# Air Pollution and Heart disease



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

So you all know I've never advocated for removing emissions gear - quite the opposite. Many people (including Pierre) have advocated for more "realistic" limits and many pooh-poohing (how the heck do you spell that?) the idea that removing the gear from THEIR car has no effect. I saw this article in this morning's Seattle Times. There are several points coming out of this that, to some degree at least, says that you're living in a dreamland and that any level of air pollution (including pm 2.5, and NOx) is bad.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...pinpoints-how-air-pollution-harms-your-heart/

Here are a couple of select quotes.
"Through what authors of an accompanying Lancet editorial called "meticulous measurements," Kaufman's analysis looked at the exposure of participants to the fine particulate matter present in pollution, tiny bits less than 2.5 microns in diameter, too small to be seen with the naked eye. Those fine particles are referred to as PM 2.5.

The study, which tracked air quality in participants' communities and near their homes, also measured exposure to nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide and black carbon or soot, pollutants typically associated with traffic. Participants also visited study clinics multiple times to collect health measurements.

In a complicated conclusion, the researchers found that for every 5 micrograms per cubic meter higher concentration of PM 2.5, or for every 35 parts per billion higher concentration of oxides of nitrogen, participants saw an increase of 4 units per year of a marker for coronary-artery calcium, called the Agatston score.

In plain language, that means *the higher the concentrations of pollutants, the faster participants developed atherosclerosis*, a condition commonly known as hardening of the arteries."

and

"During the study period, from 2002 to 2012, air-pollution levels actually improved in the U.S., in large part because of reductions in allowed ambient particulate levels. The U.S. now permits an annual average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of PM 2.5, about half the European standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

"This is a public-health success story," Kaufman said.

But *the new evidence also shows that there's no safe level of pollution, no exposure that doesn't increase heart disease risk*, he added." Emphasis mine.

Obviously, the complete jury isn't in, but you guys doing ABC deletes are not doing something harmless.

One final comment on something else: one of the best REALISTIC assessments of weather versus climate change effects that I know of is a blog by UW Prof of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass; you should read his posts (not all are relevant to non-NW residents.)
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

Congratulations Floyd A. Rogers, you made my Ignore List! Buh bye client.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

floydarogers said:


> So you all know I've never advocated for removing emissions gear - quite the opposite. Many people (including Pierre) have advocated for more "realistic" limits and many pooh-poohing (how the heck do you spell that?) the idea that removing the gear from THEIR car has no effect. I saw this article in this morning's Seattle Times. There are several points coming out of this that, to some degree at least, says that you're living in a dreamland and that any level of air pollution (including pm 2.5, and NOx) is bad.
> 
> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...pinpoints-how-air-pollution-harms-your-heart/
> 
> ...


Having a strong background in this, as well as research and statistics, there are several rather large holes in the logic as presented here (I haven't read the article, but am familiar with this kind of argument).

The studies I'm aware of don't usually count tire wear, asphalt wear, other particles from human activities and buildings, and don't even bother realizing that urban dwellers exposed to more "car" pollution are also exposed to more indoor pollution.

What about the smoke from cooking, the dust indoors, the mold and animal dander etc. that occurs more in densly populated areas? Small particulates are a common theme across the entire spectrum and not necessarily related to automotive transport.

Finally, removing the ABC's from our diesels gives us more smoke/large particulates. Small particulates are probably higher but do not necessarily achieve the quantities that gasoline cars with their pollution gear intact actually produce. The small amount of data I've found (one study of a tunnel) figured out that previous generation diesels produced fewer small particulates than gasoline cars going through that tunnel. Sprectrophotometric analysis made it possible for them to measure pollution from each type of fuel.

The bottom line is that unfiltered diesels produce visible soot that arguably never makes it to the lungs because its so heavy. It falls to the ground and gets organically processed by nature. Small, more dangerous particles that are invisible (as is CO, NOx, etc.) are likely even more from gasoline vehicles than any diesel.

If you recall wxman's post about ambient NOx around Santa Barbara CA - it doesn't matter any more how much NOx is produced, its been reduced to the point that decreasing it more won't do a thing.

If you look at all the factors that can increase the calcium in your arteries, and can even prove that pollution can do this, you would still need to prove that its not just a correlation but causes heart disease morbidity and mortality. Quite a stretch. Hasn't been proven yet to my knowledge.

So this sounds like another journalistic hit piece to prop up circulation, not to teach the public much I'm afraid.

PL


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

The USN has a century of monitoring the health effects of long term exposure to increasingly monitored atmospheres 'polluted' with all sorts of stuff. They've been sued for all sorts of stuff, but not yet that I know diesel fumes. BTDT.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> ...
> The studies I'm aware of don't usually count tire wear, asphalt wear, other particles from human activities and buildings, and don't even bother realizing that urban dwellers exposed to more "car" pollution are also exposed to more indoor pollution.
> ...
> If you look at all the factors that can increase the calcium in your arteries, and can even prove that pollution can do this, you would still need to prove that its not just a correlation but causes heart disease morbidity and mortality. Quite a stretch. Hasn't been proven yet to my knowledge.
> ...


Actually, Pierre, it's noted that this is the first study to decisively conclude that there is a correlation.

The study correlated the amount of air pollutants, focusing on those that actually get to the alveoli in the lungs, with several particular markers for disease. I doubt that researchers at a top 10 medical institution are making the statements in a peer-reviewed journal they have made without firm correlations.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

floydarogers said:


> Actually, Pierre, it's noted that this is the first study to decisively conclude that there is a correlation.
> 
> The study correlated the amount of air pollutants, focusing on those that actually get to the alveoli in the lungs, with several particular markers for disease. I doubt that researchers at a top 10 medical institution are making the statements in a peer-reviewed journal they have made without firm correlations.


Correlation is not causation. If the studies avoid looking at non-automotive pollution sources, or non-air pollution causes of heart disease (they can't even be in agreement on the calcium testing btw) they are flawed. Most researchers haven't even found a correlation until now. This is not apolitical.

PL


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

The study does not even come close to concluding that 0.1% of car owners removing emissions equipment from their car has an impact on the actual level of pollution in the atmosphere.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

*Health Physics. Off Topic, but since PMs declined.*

You may enjoy this on ionizing radiation health physics. I am an extreme datum in GM Matanoski's study, reference 7 of Cameron, with ~3 REM occupational exposure.

http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/longevity_cameron_03.htm

Dr. Matanoski's preliminary conclusion was of a positive correlation of general health to radiation exposure. At the time, early Nineties, no one had considered radiation hormesis, all being stuck on bomb studies' Linear No Threshold Hypothesis.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Hoooper said:


> The study does not even come close to concluding that 0.1% of car owners removing emissions equipment from their car has an impact on the actual level of pollution in the atmosphere.


True, but it does conclude that *ANY* level of air pollution is bad. If the deletes were truly being used for "offroad" in a remote area, small problem. But most of them are in already heavily polluted ares, where the effect would likely be magnified. It's hard for me to tell if your argument or mine is more absurd.

But I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Doug Huffman said:


> You may enjoy this on ionizing radiation health physics. I am an extreme datum in GM Matanoski's study, reference 7 of Cameron, with ~3 REM occupational exposure.
> 
> http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/longevity_cameron_03.htm
> 
> Dr. Matanoski's preliminary conclusion was of a positive correlation of general health to radiation exposure. At the time, early Nineties, no one had considered radiation hormesis, all being stuck on bomb studies' Linear No Threshold Hypothesis.


There's a lot of stuff in various places on the www about radiation. Ever heard of a "Banana Equivalent Dose"? Fun reading, especially since many of the links you find talk about the overall radiation exposures of humans.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> Correlation is not causation.


Yes, I know. But the text clearly indicates increased pollution is causing - not just correlated with - an increase in the calcium arteriosclerosis marker they recorded.

""Another way to look at it is this: A move from an area with low pollution to an area with high pollution could be *associated *with an increased rate of 10 to 20 percent in atherosclerosis," Kaufman explained."

"Association" is a stronger term than "correlation" and certainly implies causation.

I never implied that all the air pollution came from mobile sources, only that pollution from non-emissions-equipped vehicles increase components of the air pollution that they blame for the health effects they recorded. Please don't try to minimize the study results by diverting attention to the sources of the pollution; NOx is NOx whether it comes from a power plant or engine.

I don't know what reason you're mentioning calcium, btw. Various blood-pressure medicines are "calcium channel blockers", which reduce the absorption of calcium to artery walls, which stiffens them. There's certainly a direct effect on coronary heart disease associated (caused) by high calcium blood levels.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Sorry, association is another word for correlation, not at all implying causation, although it is possible.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> Sorry, association is another word for correlation, not at all implying causation, although it is possible.


The use in the original article implies causation. I'm not going to pay to read the entire thing, but the abstract is quite clear in my reading.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00378-0/fulltext


----------



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

I think this needs to be put in perspective or pareto'd with all the other things that can give you heart disease, such as diet, drinking, smoking, sitting, stress, genetics, etc, etc. Compared to these, PM and NOx are just a tiny blip.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

sirbikes said:


> I think this needs to be put in perspective or pareto'd with all the other things that can give you heart disease, such as diet, drinking, smoking, sitting, stress, genetics, etc, etc. Compared to these, PM and NOx are just a tiny blip.


"[P]areto'd" is a good term.

My understanding of this thread's topic is informed by James Franklin's _The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal_ (3rd JHU 2015)


----------



## n1das (Jul 22, 2013)

http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html
http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/efficiency.html
http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/performance.html
http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions2014.html
http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions2016.html

Also in my sig below.


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

From the linked article in the OP...



> ...But the new evidence also shows that there's no safe level of pollution, no exposure that doesn't increase heart disease risk, he added....


Apparently these researchers aren't aware that all life on earth (terrestrial life anyway) would eventually disappear if not for airborne particulates? Particulates serve as cloud condensation nuclei in order for precipitation to occur (heterogeneous nucleation). Without heterogeneous nucleation, homogeneous nucleation would occur, but that only happens at about -40 degrees C, which occurs far too high in the troposphere for precip to reach the ground in any meaningful amount.

Perhaps they meant above natural background levels, but that's not explicitly stated.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

*NO2 and particulates...*

Correlation, not causation. But interesting, nonetheless.

_*People who live near major roads have higher rates of dementia, research published in the Lancet suggests.*
As many as 11% of dementia cases in people living within 50m of a major road could be down to traffic, the study suggests.
The researchers, who followed nearly 2m people in Canada over 11 years, say air pollution or noisy traffic could be contributing to the brain's decline.
UK dementia experts said the findings needed probing but were "plausible"._

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38506735


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

A recent CARB report shows that BMW diesel vehicles in 2013 emitted an average of 0.4 grams NOx/kg fuel in real-world remote testing in West Los Angeles ("Measuring Real-World Emissions from the On-Road Passenger Fleet," October 2016). The models of the BMW diesels measured were not reported.

For comparison, hybrids emitted an average of 0.3 grams NOx/kg fuel. The overall gasoline fleet emitted an average of 0.53 grams NOx/kg fuel. VW diesels emitted over 18 grams/kg fuel.

As far as particle emissions are concerned, EPA in-use compliance testing shows that PM emissions from 2016 model year diesel cars range from 0.0454 mg/mile - 0.863 mg/mile, while 2016 gasoline cars tested (mostly GDI) range from 0.746 mg/mile - 9.453 mg/mile. The regulatory limit (Tier 2) is 0.01 grams/mile (10 mg/mile).


----------



## Nadir Point (Dec 6, 2013)

Air "pollution," however you choose to measure or define it, is certainly not a "good" thing, generally speaking. But people who are concerned about it would do better to focus on corporate and commercial concerns that actually produce alot of it, rather than some some insignificant minutiae regarding enthusiasts who like to modify their cars. In the larger scheme of things, vehicle emisisons-related issues are only pertinent to urban environments during weather-induced inversion events, or other enviroment-specific causes.

This is the tack taken by libtard activists on everything from gun control to healthcare to social injustice: Find something they can point to regardless of it's relative importance and drive it into the ground.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

A submarine's atmosphere is POLLUTED by any EPA standard but without health effects or on longevity of career sailors, else it would not be allowed. After a couple of months submerged, fresh air smells and tastes like a freshly cut copper penny. We used to imagine that we could see big fhart molecules floating around after they escaped from the charcoal filters.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

*Ot*



Doug Huffman said:


> A submarine's atmosphere is POLLUTED by any EPA standard but without health effects or on longevity of career sailors, else it would not be allowed. After a couple of months submerged, fresh air smells and tastes like a freshly cut copper penny. We used to imagine that we could see big fhart molecules floating around after they escaped from the charcoal filters.


A guy that used to work for me was an electrician's mate on subs and maintained "the bomb" that electrolyzed O2 from water (and did other stuff...) Now you've got me imagining a giant fhart explosion...


----------

