Health News

Blog Chatter

UN CAPITULO MAS on Lula exige a 'gringos' pagar por preservación de Amazonia
baldwin1959 on Authors Won't Just Miss Oprah... So Will Small Business Owners
Seasunandsand15 on Hondureños llegan divididos y desconfiados a elecciones
pesadi8 on Posibles cargos penales contra infiltrados en cena de gala de la Casa Blanca
pleasantonnow on Wall Street Titan Goldman Sachs Gives Back Some Money to Main Street

Currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please refresh page or try again later.

Air Too Dirty to Breathe in 345 Counties

By H. JOSEF HEBERT,

Posted: 2008-04-23 11:18:28

WASHINGTON (March 13) - The air in hundreds of U.S. counties is simply too dirty to breathe, the government said Wednesday, ordering a multibillion-dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide.

More Coverage: Results of County-by-County Survey of Air Quality (PDF)

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the new smog requirements "the most stringent standards ever," and he said they will require 345 counties - out of more than 700 that are monitored - to make air quality improvements because they now have dirtier air than is healthy.

Johnson said that state and local officials have considerable time to meet the new requirements - as much as 20 years for some that have the most serious pollution problems. EPA estimates that by 2020 the number of counties failing to meet the new health standard will drop to about 28.

About 85 counties fall short of the old standard enacted a decade ago.

Johnson's decision is likely to be met with sharp criticism from health experts and some members of Congress because it goes counter to the recommendations of two of his agency's scientific advisory panels - one on air quality and the other on protection of children.

The new EPA standard will lower the allowable concentration of ozone in the air to no more than 75 parts per billion, compared with the old standard of 80.

The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed with the scientists.

"In the end it is a judgment. I followed my obligation. I followed the law. I adhered to the science," said Johnson in a conference call with reporters.

Johnson said he did not take into account the cost of meeting the new requirements. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules.

The EPA has estimated that compliance with a 75 parts per billion smog standard would cost as much as $8.8 billion a year by 2020 when many of the counties are expected to be meeting the requirement. That estimate, however, does not take into account balancing reductions in health care costs that could be even greater.

Electric utilities, oil companies and other businesses had lobbied hard for leaving the smog rule alone, saying the high cost of lower limits could hurt the economy.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that health standards for ozone and a handful of other air pollutants not take costs into account.

But Johnson said that ought to change. He said the Bush administration plans to propose legislation to Congress to overhaul the 1970 law so that in the future costs can be considered when setting health standards.

Any such move is likely to be met with strong opposition in Congress. Health experts and environmentalists view the setting of health standards without consideration of cost as essential for assuring public health.

Clean air advocates called the latest EPA reduction a move in the right direction - but also a political compromise that did not go far enough.

"It's disheartening that once again EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers," said William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, whose members will be developing programs to meet the federal air quality requirement.

Becker acknowledged that the tighter the standard the more difficult it will be to meet, but he said: "The public deserves the right to know whether the air they breathe is healthy."

In recent weeks, some of the most powerful industry groups in Washington have waged an intense lobbying campaign at the White House, urging the administration to keep the current standard.

Electric utilities, the oil and chemical industries and manufacturing groups argued that lowering the standard would require states and local officials to impose new pollution controls, harming economic growth, when the science has yet to determine the health benefits conclusively. The 80 parts per billion standard was enacted by the EPA in 1997, but its implementation was delayed for several years because of court challenges by industry groups.

"Hundreds of counties haven't been able to meet the current standard set a decade ago," said John Kinsman, senior director for environment at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most of the country's power companies. "Moving the goalpost again will inflict economic hardship on those areas without speeding air quality improvements."

The EPA has said, based on various studies, cutting smog from 80 to 75 parts per billion would prevent between 900 and 1,100 premature deaths a year and mean 1,400 fewer nonfatal heart attacks and 5,600 fewer hospital or emergency room visits. A separate study suggests that tightening the standard to 70 parts per billion could avoid as many s 3,800 premature deaths nationwide.

The EPA by law is not supposed to consider economic cost in establishing the federal health standard for air quality. The agency has estimated that new pollution control efforts to comply with a 75 parts per billion standard would cost as much as $8.8 billion a year, although it acknowledged that does not take into account reductions in health care costs that could be even greater.

Copyright 2008 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. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

2008-03-13 09:42:56

Must Read?

0 %

0 VOTES

Recent Comments

Post Your Own

1 - 10 of 1584

1584 comments

corkysq 04:03:04 PM Mar 24 2008

Report This!

to: dkandmp

San Francisco and Berkley are anti-military, not just anti-war. The have stopped the ROTC programs in San Francisco, and do not want recruiters in Brekley.

As for oil, if we don't drill in Alaska, off the coast or other areas in the US, we will soon not have any oil. Without iol we can't get food to the markets, oil for equipment that runs our power plants, fuel for ships, planes, autos for our use or the Military to protect America. But I think thats what left wing loons want. Bush is not perfect, and has made a lot of mistakes, but bad mouthing American will not make things right.

I bet you think that only the Dems can do right. If so why in the 50 years they controlled both houses did they escalate the Veitnam war. That was JFK and LBJ that did so. Also all this stuff about we need to pull out of Iraq after we won is Bull. We won Japan and in Germany and we are still there as well as Korea.

The hatred for America is beeing feed by anti-American Amercans.

askrobarczyk2 12:22:32 AM Mar 21 2008

Report This!

To dkandmp: First off you know nothing about constitutional law. The war in Iraq was not about oil it was about NUKES! As for my suggestion that oil may be from a natural earth process the point was that it is as valid as the fossil theory. Prove otherwise! Must be a huge burden to only be able to regurgitate theorems postulated by half-wits like yourself. Carl Marx calls highly educated fools such as yourself Useful Idiots! Your tag is the symbol of the Iluminatae. Get a clue and never assume others don't have that Marines back covered.

dkandmp 09:10:12 PM Mar 19 2008

Report This!

askrobarczyk2 11:23:13 PM Mar 17 2008

Recently, the Navy was told by the Supreme Court that they were not able to do sonar training off a section of the California coast as it was harming dolphins and whales. Bush told the Navy to go ahead and do their training anyways. The Supreme Court told Bush and the Navy that THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND MUST ABIDE. Guess what? No more sonar training.
I guess everything is just a conspiracy theory. You might want to check out this article about your "abiotic oil theory." Even if it is true (which I highly doubt) it doesn't make a difference.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml

dkandmp 09:05:57 PM Mar 19 2008

Report This!

corkysq 05:09:33 PM Mar 19 2008

Being anti-war is not the same as being anti-military. Everyone knows the war in Iraq is more about oil than saving lifes and freedom, otherwise we would be at war with every country that oppresses as opposed to one that has the oil we want. So its ok to kill people over oil? The military is just doing their job, regardless of whether it is for the right reasons. So you only believe in protecting those that support Bush's war? While it is no excuse to kill innocent people, it is understandable where the hatred towards America comes from. American gov't used the Afghanistanis against Russia and then abandoned them. Do you really think the war in Iraq is helping to improve our image to the world? It is only breeding more hatred and contempt, and you reap what you sow.

corkysq 05:09:33 PM Mar 19 2008

Report This!

to dkandmp:

I should have guessed, you are likving on the left coast. as for my speeling I'm not very good at typing. Also My eyesight is very bad.

As for the Marines we only kill to save lifes and freedom. California seems to be a state that feels as if they do not need the military. Look at San Francisco and Berkley and the way they have dishonered the military. I say let California split off and be it's only country, the Feds will save billions.

dkandmp 01:44:11 PM Mar 19 2008

Report This!

corkysq

I love it when people bring up the icons. So childish. Ok I like pirates and so does my 3 year old girl. Big Deal. Yet your icon is one of the Marine Corps. How many people have been "killed" by a marine? So you majored in a bunch of subjects and got a 4.0, but you cannot even spell those subjects? I really don't care what you believe. If you are going to tell me that my views are wrong, I have every right to tell you the same. Unlike you, I have studied the subject material that is discussed in the article. Just as YOU know more about ENGINEERING than I do, I know more about ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE than do you. Still I have not seen one shred of evidence from you that supports your hypothesis that global warming is not happening. The majority of scientists in this area of research believe as I do that "global warming" is occurring. I think all of us actually HOPE WE ARE WRONG.

dkandmp 01:05:26 PM Mar 19 2008

Report This!

Yesterday, I was driving on a highway called the Ortega Highway as it goes over the Ortega Mountains. At about 3 - 4,000 ft up there is a lookout, where we stopped to take pictures. You could see a very thick, brown layer of smog covering the valley for as far as the eye can see. Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties have the highest smog levels in the country. If smog were caused by plants, then the rainforests would be covered by smog, instead of one of the most populated areas in the country. It's obvious, but some refuse to believe for they would rather think that everything is a conspiracy theory. Why not let us Californians decide what our air quality should be for ourselves? Why should the EPA be allowed to tell California that it cannot set its own smog level? So much for the Republicans staying out of the states business.

corkysq 08:14:14 PM Mar 18 2008

Report This!

To : dkandmp

At least this little mand does not use a death icon to saw who I am. I am more man than you ever had. It shows in your dialoge, that you are self rightous and a know it all. You can not stand to be challanged.

I majored in engeneering, with politacal science and medical research. You are the control person, as you do not like to be told you are wrong. You and people like you are why America is doomed to fall.

Good luck on your weak and hatefull life.

ApplePine2 12:42:38 AM Mar 18 2008

Report This!

Which candidate will fix our economy, bring the troops home, and fix our international relationships with other countries around the world? Let us know @ http://tineataexhibit.com/CurrentTopic.html
Don't forget to check out the brand new chat room, comment on the blog and watch videos.

askrobarczyk2 11:36:42 PM Mar 17 2008

Report This!

It's about trust, and when scientist who lust for money,power and influence demand that the American public must blindly follow their decree it tramples the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Power should be vested first in the American Public then in their elected officials. NOT in NGO's and scientific think tanks. POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 - 10 of 1584

1584 comments