92% of the World's Population Exposed To Unsafe Levels of Air Pollution: WHO (sciencedaily.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Daily: A new World Health Organization (WHO) air quality model confirms that 92% of the world's population lives in places where air quality levels exceed WHO limits. "The new WHO model shows countries where the air pollution danger spots are, and provides a baseline for monitoring progress in combatting it," says Dr Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director General at WHO. It also represents the most detailed outdoor (or ambient) air pollution-related health data, by country, ever reported by WHO. The model is based on data derived from satellite measurements, air transport models and ground station monitors for more than 3000 locations, both rural and urban. It was developed by WHO in collaboration with the University of Bath, United Kingdom. Some 3 million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution can be just as deadly. In 2012, an estimated 6.5 million deaths (11.6% of all global deaths) were associated with indoor and outdoor air pollution together. Nearly 90% of air-pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, with nearly 2 out of 3 occurring in WHO's South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. Ninety-four per cent are due to noncommunicable diseases -- notably cardiovascular diseases, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Air pollution also increases the risks for acute respiratory infections. Major sources of air pollution include inefficient modes of transport, household fuel and waste burning, coal-fired power plants, and industrial activities. However, not all air pollution originates from human activity. For example, air quality can also be influenced by dust storms, particularly in regions close to deserts. The model has carefully calibrated data from satellite and ground stations to maximize reliability. National air pollution exposures were analyzed against population and air pollution levels at a grid resolution of about 10 km x 10 km. The interactive maps provide information on population-weighted exposure to particulate matter of an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) for all countries. The map also indicates data on monitoring stations for PM10 and PM2.5 values for about 3000 cities and towns. Quartz's report features a table that highlights the countries with the world's worst air pollution. The table "shows all the median levels of particulate matter in each country where the WHO collected data."

Comments

Wrong measure

[dumky2]

Counting deaths is the wrong measure. The average number of days lost is more typical and informative to evaluate the impact of such problems.
I tried to find the paper for this WHO study, but couldn't find it. Pointers appreciated.

This US data is a big dated but useful as order of magnitudes:
Plane crash (200 deaths a year, 1 day lost per average person), house fire (18 days), pesticides (16000, EPA: 27 days), air pollution (50.000, 61 days), crime (26.000 murders, 113 days), driving (43.000, 182 days), smoking (5.5 years lost for average smoker), poverty (7 to 10 years lost).

It is also useful to point out to people who freak out when they read such headlines that air pollution was far worse in the past. From soot to manure particles, not to mention unsanitary housing, there are reasons why life expectancy has increased dramatically (although, water and food sanitation, as well as waste disposal were bigger factors).

Re:Can't wait for solar power and electric cars ta

[drinkypoo]

Yep, L.A. was really bad in the sixties and seventies. My family went through there on our way to visit grandparents that lived in Palm Springs. The air was a yellowish brown and was quite difficult for my mother at the time.

Ironically, much of the improvement in LA actually was due to cleaning exhaust pipes, and not due to cracking down on industrial production. Don't get me wrong, they did do that as well, but Los Angeles has a serious transport problem. Back when cars were more polluting, they had a serious transport pollution problem. But these various laws that people love to hate in California actually made a substantive difference in vehicle emissions. I myself am not very happy with the regulations surrounding equipment restrictions; if a vehicle can pass a tailpipe dyno emissions test then you should be able to mount whatever equipment to it you like. But that's another rant.

I fear those growing up since that time who want to eliminate EPA regulations fail to realize what it was like before those regulations existed.

The EPA regulations are a bad joke. It took the CARB (an entire additional emissions regulation board!) to fix the problems in Los Angeles (and the state as a whole) because the EPA is so pathetic. California has the most vehicles, almost the most road, and the most vehicle-miles traveled, so cleaning up vehicle emissions made a big difference. But the CARB also handles other kinds of emissions, like VOCs and particulates from commercial sources.

California could probably do without the EPA, because we could replace it by expanding the CARB's mandate. The rest of the country would go immediately to shit. Well, more shit than it is now. Enjoy your lead, America.