Study Links
Soot in Air, Lung Cancer
By Julie
Deardorff
March 6, 2002
Tiny particles of
airborne soot can increase a Chicago resident's chances of getting
lung cancer as much as living in a house with a smoker, according
to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American
Medical Association.
The study, which
includes examinations of medical records of 500,000 people over
a 16 year-period, is by far the most comprehensive on the subject
and is fueling calls from environmental and health advocates for
enforcement of current standards on soot pollution.
Five years ago, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency riled automakers and power
companies by setting air-quality standards for soot, basing the
policy on earlier, though smaller, studies that found fine particulate
matter coming from tailpipes and smokestacks to be harmful. Those
standards, however have yet to be enforced.
"This research
dramatically underscored the urgent need for the EPA to limit
the emission of these cancer-causing particles," said John
Kirkwood, president and chief executive officer of the American
Lung Association. The scientific evidence keeps mounting. In the
meantime, we are no closer to protecting people's health because
the EPA had not acted."
The findings also
come as controversy grows over emissions from aging coal-fired
power plants, many of which have "grandfather" status
and are exempt from tighter air pollution laws.
Last week, Chicago
Ald. Edward Burke (14th) introduced legislation that would reduce
the allowable emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and
mercury from the two coal-fired power plants in Chicago.
According to recent
measures, Chicago exceeds the standards set by the EPA, although
the numbers have been decreasing.
Disease Risk
Researchers said
the increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease from air pollution
was far less than the dangers associated with active cigarette
smoking. But they found "the risk of dying from lung cancer
as well as heart disease in the most polluted cities was comparable
to the risk associated with nonsmokers being exposed to second-hand
smoke over a long period of time," said Arden Pope, professor
of economics at Brigham Young University, the study's coo-leader.
The health dangers
of fine particles of soot suspended in the air have been the subject
of considerable controversy since 1997, when the EPA issued regulations
tightening its standards to cover troublesome particles smaller
than 2.5 micrometers (a human hair is 100 micrometers thick).
That regulation
followed a study linking fine particulate pollution and lung cancer,
also done by Pope and his colleagues.
The EPA also set
annual limits of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. According to the
researchers, the annual fine-particulate pollutant averages have
dropped by about one-third since the early 1980s, but as of 1999-2000,
the numbers were still at or above the EPA limit in such cities
as Los Angeles (20 micrograms per cubic meter), Chicago (18 micrograms)
and New York (16 micrograms).
The biggest sources
of the pollution are coal-burning power plants in the Midwest
and East and diesel trucks and buses in the West, according to
the study.
"The
bad news is the toxicity of these particles is worse than we thought
and includes lung cancer," said George Thurston, an environment
scientist at New York University and co-author of the study. "The
good news is we're making progress and there are still things
we can do."
Though doctors aren't
sure how the particles affect the lungs, the American Lung Association
says small particles are easily drawn into the alveoli, the smallest
air sac of the lungs. Because the lung has trouble clearing foreign
matter from that deep within the system, the soot deposits remain.
"The
tiny particles are best able to defeat defense mechanisms of our
lungs," Thurston said. "The larger ones catch in our
nose and throat and we're able to clear them out, but fine combustion
particles can penetrate and bypass our defenses. Fine particles
contain the highest concentration of toxic material, heavy metals,
lead, arsenic and other cancer causing agents."
Previous studies
have linked soot in the air to many respiratory ailments and even
death, but the researcher say the latest study is the most definitive
on the long-term impact of such air pollution.
The study involved
500,000 adults who enrolled in 1982 in an American Cancer Society
survey on cancer prevention. The participants had their health
records examined through 1998 and researchers analyzed data on
annual air pollution averages in more than 100 cities in which
participants lived. Other risk factors for heart and lung disease,
such as age, smoking history, diet, weight, occupation and regional
differences, were also considered.
Rise
in Cancer Noted
The number of deaths
from lung cancer increases by 8 percent for every 10 micrograms
of fine particulate matter per cubic meter, according to the study,
which included heart attack, stroke, asthma, pneumonia and conditions
such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis under the category of
cardiopulmonary disease.
But some medical
experts cautioned against lumping cardiopulmonary events together.
"Correlative
studies [like this] can do nothing more than suggest areas worthy
of further attention but they can'' establish fact," said
Dr. Alan Leff, a professor of medicine and a pulmonologist at
the University of Chicago. "This isn't like giving a substance
to someone, seeing whether they get sick and defining what is
making them sick. These studies are all correlative and no matter
how good the methods are, they don't identify causation. There
are grave dangers in implying that when you have a correlation,
you have a cause."
Back
to List of Articles