Just Trying to Breathe

Have you ever felt like you couldn't breathe? Started coughing or wheezing without really understanding why? Well according to Spare the Air, you may have been experiencing symptoms related to air pollution. Depending on an individual's current health status and what the pollutant is will determine the severity of the symptoms, but the ability to breathe is crucial to all of us if we wish to survive.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of a map shown on the EPA's site. This map
depicts the air quality condition of different major cities in the state of Ohio.
A viewer also has the ability to zoom in and out to see other states and
countries'.  The level of concern, described later in this post, are important
to how one will be affected by the air quality.

The two pollutants that Spare the Air mentioned were Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM). Let;s start with ozone: while ozone is fine up in the atmosphere where it belongs, ground ozone can be very harmful to our health. It forms, primarily, from mobile vehicles emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which then react with ultraviolet rays coming from the sun. When exposed, the airways constrict which forces the respiratory system to kick into overdrive.

The Ohio EPA has several State Implementation Plans (SIP) that control the amount of the different air pollutants. SIP include everything from development plans that show how the certain areas that are not yet reaching the National Air Quality Standards will attain them, to plans that show how areas will maintain proper air quality.

The 2015 Eight hour Ozone Standard, according to the Ohio EPA, is 0.070 parts per million (ppm), which is .01 ppm below the original 1997 standard, and 0.005 ppm below the 2008 standard. The standards were lowered to these numbers, according to The Environmental Analyst, because studies released in 2008 were finding that healthy people's systems could mostly handle 0.060 ppm but this evidence had to be balanced against economic costs.

Now let's look at PM. According to Spare the Air, PM is a mix of soot, nitrates, sulfates, dust, smoke, metals, water and/or tire rubber. Some are direct exposures, such as smoke, while others are formed in the atmosphere, such as gas reactions like nitrogen oxides. Unlike ozone, PM's effects are more linked to the size of the actual particles than they are the amount in the air. The finer the particles, the greater the problem. This is because smaller particles are able to get deeper into the lungs and possibly into the bloodstream, therefore PM exposures are not just dangerous to one's breathing but also to their heart.

Before one can understand the SIP, they must understand there are two types of PM classifications. The first is known as PM10, also known as coarse dust particles, according to AirNow. PM10 are anywhere from 2.5 micrometers to 10 micrometers in diameter. As the name suggests, these particles are mostly in the form of dust and can come from roads or crushing or grinding activities. The other category is PM2.5, also know as fine particles, which are 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter. These can only be seen by using an electron microscope and are made from combustion (a variety of kinds from wood burning to motor vehicles to power plants). It is the latter type of particle that the EPA has a SIP for.

The 2012 Annual Standard for PM 2.5, according to the Ohio EPA, is 12.0 ug/m3, or micrograms per cubic meter of air. This is below the previous two standards: 1997's annual standard was 15.0 ug/m3, and 2006 had a 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m3. The 2012 standard came into effect on April 15th, 2015. The reason for the delay is the back and forth between what people can handle economically and what is necessary to protect people.

A few other SIPs listed on the Ohio EPA's website are Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Lead, as well as six other more industry-specific ones. This blog post will look at the first three listed.

Sulfur Dioxide only seems to have one SIP at the moment, according to the Ohio EPA. It is called the 2010 One-hour SO2 Standard. The standard is set to 75 parts per billion (ppb). This SIP appears to be still in the works, with Round 3 of the Statewide nonattainment area recommendation letter to the US EPA have been sent out on January 13th of this year.

Nitrogen Oxides appears to only have one SIP as well, and it is concerned specifically with Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The 2010 One-hour NO2 Standard, according to the Ohio EPA is 100 ppb. The US EPA had set this one-hour standard as well as kept the pre-2010 annual standard of 53 ppb. It is shown that Ohio is attaining these standards.

Finally, in 2008, according to the Ohio EPA, the US EPA changed the standard of lead from 1.5 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3. It appears that there are a few areas in Ohio, including Cuyahoga County, Fulton County, and Logan County that had partial nonattainment areas. All three of these areas appear to have documents that state their plans to fix the problem. The effective date for Cuyahoga's and Fulton's plans were both in July 2015 and Logan's was in September 2014.

So now there are two questions that need to be answered: 1. How does the Ohio EPA get these SIPs? And 2. How's the air quality near me?

So, let's tackle the first question. As mentioned before, the standards are actually handed down to the states from the US EPA. The US EPA has something called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS originated from the Clean Air Act, according to the US EPA. The Act required the EPA to set these standards for pollutants that could be harmful to both the public'sand the environment's health. Within the NAAQS there are two types: Primary and Secondary. Primary standards are meant to protect the health of the more sensitive parts of our population, including children, the elderly and those with asthmatics. Secondary standards are meant to protect the public's welfare, including minimalizing damage to buildings, crops, and animals and maximizing visibility.

There are six "'criteria' air pollutants," according to the EPA, and they are: Carbon Monoxide (CO - under a primary standard), Lead (Pb - under both primary and secondary standards), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 - one-hour standard is primary and annual standard is under both primary and secondary), Ozone (O3 - under both primary and secondary standards), Particle Pollution (PM - broken up by 2.5 and 10 and then broken further under 2.5 but overall both are under both primary and secondary standards), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 - one-hour standard is primary and three-hour standard is secondary).

We'll end by answering how the air quality is near you, the reader! The Ohio EPA has a document titled, "Air Quality and Your Health" which talks about the Air Quality Index (AQI) and also gives a link to a map which can show the viewer the real-time air quality for their town (or at least a city near them). Below the 5 big cities in Ohio are listed with the Air Quality Forecast for Sunday, March 26th, and Monday, March 27th. The embedded link on the city will take you to the page so you will be able to look at the current date's forecast. But first, we must understand the different colors which correlate to the levels of concern. Each color is given a word or two and a numerical value. The numerical value is supposed to correspond with the level of pollution.

Green is "Good" and is assigned numbers 0 to 50. If a city is shown green, then it is thought that there is little to no health risk.
Yellow is "Moderate" and is assigned numbers 51 to 100. If a city is marked yellow, then the quality is acceptable but there may be a small health concern for a small group of people who are unusually sensitive to pollution.
Orange is "Unhealthy (for Sensitive Groups)" and is assigned numbers 101 to 150. If a city has an orange mark it is only a concern for those in sensitive groups (i.e. children and elderly), but the general public should be fine.
Red is "Unhealthy" and is assigned numbers 151 to 200. This marking means that everyone is at risk to experience health problems.
Magenta is "Very Unhealthy" and is assigned numbers 201 to 300. These cities have emergency level conditions and the whole population is even more likely to experience health problems.
Brown is "Hazardous" and is assigned numbers 301 to 500. There is a health alert and the effects are much more serious.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the chart pictured in "Air Quality
and Your Health," as described above.

The numbers and categories listed are each city's predicted high for each day. These forecasts are off of AirNow.

Cincinnati's AQI for March 26th is 60, which falls under moderate. March 27th's is a little bit higher at 65, but still falls under moderate. The pollutant which seems to be pushing these numbers is PM, which match the AQI's for the city.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the map shown for Cincinnati on AirNow's site.
As one can see, this area is colored yellow, or moderate, for March 26th.

Cleveland's AQI for both March 26th and the 27th are just shown as being good.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the map shown for Cleveland on AirNow's site.
This area is colored green, for good, for March 26th.

Columbus's AQI for March 26th is 50, which falls under good. March 27th's is a little lower, meaning it is still marked good, at 46.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the map shown for Columbus on AirNow's site.
The area surrounding the capital is colored green, for good, on March 26th.

Dayton's AQI for March 26th is 53, which falls under moderate. March 27th's is a little bit higher at 57, but remains under moderate. Like Cincinnati, it appears to be the PM that is driving the city's AQI to be moderate.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the map shown for Dayton on AirNow's site.
This area is colored yellow, or moderate, on March 26th.

Youngstown's AQI for March 26th is 50, which is good. March 27th's is slightly lower at 46, and falls under good as well. It is important to note that Youngstown is not given an exact mark on this page.

A photo, by Allison Cook, of the map shown for Youngstown on AirNow.
Youngstown is not specifically marked on here, but the city is located SE of
Cleveland and NE of Columbus. This area of the map is green, or good, on
March 26th.

What's the Harm in Using a Cell Phone?

For a device as widely used as a cell phone, most people wouldn't think there was much of any harm in using one. Unfortunately, there should be some concern when looking into the radiation side of things.

Phone by Allison Cook. Everyone seems to have a cell
phone today, which is why it's scary and surprising that
they may pose a risk to our health.

To begin, radiation deals greatly with the electromagnetic spectrum. According to Safe Space Protection, most things in the natural world, including humans, produce waves from this spectrum, but they are very low in intensity. EMFs, or artificial waves, are what can cause problems and they are made by many forms of technology, including power lines.

Cell phones fall are under the very low-frequency category within the nonionizing radiation part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The section below the one cell phones is in is known as extremely low-frequency (ELF) waves, which have the longest wavelengths and can be found coming from power lines that help run household appliances. These waves can cause harm, but only when the body is exposed for long periods of time and are in close proximity to the body.

Photo by Allison Cook. If you were to read the manual that
comes with your phone, you would be adviced to hold it
away from your head. The closer a phone is to the body,
the greater risk that a tumor or some form of cancer will form.

So if cell phones are supposedly so low in frequency, what's the problem? Well, there is a little more to it. The "non-ionizing part" mentioned earlier is what's key. According to the American Cancer Society, it's the RF waves that come off the cell phone's antennas that can cause issues but only to the tissues closest to the phone that absorb the most amount of energy. RF waves are used to send signals to the cell towers and fall in between radio and micro-waves. All of these, also collectively under the category non-ionizing radiation, cannot directly damage DNA and therefore do not have enough energy to cause cancer. The way people can get exposure to RFs is when they hold their phone right up against their face while using it. The longer someone is on their phone, the more RF energy their tissues will absorb and the closer someone is to a tower, the less energy a phone uses.

The biggest concern in many of the articles read was that by holding a phone close to one's head, said person would be at risk of getting a tumor. The American Cancer Society reported two types of tests done to determine if this were so. The first was Lab Studies, which use animals and cells in a dish and are careful to control outside variables. These studies resulted in the conclusion that cell phones do not give off enough energy and therefore there was not a clear causational link between the phones and cancer. The second was Human Studies, which were case studies and it was noted that the majority of these looked specifically at brain tumors. This came up with a variety of results, but most studies found the following: people with brain tumors did not report using their phones more than the controls nor was there an increase in brain tumors with the increasing number of people using cell phones nor was is found that the tumors occur most often where cell phones most often make contact to the head. On top of this many big name agencies, including the CDC, FDA and NIEHS all say something along the lines that as of now, there is not enough evidence to show a link between cancer and phones.

This does not mean there isn't one. Safer Phone Zone published a list of 10 things anyone can do to reduce any risk. For example, by simply keeping your phone away from the body at night and while carrying it during the day (out of bras and pockets, away from pillows and nightstands) and putting it on airplane mode or off-line, you can minimize, or completely stop, the phone from emitting the electromagnetic waves. Switching sides of the head throughout a call may also spread out the exposure, and by waiting until the person being called to pick up before putting the phone closer to the head will limit the amount of exposure.

In the end, the best anyone can do is be aware and conscious of the risks, even if they may be minimal.

Photo by Allison Cook. As a society, we don't just have
phones; we have laptops, iPad and all sorts of other technology.
What else could cause a harm by radiation?

Before this blog closes, there is one more thing that must be mentioned: WiFi. Time published an article in September 2016 about how WiFi send out electromagnetic radiation just like phones. The article talks about how much more dangerous WiFi was, but now there seems to be a question of which is worse. Time claims that putting something between the person and the router can help reduce exposure.

Round Up the Fact about Glysophate

Glysophate is a chemical widely used as a herbicide according to the EPA. But, it wasn't always used as an herbicide.

The story really began in 1964 when Stauffer Chemical patented the chemical as a metal chelator, according to  GMO Free USA. With this patent, the chemical was used to clean commercial pipes and boilers. In 1974 a new patent was made and a new use was found for Glysophate. The patent was filed by Monsanto and the chemical became used for what it's known for today: a herbicide.

According to the National Pesticide Information Center (N?ic), the chemical is used to kill broadleaf plants and grasses by applying it to their leaves. It is mostly used to control weeds in industrial agriculture and forestry. Since the chemical is non-selective, it will kill the majority of plants.

A photo (by Allison Cook) of an image of a broadleaf weed. Glysophate can
be sprayed on the leaves to kill the plant. Since the chemical is non-selective,
the majority of plants will be killed by the spray. A solution to this is genetically
made crops that are resistant to the chemical, or Roundup Ready (named after
the main herbicide the chemical is used in).

Many websites stated that Glysophate is widely used particularly in the US. GMO Free USA mentions that in the USDA's report more than 2lbs/planted acre of glyphosate-based herbicide was applied to genetically modified corn in 2010.

A photo (by Allison Cook) of an image demonstrating how the chemical is
sprayed at most industrial farms. These tractors are how so much of the
chemical is sprayed over such a large amount of land.

National Geographic reported that most corn, cotton, and soy in the US are treated with the chemical. The article also pointed out that after seeds became genetically made to tolerate Glysophate the use of the chemical soared. To take a more narrowed look at just how much is used in the US, the article noted that in 2012, about 5 million acres of edible crops were treated with the chemical in just California alone.

A picture (taken by Allison Cook) of a photo of the herbicide Roundup on
shelves at a store. Roundup and Glysophate are known together by many people.
Glysophate is the leading chemical in Roundup that allows it to work so well.

The scary part about this large amount used in the US is that this only accounts for 19% of the amount used worldwide, according to EcoWatch. The article was written in 2016 and the amount of Roundup sold was 3.5 billion pounds in the US and 18.9 billion pounds worldwide.

In many of the articles, the crops genetically modified crops are called "Roundup Ready." As mentioned earlier, there seems to be a connection with the creation of these crops and the amount of chemical being sold.

These crops were built to be resistant to the Roundup herbicide and therefore when applied, the chemicals would only kill weeds, according to the EcoWatch article.

So what does all this mean for the health of us humans and the environment?

According to the National Geographic article, Glysophate is not one of the chemicals included in the US government's monitoring of pesticide residues on food or of the amount in human tissues and blood. That said we have no idea how much we are exposed to. The article also mentioned that in 38 states the majority of surface waterways contained Glysophate, but very little was found in groundwater. This later statement can be explained by the fact that the chemical binds tightly to soil. Unfortunately, if the soil particles are swept up into the air, though, the chemical will linger in the atmosphere for a pretty long time before it becomes part of the water cycle. That would be another explanation for National Geographic's statement about 70% of rainfall samples containing the chemical.

There is the question of "what about the food sprayed with the chemical?" None of the websites mentioned this directly, but N?ic did report that if you were to touch a plant or crop that was still wet with the spray you could expose yourself to it if you don't wash your hands. N?ic also mentions exposure through contact, via it be on skin or in the eyes, and inhalation, by breathing in the spray. Finally, it is noted that the chemical is not likely to evaporate after application.

If someone is exposed, the reported effects do not seem to be too bad. According to N?ic, depending on how one is exposed will cause irritation to the exposed area. For example, if one were to inhale the spray, he/she's nose and throat may become irritated. It is when the chemical is ingested that the effects become more serious: burning of the throat and mouth, vomiting and diarrhea. The chemical does not pass through the skin very easily, so if ingested the majority of the chemical will exit the body through the restroom. There have been deaths reported in the cases of ingesting the chemical being intentional.

GMO Free USA reported that in a 2014 study that a larger portion of sampled individuals had both a chronic disease and Glysophate in their urine. This study also found the chemical in dairy cows, which lead to the suggested conclusion that the chemical bioaccumulates in the body. This, GMO Free USA claims, is contradictory to what the industries say.

That seems to be a problem with this chemical: what the industries let the public know versus what outside researchers find seems to contrast. While this may not be a surprise, it makes it difficult for us to know exactly what the chemical is doing to our bodies. Many websites reported that no solid link had been found yet between the chemical and cancer, but that does not mean the link does not exist. It's just a matter of access to the chemical and the victims.

The one thing that seems to be confirmed is the increase of superweeds since the rise in the use of Glysophate. EcoWatch reported that superweeds are weeds that have built up a resistance to herbicides. Because of the increase and emergence of these superweeds, there has been an increase of using more dangerous herbicides.