they can overcome anything.”

With optimism, hope and determination, and a massive coordinated social, economic and political effort, we can solve this collective human problem and ensure a safe future now and beyond.

Please join me in telling AEP it’s time to stop playing childish dangerous games and start owning up to their part of the problem. MCAF will deliver your message on December 9th, at AEP’s corporate headquarters in Columbus, Ohio and their Washington, DC offices.

AEP owes it to our children to play fair and say: “Sorry, I’ll clean it up.”

TELL AEP TO FUND CLEAN AIR, NOT LAWSUITS

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Brandon Baker and originally posted on EcoWatch: 

The fight over Ohio’s renewable energy policy is on hold, and there’s no telling when it will resume.

Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) cancelled a Senate Public Utilities Committee meeting this week in which members were expected to vote on a revised version of Senate Bill (SB) 58, which would phase out the state’s renewable rules by 2019. Instead of potentially sending the bill to the Ohio Senate, Seitz says he will work with both sides of the aisle to further develop the bill. This was the second cancellation of a committee meeting and vote by Seitz in two weeks.

“[The cancelled meeting] reflects nothing more than my continued adherence to the principle that it is more important to get this complex subject done right than to get it done quickly,” Seitz said, according to The Plain Dealer.

The decision to wait on a vote could be a response to resistance from the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC), Advanced Energy Economy Ohio and more. The OCC estimated that Ohio households and businesses would pay $528 and $3,231 extra, respectively, over the next three years if SB 58 were passed.

Additionally, The Plain Dealer reported late-hour debates over the bill between Republican Caucus members in recent. Still, Seitz framed the vote cancellation as a change to get things right.

“An additional handful of amendments to the substitute bill that was to be accepted [Wednesday] have also been drafted, and the additional time will now allow us to incorporate those amendments into yet another fresh substitute bill which we will take up in the future,” he said.

Seitz didn’t specify a date for the committee vote, but he said he would help revive another anti-renewable bill—SB 34, which was introduced by Sen. Kris Jordan (R-Powell). That bill would eliminate state laws requiring utilities sell power generated by wind, solar and other renewable technologies.

“We have seen enough of unconstitutional government mandates emanating from federal and state governments, and liberty loving Ohioans should join together to seek judicial redress at the earliest possible time,” Seitz told the newspaper.

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Kritee

This was written by Kritee for the Environmental Defense Fund:

Hundreds of thousands of babies are born in the U.S each year with enough mercury in their blood to impair healthy brain development. As they grow, these children’s capacity to see, hear, move, feel, learn and respond can be severely compromised. Why does this happen? Mostly because a portion of mercury emitted from local power plants and other global anthropogenic sources is converted to methylmercury, a neurotoxic and organic form of mercury that accumulates in fish.

In addition to poisoning human diet, mercury continues to poison the Arctic. Despite a lack of major industrial sources of mercury within the Arctic, methylmercury concentrations have reached toxic levels in many arctic species including polar bears, whales, and dolphins because of anthropogenic emissions at lower latitudes.

Relationship between mercury exposure and climate change: In its latest report to policymakers, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made it clear that climate change and local high temperatures will worsen air pollution by increasing concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 in many regions. However, no scientific body has collectively assessed the potential impact of changing climate on mercury, a dangerous pollutant that contaminates not just our air but our soils and waters (and as a result human and wildlife’s food supply).

After attending this summer’s International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (ICMGP) in Edinburgh (Scotland), I don’t have good news. In the past few months, I have talked to several leading scientists who do research on different aspects on mercury cycle and they all seemed to agree with many recently presented and published peer-reviewed studies (see a selected list below): Climate change can significantly worsen mercury pollution. Even if global anthropogenic emission rate of mercury was to somehow be made constant, climate change can make fish-eating more dangerous because of the following:

Enhanced inorganic mercury release into waters — A combination of the following climate-related factors can lead to the release of higher amounts of mercury into waters:

• Climate change (i.e., increased local precipitation under warmer conditions) will cause more local direct deposition of the emitted inorganic mercury on our lakes and ocean as compared to deposition under colder and dryer conditions.
• Run-off (i.e., flow of mercury over land in a watershed that drains into one water body) an indirect but primary means by which mercury enters our local waters, will also increase under warmer and wetter conditions.
• Extreme events (storms, hurricanes, forest-fires, tornadoes and alternating wetting-drying cycles) will cause erosive mobilization of inorganic mercury and organic matter in soils and release it into coastal and open waters where it can get methylated.
• Thawing of the enormous areas of northern frozen peatlands may release globally significant amounts of long-stored mercury and organic matter into lakes (including those in the Arctic), rivers and ocean.

Enhanced Methylmercury production from inorganic mercury: In addition to increased release on inorganic mercury into the waters, the inorganic mercury might also have higher chances of getting converted to methylmercury.

• In the open ocean, methylmercury is produced in regions known as “oxygen minimum zones”. Increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will cause higher primary productivity  which will widen the existing ocean’s oxygen deficient zones leading to enhanced production of methylmercury.
• Continued melting of permafrost will release organic matter which naturally contains high concentration of aromatic structures (structures similar to benzene rings). These kinds of organic matter have been shown to enhance the production rate of methylmercury.

Enhanced methylmercury bioaccumulation in the fish:

• For a given amount of methylmercury in the water, there are various factors that control the concentration and bioaccumulation of methylmercury in the food chain. In a given water body, bigger fishaccumulate more methylmercury than smaller fish. Because of climate change, oceanic temperatures will be higher and higher temperatures have been shown to increase the metabolic growth rate and size of fish. Therefore, for a given amount of inorganic mercury emitted in the atmosphere or water, more methylmercury will accumulate in the fish (consequently, increase human exposure to methylmercury) as climate change becomes more severe.

These research results combined with the recent reports on higher genetic susceptibility of some people to mercury poisoning suggest that in order to protect human and wildlife health from negative effects of methylmercury exposure it is essential to swiftly enact and implement stringent laws to reduce both global mercury and greenhouse emissions from all major sources including coal power plants.

Governments across the globe now recognize that mercury is an extremely toxic metal that harms health of millions of children and adults every year and have moved forward with an international treaty to address this toxic pollution, called the Minamata convention. The Minamata convention was recently opened for signatures after 4 years of negotiations. The treaty will come into effect as soon as the 50th nation ratifies it. It has already been signed by 93 nation-states. I am happy to note that United States has been the first nation to ratify the treaty. We await , however, ratification from 49 more countries before the treaty can go into effect.

As an organization, EDF has been educating consumers and seafood businesses about mercury in seafood via our EDF Seafood Selector by doing quantitative Synthesis of Mercury in Commercial Seafood for many years. We also have expertise on the scientific, legal, and stakeholder processes that laid the groundwork for implementation of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in the U.S; the health and economic implications of these emission standards; and the current state of technology available to reduce emissions from power plants in the U.S.

Thanks to your strong support, the U.S. has taken action to reduce mercury from power plants, the largest domestic source of mercury pollution. While many power plant companies are moving forward with investments to reduce mercury pollution, we need you to continue making your voices heard because the mercury standards (MATS) are still being challenged in the court from time to time.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS

References

1. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Robert P. Clickner, and Rebecca A. Jeffries (2009) Adult Women’s Blood Mercury Concentrations Vary Regionally in the United States: Association with Patterns of Fish Consumption (NHANES 1999–2004) Environ Health Perspect. 117(1): 47–53.
2. Goacher, W. James and Brian Branfireun (2013). Evidence of millennial trends in mercury deposition in pristine peat geochronologies. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.
3. Dijkstra JA, Buckman KL, Ward D, Evans DW, Dionne M, et al. (2013) Experimental and Natural Warming Elevates Mercury Concentrations in Estuarine Fish. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58401. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058401
4. Webster, Jackson P. et al. (2013) The Effect of Historical and Recent Wildfires on Soil-Mercury Distribution and Mobilization at Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.
5. Blum et al (2013) Methylmercury production below the mixed layer in the North Pacific Ocean Nature Geoscience 6, 879–884
6. Stramma, Lothar (2010) “Ocean oxygen minima expansions and their biological impacts,” Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 57: 587–595
7. Bjorn, Erik et al. (2013) Impact of Nutrient and Humic Matter Loadings on Methylmercury Formation and Bioaccumulation in Estuarine Ecosystems. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.
8. Bedowski, Jacek et al. (2013) Mercury in the coastal zone of Southern Baltic Sea as a function of changing climate: preliminary results. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.
9. Grandjean, Philippe, et al. (2013) Genetic vulnerability to MeHg. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.
10. Qureshi et al (2013): Impacts of Ecosystem Change on Mercury Bioaccumulation in a Coastal-Marine Food Web presented at the 11th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant; Edinburgh, Scotland.

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Don Hopey. It originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Because of toxic air pollution, Allegheny County residents have twice the cancer risk of those living in surrounding counties, according to a report released Thursday by the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities.

And in hot spots within Allegheny County, the cancer risk is up to 20 times higher.

The Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threats Analysis report, funded by The Heinz Endowments, links the higher cancer rates to a broad class of hazardous air pollutants from industry, energy production and diesel vehicles.

“This report underscores three of the major air quality challenges facing the region — diesel emissions, large point sources and a potential transforming pollutant mixture from unconventional natural gas drilling operations,” said the report’s lead author, Drew Michanowicz, a Pitt Public Health research assistant. “Our findings serve to better focus our future research efforts, as well as support response actions by community-based advocacy groups and other stakeholders to meet these challenges.”

The report notes that Allegheny County ranks in the top 2 percent of counties in the U.S. for cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants.

The Pitt study is the last of three commissioned by The Heinz Endowments — the first two focused on airborne particulates and ozone — and the health impact findings support those of the Post-Gazette’s “Mapping Mortality” project, published in December 2010.

That project found that there were 14,636 more deaths in a 14-county Western Pennsylvania area from 2000 through 2008 than national mortality rates predicted, including 600 additional lung cancer deaths. Communities downwind from many pollution sources showed higher mortality rates for respiratory, heart disease and lung cancer.

The Pitt report showed the biggest air toxics emissions affecting public health in the region are diesel particulate matter, formaldehyde, benzene and coke oven gas emissions, which is based on the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Toxics Assessment data and local air quality monitoring information.

The report found that the census tracts with the highest risk levels are clustered in the southeastern corner of Allegheny County, where heavy industries and coking operations affect air quality in the Liberty-Clairton area near U.S. Steel Corp.’s Clairton coke works, and also in communities downwind from coking and other industrial sources on Neville Island, and in Downtown, where diesel emissions play a major role.

READ MORE HERE

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP DIRTY COAL