By: Gary Goland

Gary Goland — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:18:07 +0000

What the EPA in the USA do in recognising the risk bad air imposes on all of us, and particularly more vulnerable individuals in workplaces and our living environments, is a matter that has been going on for so long it may seem extreme. It is not.
I encourage all to take a look in peer reviewed medical journals for articles, (eg. Exposure Assessment of Diesel Bus Emissions, Maricela Yip1, Pierre Madl1*, Aaron Wiegand2, and Werner Hofmann1, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2006, 3(4), 309-315, Air pollution: to the heart of the matter, Tim S. Nawrot1*, Abderrahim Nemmar1,2, and Benoit Nemery1, European Heart Journal (2006) 27, 2269–2271). It tells a story of what has been fed to us as necessary risk, without elaborating on the years it takes off our lives.
To bring the matter closer to home, I reflect on air quality reports by the EPA in south australia. I relate the one for 2007, released in December 2008. The Report is principally historic data. It relates to emissions data of 2002-3 and 2005-6. Where 2007 data is reported, discrepancies exist between data presented in figures for Adelaide, and the national comparisons with other capital cities.
The single biggest issue I have with this report is that if it is meant to provide the public confidence that regional air quality measures are used by authorities to relate the risk to health in the community and stimulate action to identify and contain causes, then they are failing miserably.
The air quality measures are so nonspecific and outdated that they tell our respiratory specialists and General Practitioners very little about patient and community risk exposure in their living and working environments. Health is given minor reference in the report. This report tells them what regional levels might have been from 2 to 6 years after the event.
It is very difficult for epidemiologists to relate this sort of delayed information to population data. It is damn well impossible for clinical staff to take any advantage of it.
My biggest concern relates to inadequate process generating information about risks in our community, and then connecting those risk profiles with vulnerability in the community. Identifying where each is elevated is not happening, and it can deliver so much for all of us.

Comments on: EPA: Greenhouse gasses are bad, mmkay?

By: Gary Goland