World Health Organization Report on Air Pollution and Health

                   Orca Whale, Haze, Strait of Juan de Fuca, British Columbia, 9/18/2012

A report released 3/25/2014 by the World Health Organization attributed one in eight deaths to the impacts from air pollution.   The report indicated that 7 million people died in 2012 as a result of air pollution, making air pollution the greatest single environmental health risk.   The WHO report provides fact sheets on Ambient (Outdoor) Pollution and on Indoor Pollution.   The WHO report displays a number of informative graphical presentations of the world wide distribution and impact of air pollution.  These presentations include the Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution and Mortality from Ambient Air Pollution.

 As the WHO graphs show, high income nations such as the United States had better air quality results.  The United States has a regulatory presence in the air pollution field with the Environmental Protection Agency, state agencies such as the State of Washington's Department of Ecology and local agencies such as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency providing regulatory oversight. 

Air pollution is a global problem, as it can cross borders with global air flow.  The regulatory climate in one nation may impact other nations downwind from it. Thus nations are concerned about the regulatory climate in other countries.

The impact of air pollution goes beyond the health issues pointed out in the WHO article.  It also impacts economic relationships between countries.  Corporations arbitrage the cost in complying with air pollution regulations in their decisions as to where to locate by excluding the economic cost of externalities in pricing. 

Countries who do not have as stringent air pollution regulations will thus attract more business due to the lower costs associated with lesser compliance.  This results in consumers purchasing goods at lower prices, which do not reflect the externalities associated with the degradation in air quality. These externalities include the costs of increased morbidity and mortality of not only those in the area producing the pollution but in those areas downwind which may be subject to the pollution.  The downwind spread will reflect the nature of the pollutant and atmospheric conditions.

The above photo was taken in the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Washington State and British Columbia, looking west, through the haze, on a calm fall day.  The haze reflects the impact of suspended particulates, atmospheric aerosols, and the marine air mass.  Another photo, taken looking east on the same day, shows the impact of forest fires in Eastern Washington on air quality in views of Mt Baker and the Cascade Mountains.  

It is an interesting exercise to consider the relative contributions of air pollution from foreign and domestic sources.  This is especially challenging when atmospheric conditions encourage the mixing of different sources in a stagnant setting and contributions to health issues need to be considered.   An article in the Smithsonian (1/21/14) discusses contributions of air pollution from China to air pollution in the United States.

Processing Risk and Uncertainty

Koi Surfacing, Japanese Gardens, Washington Park Arboreteum, Seattle, Washington

In my last blog posting I discussed the question of how we integrate our feelings, our sensations, perceptions with scales we use to measure risk. My discussion centered around the Japan 9.0 Earthquake and the moment magnitude scale used to measure it.

In fact, the earthquake was originally judged to be an 8.9 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and subsequently upgraded to 9.0 by the USGS. The moment magnitude scale, being logarithmic, meant that this reassessment implied a 41% more intense earthquake than the original 8.9. This reflects logarithmic scales in action.

As the disaster unfolded, the world could see the Japanese heroically struggling with a trifecta of horrors -- the initial earthquake itself, the tsunami that followed, and the accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Fukushima Daiichi) in Fukushima, Japan.

News coverage of the Japan disaster was continuous in the media. However, with military intervention in Libya by a group of nations including the Canada, France, Italty, United Kingdom and the United States, the coverage of the Japan disaster on television has diminished.

How do we respond when events are at the forefront of the news? How do we respond when they are forced by circumstance to share the spotlight with other compelling, competing issues or even tucked away out of sight? How do we respond with our feelings towards others in their disaster, or triumph, and how do we translate those feelings into our own forward seeking risk assessments?

Indeed, there are compelling issues on the horizon, decisions to be made, and the evolving situation in Japan is certain to be a part of the equation in attempting to balance risks in managing our future with respect to energy, focus and other issues.


American Red Cross Donations