air research

May 21, 2012

Asthma and Air Pollutant Health Effects

By Jan Dye

As health effects researchers within EPA’s Office of Research and Development, my colleagues and I use a range of approaches to assess the respiratory toxicity of air pollutants. Because May is Asthma Awareness Month, this week’s It All Starts with Science blogs will focus on research relating to those populations who may be most susceptible (or vulnerable) to air pollution, including asthmatics.

To investigate links between air pollution exposure and specific adverse health effects, my colleagues and I study what is in the air (e.g., the level, type, and combination of air pollutants present) and who is breathing the air. This is important because not everyone responds to air pollution in the same manner or to the same extent.

Importantly, the Clean Air Act mandates that EPA set air pollution standards to protect these most vulnerable or “at risk” persons.

Epidemiologic studies—studies involving a large segment of the population—indicate that air pollutants can affect lungdevelopment and function, and other pathologic airway changes commonly occurring in asthmatics.

My EPA colleagues and our partners try, therefore, to assess which agents or “triggers” in the outdoor or indoor air are most likely to be problematic for asthmatics. Our studies are providing the biologic evidence to support the associations found in epidemiologic reports.

In keeping with Asthma Awareness Month, please return to this blog site throughout the week and the rest of May, and in the months that follow, to learn how EPA scientists are investigating links between asthma (and related respiratory disease) with exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution and pollutant mixtures, including near-road air pollutants.

EPA researchers will also blog about how indoor allergens (e.g., molds), sensitizing chemicals (e.g., platinum), and novel agents (e.g., biofuels) may relate to asthma. You can also read about scientists who are using innovative approaches to understand how climate change (e.g., heat stress, increased allergen blooms) ─ often occurring in combination with increasing exposure to environmental agents (e.g., wildfires) ─ may disproportionately impact these “at risk” populations.

Please stay tuned.

About the author: Dr. Jan Dye is a health effects researcher in EPA’s Office of Research and Development. She is a Project Lead for the Air, Climate, and Energy program’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Multipollutant Project on susceptibility to air pollutants.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author alone. EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog, nor does EPA endorse the opinions or positions expressed. You may share this post. However, please do not change the title or the content. If you do make changes, please do not attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

EPA's official web site is www.epa.gov. Some links on this page may redirect users from the EPA website to a non-EPA, third-party site. In doing so, EPA is directing you only to the specific content referenced at the time of publication, not to any other content that may appear on the same webpage or elsewhere on the third-party site, or be added at a later date.

EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only. EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites, companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.

May 9, 2012

Watching Television

air research, health assessment, no smoking, secondhand tobacco smoke 2 Comments

By Aaron Ferster

One of the few television shows I watch regularly is Mad Men. I have to admit I find the characters thoroughly entertaining and the time period the show is set in an interesting study.

No smoking: It All Starts with Science.

Of course, that’s what the producers have in mind, using the transition from the 1950s to the 1960s to dramatic effect. As we now know, big changes are looming just ahead.

One example that always catches my attention: the smoking.

Holy cow! There’s barely a single scene in any episode that does not include someone lighting up. At work, in the car, at home, on the train, even around the main character’s kids, there is always someone enjoying a smoke. I sometimes feel like I have to open the window to make it through the show without getting a sore throat.

Today, we all enjoy smoke-free work, travel, and public spaces. That is, in no small part, thanks to EPA science.

This year marks the 20th anniversary since the release of Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, an EPA health assessment that concluded that tobacco smoke not only presented risks to the health of smokers but also to those around them. “Based on the weight of available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.”

That conclusion sparked a revolution in thinking about secondhand smoke, leading to no smoking policies that are now ubiquitous—protecting millions of people in public spaces across the country.

To help spread the word about how such improvements really do, “all start with science,” we highlighted the connection linking EPA science with no smoking policies in our latest newsletter, and included a “Science Matters to Kids” companion article specifically for students. (You can download a pdf of the article to share with kids, at: http://1.usa.gov/IJ6xUD).

I think I prefer my own job to any of those 1960s ad executives portrayed on Mad Men, and like millions of others, I’m thankful that I work in an environment where I don’t have to open the window just to stay healthy.

About the Author: Aaron Ferster is the editor of the EPA blog “It All Starts with Science,” and a frequent contributor.

May 3, 2012

Clearing the Air

air research, heart health research 3 Comments

By Wayne Cascio, MD

There have been some recent allegations about EPA’s critical scientific research into how air pollution might contribute to abnormal heart rhythms. It is especially important during Air Quality Awareness Month to clear the air with the facts about our research efforts on behalf of the American people.

EPA’s research into the health impacts of air pollution has helped to build healthier communities, provide new technology and develop new solutions to protect and manage air quality. In the case of research into fine particle pollution, more than 50 clinical studies over the past decade involving human volunteers have been published by scientists from EPA, many U.S. universities and medical centers that describe cardiac effects in humans exposed to this harmful pollution.

As an Agency dedicated to the protection of human health (and as a doctor myself), the Agency takes its responsibilities working with volunteers very, very seriously.

EPA follows the Common Rule which requires the ethical review and oversight of human research by an independent institutional review board (IRB) to ensure that any risks to study volunteers are minimized and justified. EPA follows strict human safety protocols for all of its studies, and these protocols are reviewed and approved by an IRB before any human study is conducted. Precautions are taken throughout the volunteer’s participation to ensure his or her safety.

In the case of EPA’s research on particle pollution, scientists studied biological changes that carry no or minimal risk while providing evidence for the reasons that particle pollution can lead to serious health problems.

EPA’s health based standards for fine particulate matter protect the public from serious health problems, which can include aggravated asthma, increased hospital admissions, heart attacks and premature death. Individuals who are more sensitive to fine particle exposure include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, and children.

In the U.S. a heart attack occurs every 34 seconds and more than 2,200 people die of cardiovascular disease each day. It is estimated that tens of thousands of premature deaths and non-fatal heart attacks are triggered by air pollution—emphasizing the importance of research in this field.

The health scientists and staff at EPA are privileged to provide safe, ethical, unbiased, and state-of-the-art inhalation science in support of the Clean Air Act as we work to define and understand the risks of air pollution to the American people.

About the Author: Dr. Wayne E. Cascio, is the Director of EPA’s Environmental Public Health Division, a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina, and a cardiologist.

May 2, 2012

Science Matters: Highlighting the Impact of EPA Research

air research, Integrated Science Assessment, Science Matters 1 Comment

By Aaron Ferster

What would you do with extra time?

What would you do with an extra five months? I’d want to spend it with my family, preferably hiking some scenic mountain section of the Appalachian Trail, or maybe the Columbia River Gorge. Any trail would do, really. A couple of weeks together on the Outer Banks watching the surf roll in would be nice, too. And a bevy of long, leisurely bike rides would be a must.

Nothing beats the gift of time, and five months worth is a generous one at that.

Five months is the amount of time added to our life spans, according to an EPA-supported study examining the benefits of clean air programs. The foundation of these programs is Agency research such as EPA integrated science assessments, which advances the understanding between air pollution exposure and its effects on human health.

In addition to longer life spans, the positive impact of EPA research can also be seen across the nation in cleaner air and water, healthier communities, and offices, schools, public spaces, and airplanes free from secondhand tobacco smoke.

Examples of such impacts are the focus of our latest newsletter, EPA Science Matters.

In the newsletter story featuring EPA’s landmark health assessment on the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke, President of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids Matthew L. Myers remarks, “The impact has been healthier kids, healthier parents, healthier workers, and an awareness that the science is clear: if you smoke around kids and other non-smokers, you threaten and endanger their health.”

Myers is but one of the many people who help tell the story of the impact of EPA research. Featured examples include EPA’s integrated science assessments, “green” infrastructure, community support for achieving cleaner air, enhancing emergency response capabilities in the event of a terrorist attack using anthrax, and several others.

I invite you to check out the newsletter to learn more. Although I’ve been working on the issue myself for the past couple of weeks, I plan to read it again in my spare time. Perhaps between hikes, or while enjoying an afternoon on the Outer Banks.

About the Author: When not planning his next vacation, Aaron Ferster works as the senior science writer-editor in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

«< 6 7 8 9 10