Air Pollution Hikes Stroke Risk

The type of stroke that results when a blood clot travels to the brain -- called an ischemic stroke -- is more likely to occur on days when the air contains a larger concentration of particulate matter, according to a study published online in Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association.

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) examined air quality on a total of 37,000 days in nine cities. Risk of hospitalization for ischemic stroke was 1 percent higher on days with relatively high levels of air pollution, compared with low-air pollution days, reports lead author Gregory Wellenius, ScD, postdoctoral fellow in cardiology at BIDMC.

Third Cause of Death in US

"Although these effects sound relatively small," says Wellenius, "given the large number of people exposed to air pollution and the large number of people at risk for stroke ... the actual number of strokes could be significant."

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the US, affecting more than 700,000 individuals each year.

A "consistent increased risk" for cardiac health problems associated with exposure to ambient air particles was established in earlier research by Wellenius and coauthors Murray Mittleman, MD, DrPH, of BIDMC's Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Unit and Joel Schwartz, PhD, of HSPH.

"Air pollution has been shown to trigger heart attacks and to aggravate the conditions of patients with congestive heart failure," says Mittleman, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

"These new findings, demonstrating that incidence of clot-based strokes also increase, [are] in keeping with our earlier data showing a relationship between air pollution and heart and lung disorders," he notes.

The researchers also looked at the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke, which is caused by bleeding in the brain, during the same "high pollution" days, notes Wellenius, but found no association between the two.

Reducing Exposure May Lower Risk

The air pollution in question -- particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter -- includes particles from car and truck exhaust, power plants and refineries. The measurements were provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency from nine US cities: Birmingham, Ala., Chicago, New Haven, Conn., Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City and Seattle.

The authors analyzed hospital admissions among a group of Medicare patients with an average age of 79. Seventy-five percent of the patients were white, and 61 percent were female. Their findings showed that during the course of their study, there were 155,503 hospital admissions for ischemic stroke.

The final analysis demonstrated a 1.03 percent rise in ischemic stroke on the days with the highest pollution measures.

"We don't know exactly what mechanisms are involved that trigger these cardiac events," says Wellenius. "However, we do know that particulates in the air promote inflammation, which is a significant risk factor for cardiac events; that exposure to particulates can lead to changes in heart rate and blood pressure; and that pollution can cause changes in coaguable states (related to blood clotting abilities)."

The authors say that future research will focus on finding out which pollutants are most toxic, as well as which patients are at greatest risk for health problems stemming from air pollution.

"Taken together with previous work, these latest results support the idea that reducing exposure to particulate matter may reduce the risk of strokes and heart attacks," they conclude.

Copyright 2005 Daily News Central

About The Author

Rita Jenkins is a health journalist for Daily News Central, an online publication that delivers breaking news and reliable health information to consumers, healthcare providers and industry professionals: http://www.dailynewscentral.com.

Is Your Home Hazardous To Your Health? How Indoor Air Pollution May Trigger Illness

We tend to think of our homes as our havens--safe places to go in order to retreat from the assault of modern life. For the most part this is true. But there is a hidden danger lurking in the seemingly tranquil and protective confines of our houses, and it’s something we ought to sit up and notice. That hidden danger is the quality of indoor air.

The act of breathing is so natural we don’t even realize we’re doing it, but what about the air that we take in every time we inhale? When was the last time you stopped to think about the quality of the air you were taking into your lungs, transmitting deep down into the cells of your body?

If you were recently standing on a polluted corner of a busy city sidewalk, well, maybe you did stop to wonder about what sorts of dirt and dust molecules were seeping into your body. But for most of us, especially when we’re in our own homes, the quality of the air we’re breathing is not a big consideration--or not even a consideration at all.

The truth of the matter is, the quality of air indoors (even in seemingly clean homes) can actually be far poorer than that of even the biggest, most industrialized, and dirtiest urban centers! To put that in plainer language: the air in your home could be worse for your health than the air you breathe walking through New York City or Beijing or San Francisco.

What causes such potent and potentially harmful indoor pollution? For starters, the indoor usage of substances like cigarettes and cigars, paint, coal, furniture polish, cleaning fluids, asbestos, space heaters, and so on, can create a build-up of hazardous particles. The degree of severity often depends on whether or not there is adequate ventilation--how much outdoor air can get into the house, and vice versa. A home with very poor ventilation will pose a much worse health threat to its inhabitants than a home with lots of open windows and excellent ventilation. That’s not to say that homes with good ventilation can’t still be polluted--in fact, they certainly can be.

Because most of us spend most of our time inside, rather than out of doors, the build-up of chemical and other airborne pollutants can pose serious health risks, triggering various ailments over time. This is especially true when the inhabitants of a home are elderly, chronically ill, or very young, or if they already have certain types of respiratory disease.

The particular physical response depends on the type of contaminant. Biological pollutants may provoke allergic reactions, while types of tobacco smoke and other contaminants can trigger asthma attacks or create asthmatic conditions. Molds and mildews can spread more serious health problems, and the presence of contaminants like carbon monoxide can even result in death if the proper alert system (a carbon monoxide detector) is not in place and fully functioning.

The good news is that you don’t have to live with hazardous air. Just recognizing the possibility of indoor air pollution is the first step toward creating an environment that is free of hazardous airborne particles. Read the related articles on air purifiers and air quality to learn what steps you can take to achieve cleaner air and a healthier lifestyle.

About The Author

Mark Tsang

Please visit http://www.great-air.com/news for practical health (and health care cost reducing) tips as well as reviews of the latest office or home air purifier at http://www.great-air.com/index.htm.

Air Pollution And Air Purifiers

It doesn’t matter where you are, as long as you are not in one of those hi-tech labs or anything, you will be encountered with polluted air. These days air purifiers are being sold with the promise of cleansing this air. But before you invest on an air purifier it helps if you understand what are the sources of pollution and how air is actually polluted.

A) Pollution due to Particulates: Generally not visible to the naked eye particulates would be made up of dust, dust mites, dust mite feces, pet dander, skin flakes, pollen, smoke particles and allergens.

Generally a purifier with HEPA filters and the ionizers together are good enough to deal with the particulates.

B) Pollution caused by Odor: The source of odor can be wide ranging. It can be coming from food, pets, our own bodies, cigarettes, clothing, etc. Although odors are not necessarily dangerous, but they can leave you with an unpleasant feeling which you wouldn’t want.

The purifiers which have active carbon filters in them are the best to deal with the problem of odor.

C) Pollution caused by Microbials: Microbials would include bacteria, fungi, mildew, mold spores and viruses. Normal filters wouldn’t be able to deal with them as some of them can be as small as .001 microns. Compared to that HEPA filters can be effective for anything above the size of 0.3 microns. Microbials have their homes in warm, damp places like under the carpet, in the walls and in the heating and and air conditioning ducts of our homes.

The best way to deal with microbials is to have those devices that can produce oxidation. They help in killing these microbials.

D) Pollution caused by Chemical Fumes and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): The source of this pollution are chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde. The fumes of these are constantly being released by our carpets, upholstery, furniture, draperies, household cleaning products, etc. Other sources would include cigarette smoke, construction materials, etc. Many of them have been identified as carcinogens.

The best available solution today in the market are those devices that produce oxidation. This is a serious kind of air pollution and must be dealt adequately.

Now that you are acquainted with all the major types of air pollution you are in a better state to deal with them. Knowledge brings power, and now you have the power to choose rightly, to choose the exact air purifier you will need.

About The Author
Jason Uvios writes about on Air Pollution and Air Purifiers to visit :- http://www.airpurifiersonline.info, http://www.airpurifiersforall.info and http://www.airpurifiers-forall.info.

Energy and the Environment - Nearly 90% of Global Warming Gas Emissions Are CO2

“There is a 90 percent chance the planet's average temperatures will rise 3 to 9 F (1.7 to 4.9 C) by 2100.” This simple statement in the June 2001 report released by National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado leaves little doubt of the magnitude of the threat from global warming. The UN Environment Program estimates that the extra economic costs of disasters attributable to global warming are running at more than $300 billion annually.

The global community is responding with actions lead by the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce emissions of global warming gases. Nearly 90% of global warming gas emissions are CO2, which are primarily from the use of fossil fuels for energy. The focus on energy will undoubtedly continue to increase. Throughout the world different methods are being used to encourage reduced energy use. Japan has enacted the Energy Conservation Law in 1999. The U.S. has revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to raise the minimum COP level for centrifugal chillers from the current value of 5.2 to 6.1 effective in October of this year. A growing number of countries are using environmental costing which includes an estimated cost for resource depletion and environmental deterioration.

Although such fees to discourage pollution were first proposed in 1920 they did not see widespread application until 1990 when Finland implemented the first carbon tax.

At present there are more than 30 countries that have some type of carbon tax in effect.

Environmental accounting (or costing) is a broader term than just a carbon tax on energy. For example, subsidies being provided to energy producing industries are a form of negative tax. Removal of such subsidies has the same effect as a carbon tax, which is to raise the price of energy to the user. Such methods make more energy efficient alternatives more financially attractive.

In the recently released "OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century" the goal is to include “cuts to energy, farm and other subsidies so prices more accurately reflect environmental impacts”. China, the U.K., India, Indonesia and Thailand are countries that have recently eliminated subsidies to parts of their energy industries.

Will environmental costing continue to spread? Environmental costing is an estimated cost for resource depletion and environmental deterioration. One can only guess. It is intuitively attractive to tax something bad, i.e. environmental damage rather than something good such as one’s salary or company’s profits.

As a building owner, facility engineer or factory manager the implications are enormous. Just how much could energy prices change? According to European Research Commission Report released in July of this year “The cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double if costs such as damage to the environment and health were taken into account”.

Coal subsidies in China have been more than halved since 1984, and nearly 1 million coal-mining jobs have been eliminated over the past five years as a result of far-reaching coal reduction initiatives. In 1999 alone, total coal use in China dropped 4.4%. Petroleum subsidies fell from 55% in 1990 to 2% in 1995. Source: EIA April 2001.

Any significant change in the price of energy can have a major impact on the profitability and value of a building or factory. One can protect their interests by investing in the highest possible efficiency that is economically justifiable.

In the past energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. have had a median payback of only 1.9 years meaning that IRR’s of up to 70% were not being selected. This is now changing. In addition to the economic attractiveness of high efficiency there are environmental gains through reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other power plant emissions that are harmful to the environment.

The move to high efficiency equipment is accelerating. And at the same time, there is increasing emphasis in system design and optimization. Low flow/high delta T systems are offering energy savings in operating costs and first cost through smaller pipe diameters and pump sizes.

The focus on high efficiency HVAC equipment and systems will continue to increase as additional emphasis is being placed on the environmental costs associated with energy use.

About The Author
Larry Butz is a business globalization and energy efficiency expert for GEA Consulting. GEA Consulting is a global resource dedicated to developing practical solutions that drive client revenue, efficiency, and operational productivity. GEA Consulting can be found online at http://www.gea-consulting.com

Hybrid Cars Could Help In Conserving Energy And Reducing Pollution

With the gas prices being so high, more and more people are becoming aware of how valuable energy is in our daily lives. Hybrid cars show how energy can be conserved and pollution reduced. The cleanest non hybrid car can put about 90 percent smog pollution in the air versus the hybrid.

The Honda insight was the first hybrid on the US market in 1999. It is electrically powered and can go 61 mpg on city roads and 70mpg on the highway. Then in 2000, Toyota brought the Prius to the market, it goes 52 mpg in the city and around 45 mpg on the highway. The Honda Civic hybrid came out in 2002 with 46mpg on city roads and about 51mpg on the highway. Since then there have been other hybrid models such as, the Chevy Silverado, the Dodge Ram pickup and the Ford Escape SUV.

Hybrids are more efficient for a number of reasons. For one, the battery of a hybrid lasts longer. It is equipped with two energy supplies- the gas and electricity. The car is made of lighter materials, that means less energy is used. The engine in a non-hybrid is heavier so it requires more power to accelerate and to go up an incline. And with a hybrid there are fewer cylinders.

Hybrids have less internal machinery. The energy and time needed to move a cylinder up and down in a non hybrid is greater. To start the car, the non hybrid engine needs more power because it has more cylinders. In addition, each cylinder uses more fuel for cylindrical displacement.

There are some tips to keep in mind when driving a hybrid to maximize energy and mileage productivity.

Drive slowly-Aerodynamic drag increases if you drive fast. If you slow down you will save energy.

Drive at a constant speed- Increasing your spend and then slowing down wastes fuel.

Try not to break suddenly-The motor in a hybrid is like a generator. Energy is lost if you stop abruptly. Try to give you car some recovery time.

About The Author
Jackson Porter is a staff writer at http://www.environmental-central.com and is an occasional contributor to several other websites, including http://www.automobileenthusiast.com.

The Environment: A Global Overview

It is not difficult to become a believer in global warming. According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center 2001 was the second warmest year on record and it was the 23rd consecutive year of above normal temperatures. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating. Add to this the data just released from insurer Munich Re stating that deaths from natural disasters were more than double in 2001 versus 2000 and insured losses were up more than 50%.UNEP estimates that the extra economic costs of disasters attributable to global warming are running at more than $300 billion annually.

Some 180 countries are proceeding toward an expected ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the end of this year. Of the six gases it will control CO2 is by far the largest contributing nearly 90% of the global warming impact. The primary source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore the focus on energy will continue to increase.

Throughout the world different methods are being used to encourage reduced energy use. Japan has enacted the Energy Conservation Law in 1999 mandating huge efficiency improvements by 2004 for nearly all air conditioning products. The U.S. has revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for buildings to raise the minimum COP level for centrifugal chillers from the current value of 5.2 to 6.1 effective in October 2001. DOE and Green Seal have revised their recommended efficiency levels to an even higher level of 6.27.

Some countries use laws. Others use codes and standards. An increasing number of countries are using environmental costing which increases the price of energy thereby increasing the financial attractiveness of high efficiency products. European countries have been using such “carbon taxes” for more than a decade. However a rapidly growing trend in developing countries is the reduction of subsidies to energy industries “so prices more accurately reflect environmental impacts” according to OECD’s Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century.

China has shown leadership by reducing subsidies to the coal industry from $24.5 billion in 1990 to $10 billion in 1996 resulting in 7% emissions reduction while seeing a solid economic growth of 36%! China is now moving aggressively into environmental costing with the just announced (1/13/2002) 5-year environmental plan that commits 700 billion yuan ($84 billion) to help protect the environment. The government will provide the fist 65 billion yuan to initiate the project but will apply the “polluter pays” principle for the rest. The “environmental protection authorities will collect funds from the pollution-producing companies”. The impact on the price of energy is not known at this time. However it is clear that the addition of environmental costing will increase energy prices. According to a European Research Commission Report of July 2001 “The cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double if costs such as damage to the environment and health were taken into account”.

The global movement to high efficiency is accelerating just like the rate of temperature increase. But this is not all that is changing. This second environmental threat of global warming is making it clear that we need to give combined consideration to ozone depletion and global warming. But more important is the need to focus on the real issue which is the total environmental impact not address each individual environmental threat in isolation. This includes the concept of environmental risk exposure, which recognizes that there are other environmental threats that are less well understood today. However, there are “no regrets” decisions we can make today (such as minimum refrigerant charge, minimum atmospheric life refrigerants, etc.) to minimize these risks.

Combined consideration would place more emphasis on reducing the use of CFCs, which are still being produced in developing countries until 2010 in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Little attention is being given the large contribution to global warming from CFCs. Actions which cause confusion and delay the phaseout of CFCs cause increased environmental damage rather than lessening the environmental impact.

The other rapidly changing factor in the HVAC industry is the shift to becoming a hermetic industry, where refrigerant is contained throughout the life of a chiller and recycled for further use when the chiller is replaced. This simple understanding that “if it doesn’t get into the environment it does no harm” is a powerful argument, which will lead to the continued use of the most efficient refrigerants in such closed hermetic applications as chillers. In just 15 years annual refrigerants emissions from chillers have been reduced from 25% to well below 1% today. This defines a whole different world than that which existed when the Montreal Protocol was crafted some 15 years ago.

But perhaps the most important change coming to our industry is the realization that there are no new or “perfect” refrigerants waiting to be discovered. There are eight elements that can be combined for use in a vapor compression cycle. All feasible combinations of these eight have been evaluated. The reality is “what we have now is all there is”.

This recognition is why we are now seeing a shift from the search for a perfect refrigerant to a search for the right refrigerant(s) for the right application. Said another way, the highest efficiency refrigerants for the lowest emissions applications. Many in our industry call this “Responsible Use”.

About The Author
Larry Butz is a business globalization and energy efficiency expert for GEA Consulting. GEA Consulting is a global resource dedicated to developing practical solutions that drive client revenue, efficiency, and operational productivity. GEA Consulting can be found online at http://www.gea-consulting.com.