Waste Not! Carroll

News

Particulate Pollution Linked to Diabetes

Posted by wastenotcarroll on November 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM
Published: Oct. 4, 2010 at 1:35 AM

BOSTON, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- There is a strong, consistent correlation between adult diabetes -- type 2 diabetes -- and particulate air pollution, U.S. epidemiologists suggest.

Study leaders John Pearson and John Brownstein of the Children's Hospital Boston Informatics Program analyzed county-by-county data on PM2.5 pollution -- fine particulates of 0.1-2.5 nanometers in size -- from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency covering every county in the contiguous United States for 2004 and 2005.

The researchers examined the data along with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census to track the prevalence of adult diabetes. They factored in known diabetes risk factors such as obesity, exercise, geographic latitude, ethnicity and population density.

The study, published in the journal Diabetes Care, found a strong and consistent association between diabetes prevalence and PM2.5 concentrations. For every 10 micrograms per cubic meter increase in PM2.5 exposure, there was a 1 percent increase in diabetes prevalence, the researchers learned.

"We didn't have data on individual exposure, so we can't prove causality, and we can't know exactly the mechanism of these people's diabetes," Brownstein said in a statement. "But pollution came across as a significant predictor in all our models."

The correlation was seen even at exposure levels below the current EPA safety limit, the study revealed.

Categories: None

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In

5 Comments

Reply Robin Davidov
11:02 AM on November 02, 2010 
"Smaller particles those less than 2.5 microns in diameter generally come from combustion of fossil fuels. These particles include soot from vehicle exhaust, which is often coated with various chemical contaminants or metals, and fine sulfate and nitrate aerosols that form when SO2 and nitrogen oxides condense in the atmosphere. The largest source of fine particles is coal-fired power plants, but auto and diesel exhaust are also prime contributors, especially along busy transportation corridors." From World Resources Institute website.
Reply Sally Sorbello
09:54 AM on November 05, 2010 
Great comprehesice report on health effects from incineration: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/content/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf

When the waste stream is comprised of over 90% recyclable/reusable/compostable materials, it makes zero sense to be burning!! Zero Waste makes sense (and dollars).
Reply Sally Sorbello
09:59 AM on November 05, 2010 
Corrected for misspelling--please delete previous post.

Great comprehensive report on health effects from incineration: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/content/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf

When the waste stream is comprised of over 90% recyclable/reusable/compostable materials, it makes zero sense to be burning!! Zero Waste makes sense (and dollars).
Reply Don "Trash Man" West
10:49 AM on November 05, 2010 
Fortunately Ms. Davidov does not dispute the potential adverse affects of nonoparticles. However, she may be trying to give the impression that the burning of coal and other fossil fuels is the only source for these pollutants. Nanoparticles are released from cosmetics and drying paint as well as a myriad of other substances and activities; it's just burning coal, oil and natural gas are so ubiquitous that they are a very commonly cited source.

Nanoparticles will be a by-product of the proposed WTE incinerator, too. That's why many feel that there should be minimum distances maintained between such emitters and schools, hospitals, churches and residential areas.
Reply Caroline Eader
12:44 PM on November 05, 2010 
The concern of having a trash incinerator near schools is one of the arguments being made by Wheelabrator in its opposition to a private firm building a trash incinerator in Baltimore. But Wheelabrator doesn't seem to care how close its facility will be to schools in Frederick County.

And of course if Ms. Davidov's government financed project (financed by Frederick & Carroll Counties) is not necessary due to another (privately owned) incinerator, the NMWDA will not be collecting over $500K PER YEAR in "management fees".

"The project also faces legal challenges from a national waste-management industry group and from Wheelabrator, which produces energy at its trash-burning RESCO facility in South Baltimore. They argue in filings made in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County circuit courts that the Fairfield facility should be held to the same permitting requirements as incinerators, including a ban on proximity to schools. The proposed plant would be within a mile of Curtis Bay elementary and Benjamin Franklin middle schools."

Fairfield energy plant moves ahead
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bs-md-renewable-energy
-20101018,0,3594210.story