100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Cities With The Most Pollution | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Air has elevated cancer risk in 600 neighborhoods By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago WASHINGTON – 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. 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. Damand better from companies that polute. There's lots of things one can do, but you have to be interested enough to educate yourself on the things you can do. Getting depressed does nothing, though I can certainly agree that it is depressing, but more depressing that we allow it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the polutants we put into the air, and genetically altering crops, and putting artificial hormones in our livestock is more a danger to the long term health in humans than it is a danger to the earth itself. Well it would not be dangerous for the earth if what we do as you describe causes our death before that of the earth. I think it's irresponsible to run around saying that global warming is a myth, when most of the people saying it have no real clue and don't take other things into account either. I don't give a hoot what it's called but I do care that what man does is so obviously distructive and all for the almighty dollar. Read my other post. It states a logical question for those that believe people are the cause of climate change. I don't think humans have made a significant impact on the earth as a whole. Not when it comes to the big picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the polutants we put into the air, and genetically altering crops, and putting artificial hormones in our livestock is more a danger to the long term health in humans than it is a danger to the earth itself. Well it would not be dangerous for the earth if what we do as you describe causes our death before that of the earth. I think it's irresponsible to run around saying that global warming is a myth, when most of the people saying it have no real clue and don't take other things into account either. I don't give a hoot what it's called but I do care that what man does is so obviously distructive and all for the almighty dollar. Read my other post. It states a logical question for those that believe people are the cause of climate change. I don't think humans have made a significant impact on the earth as a whole. Not when it comes to the big picture. Humans haven't made a significant impact? Shoot, just look at the amount of trash that we put out and look at the amount of litter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the polutants we put into the air, and genetically altering crops, and putting artificial hormones in our livestock is more a danger to the long term health in humans than it is a danger to the earth itself. Well it would not be dangerous for the earth if what we do as you describe causes our death before that of the earth. I think it's irresponsible to run around saying that global warming is a myth, when most of the people saying it have no real clue and don't take other things into account either. I don't give a hoot what it's called but I do care that what man does is so obviously distructive and all for the almighty dollar. Read my other post. It states a logical question for those that believe people are the cause of climate change. I don't think humans have made a significant impact on the earth as a whole. Not when it comes to the big picture. Humans haven't made a significant impact? Shoot, just look at the amount of trash that we put out and look at the amount of litter. It's the 24 BILLION tons of co2 that is the big problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metalwing,
This is why Madison County, Illinois, is the 2nd worse polluter. U.S. Steel is a steel plant in Granite City, Illinois, which is in Madison County. It's just across the river (Mississippi) from downtown St. Louis.: Based on year 2000 data,[3] researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute ranked U. S. Steel as the second-greatest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States. In that year, the company released more than 1.26 million kg (2.8 million pounds) of toxins, chiefly ammonia, hydrochloric acid, ethylene, zinc compounds, methanol, and benzene, but including manganese, cyanide, and chromium compounds.[4] In 2004, the city of River Rouge, Michigan and the residents of River Rouge and the nearby city of Ecorse filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for "the release and discharge of air particulate matter...and other toxic and hazardous substances"[5] at its River Rouge plant. In 2005, the Illinois Attorney General brought suit against U.S. Steel for alleged air pollution in Granite City, Illinois.[6]111 The Company has also been implicated in generating water pollution and toxic waste. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an order for U. S. Steel to clean up a site in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, on the Delaware River, where the soil had been contaminated with arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals, as well as naphthalene; groundwater at the site was found to be polluted with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and trichloroethylene (TCE).[7] In 2005, the EPA, United States Department of Justice, and the State of Ohio reached a settlement requiring U. S. Steel to pay more than $100,000 in penalties and $294,000 in reparations in answer to allegations that the company illegally released pollutants into Ohio waters.[8] U. S. Steel's Gary, Indiana facility has been repeatedly charged with discharging polluted wastewater into Lake Michigan and the Grand Calumet River, and in 1998 agreed to a $30 million settlement to clean up contaminated sediments from a five-mile (8 km) stretch of the river.[9] It should be noted, however, that with the exception of the Fairless Hills and Gary facilities, the lawsuits concern facilities acquired via U. S. Steel's purchase of National Steel Corporation in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Wed 06/24/09 11:48 PM
|
|
This is the night view of a part of the plant.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/repowers/436974900/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacoby310/3527670912/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacoby310/3527671094/in/set-72157618070260666/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacoby310/3526858765/in/set-72157618070260666/ Disgusting, isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the polutants we put into the air, and genetically altering crops, and putting artificial hormones in our livestock is more a danger to the long term health in humans than it is a danger to the earth itself. Well it would not be dangerous for the earth if what we do as you describe causes our death before that of the earth. I think it's irresponsible to run around saying that global warming is a myth, when most of the people saying it have no real clue and don't take other things into account either. I don't give a hoot what it's called but I do care that what man does is so obviously distructive and all for the almighty dollar. Read my other post. It states a logical question for those that believe people are the cause of climate change. I don't think humans have made a significant impact on the earth as a whole. Not when it comes to the big picture. Humans haven't made a significant impact? Shoot, just look at the amount of trash that we put out and look at the amount of litter. It's the 24 BILLION tons of co2 that is the big problem. This is all a small blip on Earth's radar so far. If humans all died off today, in about 10,000 years there would be little to no traces of us left. Besides, you should really take a took at the co2 output of volcanoes. They are responsible for bringing us from a complete snowball planet even at the equator, to a planet that measured over 100 degrees in the arctic. We humans still don't compete with mother nature. As i said, we do contribute, and we should try to reduce our impact, but this isn't the end of the world. Even if it were, driving around hybrid cars and coming down on businesses would be the equivalent of shooting a bb gun at a moving car in attempt to stop it. This is my theory. Once again, to all those that argue, how come we went through so many climate changes before people were even around? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Thu 06/25/09 04:02 AM
|
|
Air has elevated cancer risk in 600 neighborhoods By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago WASHINGTON – 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. 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. Ok so that is there findings on what the risks are. 100 in 1 million in those 600 cities and 36 in 1 million (which has actually decreased from 41.5) What gets me is the word RISK. What are the actual numbers of confirmed cases of cancer that can be traced to this study? And if these chemicals and cancer causing-causing substances are in the air wouldnt it be a 100% risk for people there? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Fri 06/26/09 04:24 PM
|
|
Knowing how cancer behaves is not an exact science. Not everybody that smokes dies from lung cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know there is a very cheap alternative to this polution situation. If our government were serious about solving this issue there is a paint, that lasts over 1000 years, that actually nuetralizes many toxins and gases that lead to "global warming" when the sun hits it. It was actually a paint used in ancient China, hence why they know it lasts so long. It is relatively cheap, and would help the problem a lot. Maybe the "cheap" part is why no one wants to use it... What's the name of this paint for us that wnat to research it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 06/27/09 12:31 PM
|
|
You know there is a very cheap alternative to this polution situation. If our government were serious about solving this issue there is a paint, that lasts over 1000 years, that actually nuetralizes many toxins and gases that lead to "global warming" when the sun hits it. It was actually a paint used in ancient China, hence why they know it lasts so long. It is relatively cheap, and would help the problem a lot. Maybe the "cheap" part is why no one wants to use it... What's the name of this paint for us that wnat to research it? heres what i got: "A professor, at Rutgers University, has developed an inorganic paint called Ultimate Paint. This paint is displaying some very remarkable abilities. Such as: graffiti resistant; repairs concrete; mold resistant; fire proof; dries nearly as hard as a diamond, and lasts 1,000 years. How do they know? The chemistry of the coating is an aluminosilicate, the same formula used for the Chinese terracotta army which is more than 2,000 years old. But what really makes Ultimate Paint special is it’s unique ability to purify the atmosphere. Yep, you read right! It cleans the air! These properties come from an ingredient called titanium oxide. When sunlight hits the coating, the UV energy essentially destroys the organic particles. The titanium oxide and other ingredients act as a catalyst and uses the sun’s energy. Painted on walls and buildings, Ultimate Paint could help clean the air of cities, worldwide. Nitrogen oxide particles, a by product of car exhaust, landing on surfaces treated with Ultimate Paint where nano particles activated by the sun’s rays immediately begin to break down the deadly nitrogen oxide into harmless nitrogen and oxygen gases. Essentially using the entire transportation infrastructure as a cleaning surface. Ultimate Paint is still in the test phase. But, initial results are very promising!" - http://www.forcedgreen.com/2008/06/ultimate-paint/ Saw it on the science channel about a year or so ago as well... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing how cancer behaves is not an exact science. Not everybody that smokes dies from lung cancer. It seems we do agree on some things.  But the affects of pollution isn't an exact science either.
|
|
|
|
|
