Send Us Feedback

Health NewsHealth News

News Video
Find, view and share videos about news and entertainment from around the Web.
See Videos »

News Alerts

The latest updates sent straight to your inbox.

Get AOL News Alerts »

600 Neighborhoods Have Toxic Air

By DINA CAPPIELLO
,
AP
posted: 138 DAYS 14 HOURS AGO
comments: 115
Text SizeAAA
WASHINGTON (June 24) -- Millions of people living in nearly 600 neighborhoods across the country are breathing concentrations of toxic air pollutants that put them at a much greater risk of contracting cancer, according to new data from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The levels of 80 cancer-causing substances released by automobiles, factories and other sources in these areas exceed a 100 in 1 million cancer risk. That means that if 1 million people breathed air with similar concentrations over their lifetime, about 100 additional people would be expected to develop cancer because of their exposure to the pollution.
Skip over this content
http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=640487&pid=640486&uts=1245855748
http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf
States With Toxic Air
Click through the gallery to see the states with the largest populations living in neighborhoods where the EPA considers the air pollution unacceptable.

Rank 1: New York
Stan Honda, AFP / Getty Images
Stan Honda, AFP / Getty Images
The average cancer risk across the country is 36 in 1 million, according to the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, which will be released by the EPA on Wednesday.
That's a decline from the 41.5 in 1 million cancer risk the EPA found when it released the last analysis in 2006. That data covered 1999 emissions.
"If we are in between 10 in 1 million and 100 in 1 million we want to look more deeply at that. If the risk is greater than 100 in 1 million, we don't like that at all ... we want to investigate that risk and do something about it," said Kelly Rimer, an environmental scientist with the EPA, in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Parts of Los Angeles, Calif., and Madison County, Ill., had the highest cancer risks in the nation — 1200 in 1 million and 1100 in 1 million, according to the EPA data. They were followed by two neighborhoods in Allegheny County, Pa., and one in Tuscaloosa County, Ala.
People living in parts of Coconino County, Ariz., and Lyon County, Nev., had the lowest cancer risk from air toxics. The counties with the least toxic air are Kalawao County, Hawaii, and Golden Valley County, Mont.
"Air toxic risks are local. They are a function of the sources nearest to you," said Dave Guinnup, who leads the groups that perform the risk assessments for toxic air pollutants at EPA. "If you are out in the Rocky Mountains, you are going to be closer to 2 in a million. If you are in an industrial area with a lot of traffic, you are going to be closer to 1100 in 1 million."
The analysis predicts the concentrations of 124 different hazardous air pollutants, which are known to cause cancer, respiratory problems and other health effects by coupling estimates of emissions from a variety of sources with models that attempt to simulate how the pollution will disperse in the air. Only 80 of the chemicals evaluated are known to cause cancer, EPA officials said.
The information is used by federal, state and local agencies to identify areas in need of more monitoring and attention.
The data to be released Wednesday covers pollution released in 2002.
Skip over this content
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-06-24 02:54:17

Related Articles

  1. See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
GOOD READ?
143 votes


(115)
Sort by:

1 - 10

DEpitt6

08:20 PMJun 26 2009

PrariWolf: I searched scientific literature for whales and cancer in pacific gyre and did not find a single publication. Perhaps you would be kind enough to post a link t a peer-reviewed article, if one even exists. BPA which is what everyone is concerned about in plastic bottles is estrogenic in vitro, but in vivo it is not, until metabolic pathways are overwhelmed. The only way to get that much BPA into a mammals system is by deliberate poisoning, or in a laboratory study. Free-BPA does not exist in mammalian bodies and metabolised (glucuronidated) BPA is not biologically active.

AVG RATING:
(0)

PrariWolf

02:22 PMJun 25 2009

Pacific Gyre, not Grye.

AVG RATING:
(1)

PrariWolf

02:21 PMJun 25 2009

Whales living near the Pacific Garbage Patch (see Pacific Grye), which is mostly plastic because that does not break down like other garbage, have been developing breast cancer. They don't carry the BRCA 1 gene, they're not living longer than their forebears, they don't eat junk food and exercise less than they used to. It's the plastic, which not only has lethal chemicals, but mimics estrogens. Case closed.

AVG RATING:
(3)

Cowensstewartlaw

02:08 PMJun 25 2009

I suppose this is a high cancer rate due to the air only. What about what is BELOW the ground? People would be absolutely astonished if they really knew the toxic waste below ground - in many places you wouldn't suspect. Especially contaminated is the Northeast of the US. But many other places have toxic dumpsites that seep into the ground water. They are only waiting to be discovered or investigated regarding whom to place blame for class action lawsuits. Frankly, I would be just as worried about the water I drink and what I eat from the ground in some places and I would be breathing the air.

AVG RATING:
(4)

MsNormaMott

01:17 PMJun 25 2009

I recycle everything ! Now I hear America is selling the plastic bottles to other countries for fuel.Is this true ?

AVG RATING:
(2)

VegasPrincessTP

12:48 PMJun 25 2009

watch out everyone if KANGAREW73 does not like what you have to say they will send you harassing personal e mails!

AVG RATING:
(1)

ComTox

11:58 AMJun 25 2009

Please try to keep this in perspective. the Excel spreadsheet at www.epa.gov, which has values for all counties in the U.S., lists the value for Allegheny County is 6.4 E-5, or .000065. That is the lifetime cancer risk value calculated based on various emissions in the area. It is not just particulate, but a wide range of various organic and inorganic chemicals from both mobile and stationary sources. You can see that the value is approaching 1 in 10,000 (.0001). Compare this to the overall lifetime cancer incidence which is between 0.25 and 0.33. In other words, between 1 in 4 and 1 and 3 people get cancer. So the contribution from this environmental exposure is quite small, < 0.1%.Lifestyle choices contribute much more than environmental: smoking, food choices, etc.

AVG RATING:
(4)

DEpitt6

11:57 AMJun 25 2009

rcwaechter: are you sure plastic bottles are bad for your body? The FDA and EU do not believe they are. The (in vivo) scientific evidence does not prove that they are harmful to people either. Not degrading in landfills is a completely separate issue not related to potential human toxicity at all. Just because a few cells in a petri dish may react to a chemical, does not mean that the human body will respond in the same manner!! We have protective (e.g., metabolism) mechanisms. Also, how did the Drs. "prove" that second-hand smoke caused your mother's cancer? There is no known scientific way to "prove" that her cancer was caused by second-hand smoke. My mom died from lymphoma and lived with a smoker for 50 years but in no way could anyone who understands the science behind cancer and toxicology link lymphoma and second-hand smoke. And why didn't she get lung cancer instead? will wonders never cease?

AVG RATING:
(2)

Skidaj

11:54 AMJun 25 2009

This is a very convenient time to come out with this so called "study" With congress attempting to pass tax and tax (cap and trade) tomorrow. Yes that is TOMORROW. FRIDAY. Anyone heard of this happening? I'm sure not. Another attempt at sliding the largest tax increase in our history. Through the back door when everyone is "worried" about Iran or "health care". Call your congressman/woman. Tell them NO on cap and trade. It will destroy millions more jobs than it creates.

AVG RATING:
(6)

Rcwaechter

11:06 AMJun 25 2009

mgrauman, your logic is wrong. Plastic water bottles are bad for the environment and your body. Therefore bad for all. Smoking is harmful to those who smoke and those who are exposed to their smoke. Therefore bad for all. The problem is getting people to be as responsible as technology proves dangers. It's just selfish to hold on the what you want and pretend it doesn't harm others. My mother never smoked, and died from second hand smoke lung cancer, diagnosed at MDAnderson in Houston. You can decide to not believe anything you want, you just can't decide to kill other people because you don't want to believe it's true.

AVG RATING:
(4)

1 - 10 of 115

{ JOIN the CONVERSATION }

YOU'LL BE ASKED TO REGISTER OR LOGIN BEFORE POSTING A COMMENT.




Millions of people living in nearly 600 neighborhoods across the country are breathing concentrations of toxic air pollutants that put them at a much greater risk of contracting cancer, according to new data from the Environmental Protection Agency.