October/November 1997
By Molly Miller
The American Lung Association estimates 60,000 people die premature deaths each year as a result of the effects of particulate pollution. But, as is often the case with environmental causes of death and disease, explicit scientific evidence is murky. Often science cannot isolate any single environmental cause for disease, yet logic and circumstantial evidence incriminate pollutants. Rather than wait for overwhelming data, the EPA has taken the progressive step of basing policy revisions on the probable link between particulate pollution and lung disease. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the FDA could have done the same thing with cigarettes years before science unequivocally proved what we already knew in our hearts (and lungs).
RELATED ARTICLES
Rapid growth, declining costs: the future looks bright for solar energy....
Wind power has enormous potential, is the fastest growing form of electricity and creates no pollut...
Brief introduction, including a windplant design service and the wind power digest. Section include...
Sure you’re aware of photovoltaics, aka solar panels, but what about concentrated solar power? This...
The EPA's revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard were adopted in June at the end of a courtordered review of particulate-matter standards, resulting from the American Lung Association's lawsuit against the EPA in 1995. The lawsuit charged that the standards, which regulated particulates with a diameter of 10 microns or less, were not in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. Ten microns is about one-seventh the width of a human hair, but the ALA argues it is the invisible tiny particles—2.5 microns or less in diameter—that are the most hazardous. They are so small; they are more like gases and can lodge deep inside the lungs. (These particulates come from cars and trucks, diesel buses, power plants, factories, and wood smoke. )
In 1990, when the EPA began regulating particulates smaller than 10 microns, woodstove manufacturers kicked and screamed and threw money at Congress, claiming that regulations would kill the industry. Like it or not, the regulations forced the industry to adopt technology that was readily available, and their products became better—not only cleaner-burning, but much more efficient. The new stricter regulations of 1997, which set standards for allowable concentrations of particulates 2.5 microns or less, will have little to no effect on most manufacturers who have already begun replacing old stoves with the newer high-tech, clean-burning models that have been coming out within the last five years. As a result, the new regulations are being met with relatively little fanfare in the woodstove industry.
City bus fleets and power plants have the most work to do to come into compliance with new particulate standards, and they are facing costly industrial redesigns. However, the technology for zero emissions vehicles not only exists but could considerably improve current models. It just may take regulations to force industry and local governments to follow in the footsteps of the stove industry and make use of better technology.