There’s no safe limit when it comes to air pollution
(Originally published in the Sudbury Star as “Even air that’s a little dirty can be deadly” on Feb. 19, 2021
Sudburnians are all too familiar with the killing power of air pollution. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and other toxic emissions from industry and mining killed our lakes and forests and stripped our landscape down to bare black rock. And whether we knew it or not, air pollution undoubtedly impacted the health and lifespans of the region’s human residents too.
The 1250-foot chimney known as the superstack was the 1970s solution: disperse the nastiness over a larger area so it would have less impact. Sulphur dioxide concentrations in the city immediately fell by 50 percent. Then acid rain became an international issue, and Inco became infamous as the largest single emitter of SO2 in North America. Its dirty reputation, and the imposition of tighter government regulations, finally prompted improvements in corporate behaviour and allowed the regreening of Sudbury to begin.
This July, the superstack will be replaced by two smaller stacks. The result will be a 40 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and far lower energy costs for Vale. A win-win, for sure, and just in time. Yet another new study, published last week in Environmental Health, has concluded that the health consequences of even low levels of air pollution are worse than we thought.
Researcher Karn Vohra and his colleagues focused in on one component of air pollution: particulate matter or PM2.5. These particles are so small they can fly right past the defences of our respiratory tracts and penetrate deeply into our blood streams and organs, often carrying other toxic chemicals on their backs. Even small concentrations of PM2.5 increase our risk of getting sick or dying from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, you name it. This is not new information.
What is new are the study’s mortality estimates: in 2012, 10.2 million people around the world died prematurely from breathing PM2.5 that came specifically from fossil fuels. Just to be clear, that’s ten-point-two million premature deaths from the PM2.5 we produce as we extract and burn coal, oil, and natural gas to generate our electricity, heat our homes, cook our food, transport ourselves, and manufacture and ship our stuff around the world.
And let’s get more specific: amongst the unnecessarily dead in 2012 were 876 North American preschoolers who deserved cleaner air. Young lives cut short by lung ailments caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That’s not even taking into account all the other toxic stuff we habitually spew into the atmosphere.
But isn’t Sudbury’s air cleaner than it used to be? Indeed, it is. Air quality has improved all over Ontario, because back in 2013, we stopped burning coal to generate electricity. It was a smart move, and we are healthier for it. China, too, has done some hard work since the Beijing Olympics brought world-wide attention to the embarrassingly dense smog in their cities. They’ve help reduce the global death toll from fossil fuel PM2.5 to a mere 8.7 million in 2018. Still, that’s three-plus times the official global death toll from COVID-19, which by the way is aggravated by air pollution.
Whether you are breathing the filthy air of Delhi or the mildly polluted air of Sudbury, those tiny PM2.5 particles are affecting your life and health. And of course, PM2.5 is only one component of the brown sludge that so often hangs over our cities. Health Canada suggests that some 10,600 Canadian deaths each year can be linked to air pollution. If we had truly clean air to breath, we would live longer, healthier lives. Health care costs would decline significantly. But to make it happen, we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
And that brings us to the great climate co-benefit: If we stop burning fossil fuels for the sake of our health, we will be well on our way to halting the 21st century’s greatest health threat: climate change.
Elaine Blacklock M.D. F.R.C.P.(C)
Sources:
Good write-up on the Sudbury problem and the regreening: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2020/0924/The-Sudbury-model-How-one-of-the-world-s-major-polluters-went-green
Superstack: started in 1970, operating in 1972 to disperse sulphur gases and other by-products of smelting away from the city. 1250 foot chimney
After the superstack, environmental reclamation projects began, liming and seeding, and tree planting some 300,000 trees annually.
Sulphur dioxide concentrations immediately fell by 50%
The paper I’ve discussed in abstract: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/air-quality/health-effects-indoor-air-pollution.htm
Air quality trends in Sudbury, 1953-2002