US Air Pollution Deaths Nearly Halved Between 1990 and 2010 (eurekalert.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from EurekAlert: Air pollution in the U.S. has decreased since about 1990, and a new study conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now shows that this air quality improvement has brought substantial public health benefits. The study, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that deaths related to air pollution were nearly halved between 1990 and 2010. The team's analyses showed that deaths related to air pollution exposure in the U.S. decreased by about 47 percent, dropping from about 135,000 deaths in 1990 to 71,000 in 2010.

These improvements in air quality and public health in the U.S. coincided with increased federal air quality regulations, and have taken place despite increases in population, energy and electricity use, and vehicle miles traveled between 1990 and 2010. [...] Still, despite clear improvements, air pollution remains an important public health issue in the U.S. The estimated 71,000 deaths in 2010 translates to 1 of every 35 deaths in the U.S. -- that's as many deaths as we see from all traffic accidents and all gun shootings combined.

Comments

But the survivors donâ(TM)t know it

[Anonymous Coward]

Surviving due to regulations is not likely to be noticed by the survivor. Like not dying due to a prevented accident thanks to technology. So, Americans can keep going blasting big government and regulations, their favorite pastime, and lament on the price of medical insurance while spending their money on churches that never cured anyone instead. Growing trend: ignore experts as your personal opinion trumps their expertise. ....

Why one or the other?

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk as if CO2 reduction is antagonistic to airborne pollutant reduction. As if you can have one not both.

But if you're lowering atmospheric mercury, for example, swapping coal for solar tackles BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

And swapping gas for electric vehicles reduces both NOx and CO2 pollution at the same time, as long as the car is recharged with solar or renewables, and not a coal fired power station.

I'm struggling to think of an instance where CO2 pollution isn't from the same source as the other airborne pollutants.... Asbestos maybe? That is an airborne pollutant not directly connected to CO2 that was eliminated.

Re:More of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Emissions have not "naturally" gotten better.

They got better because the government passed laws saying "Meet these mileages by these dates."

Pollution did not "naturally" get better.

It got better because the government said "Reduce emission of particulates, NOx, SOx, and other crap to the following levels by the following years."

Re:NOOOOOO\

[jellomizer]

Perhaps it is because science is exposing what is. Climate change is real, however Carbon Dioxide which is considered the major factor in climate change, at current and projected levels will not effect our health directly, like with the other chemicals that are in smog, that we got good at filtering out.

Despite the fossil fuel industry paid claims, the left isn't trying to get rid of your energy, take away your car. The do see science for what it is and wants measured regulations to slow down such effect, unfortunately fossil fuel is the primary cause. As we are quickly expelling carbon, that took these plants millions/billions of years to collect. However if we slow down fossil fuel consumption and replace it with alternative energy then we can slow down globabl warming, and allow the earth to heal some of its problems.

But normal Air Pollution, is full of other chemicals that are directly bad for us, and we have little evolutionary strategies for dealing with.