Tag air pollution

Cross State Air Pollution

Nordic Pure ® Leave a comment

Originally posted on momscleanairforce.org. 

Back in 2012, I wrote about the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the impacts of pollution that traveled via wind from one state to another. It was a look at the effects of dirty air from “upwind” states on “downwind” states.

Now, 5 years later, a study released December 2017 by Muzhe Yang (Associate Professor in the Economics Department) and Shin-yi Chou (Professor of Economics) of Lehigh University has proven the validity of the “cross-state” air pollution premise. They have authored the paper, The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Fetal Health: Evidence from the Shutdown of a Coal-Fired Power Plant Located Upwind of New Jersey.

Ozone pollution, or smog, is carried by the wind. This pollution has decreased over time, in part thanks to mandates to reduce dangerous emissions. Yet, climate change exacerbates air pollution, as heat makes ozone pollution and smog worse. Increased heat waves that are expected to come with climate change could mean ozone pollution won’t fall as fast as it would under normal conditions.

The analysis of this study  examines a specific coal-fired power plant situated on the state borderline between Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The facility in question was the Portland Generating Station, which was on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. Its shut down in 2014 had a major ramification for the downwind residents of New Jersey. Data revealed a 15 percent reduction in the numbers of low birth weight babies, and a decrease in the occurrence of preterm births by 28 percent.

The results emphasized potential accomplishments when the power of federal law, under the Clean Air Act, supersedes state regulatory directives.

The ruling from the EPA categorized the installation as “a sole pollution source” harming the air quality of New Jersey. The state counties included Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon.

The research drilled down on a look at the pollution coming from plant eighteen months prior to its termination. It showed sulfur dioxide emissions at 2,596.648 tons monthly. In the same time span (eighteen months) after the closing, the emissions measured almost zero.

The information was collected from zip codes covering downwind areas within sixty miles of the plant.

Earlier in 2017, a related report by Yang and Chou, with two other writers, showed that infants born during 1990-2006 had a 6.5 percent greater risk of low birth weight and a 17.12 percent greater risk of a very low birth rate (less than 5.50 pounds). This applied to mothers residing within a twenty to thirty-mile radius.

To get an idea about the extent of the pollution that the Portland Generating Station was emitting — in 2006 it ranked number five in the nation for sulfur dioxide emissions. In 2009, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection released figures showing that the plant had spewed out a total of 30,465 tons of sulfur dioxide – which equaled over two times the annual sulfur dioxide emissions from all the “electricity-generating facilities in New Jersey combined.”

The creators of the reports believe that the EPA should be more proactive in taking individual states to task when their actions affect the health and well-being of their neighbors.

They also noted that when studies have been done to gauge the connection between public health and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, fetal health concerns have been overlooked. In light of the fact that there has been ongoing evidence to show that fetal health is a benchmark for outcomes in later life — from physical health to education and earnings — it seems like an obvious oversight.

And a refresher for those who don’t remember the actions of current EPA head, Scott Pruitt, back in 2011 when he was the Attorney General of Oklahoma…he sued the EPA over the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

The impacts of emissions from coal-fired power plants directly affect the fetal health of our babies. Please take a look at this WIND MAP and you can see how the children in your state share the air with other states.

Have You Heard?

Nordic Pure ® Leave a comment

This was written by Tim Radford. It orginally posted at EcoWatch:

One of the world’s most famous climate scientists has just calculated the financial burden that tomorrow’s young citizens will face to keep the globe at a habitable temperature and contain global warming and climate change—a $535 trillion bill.

And much of that will go on expensive technologies engineered to suck 1,000 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air by the year 2100.

Of course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six percent a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamics.

The study, authored by researchers from the U.S., France, China, the UK and Australia, rests on two arguments.

Slow start

One is that although the world’s nations vowed in Paris in 2015 to contain global warming by 2100 to “well below” 2°C relative to the average global temperatures for most of the planet’s history since the last Ice Age, concerted international action has been slow to start. One nation—the U.S.—has already announced that it will withdraw from the Paris agreement.

The other argument is that, even if humans do in the decades to come rise to the challenge, it could be too late: by then greenhouse gas concentrations could have reached a level in the atmosphere that would in the long run condemn the world to sea level rises of several meters, and a succession of economic and humanitarian disasters.

“Continued high fossil fuel emissions would saddle young people with a massive, expensive cleanup problem and growing deleterious climate impacts, which should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay,” said professor James Hansen, of the Columbia University Earth Institute, who led the study.

Hansen, as director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, made global headlines in 1988, during a severe drought and heatwave on the North American continent, when he told a Washington senate committee, “It’s time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”

Legal testimony

With that one sentence, he made climate science an enduring item on the political agenda. But the latest study is also part of a legal argument. It is, in effect, testimony in the lawsuit Juliana v. U.S.

This case began under the last U.S. administration. However, the U.S. President Donald Trump, who has dismissed the evidence of climate change as a “hoax,” has now been named in the case.

Hansen has argued that even the ambitions of the historic Paris agreement will not be enough to avert disaster and displacement for millions. The benchmark for geologically recent warming levels was set 115,000 years ago, during a period between two Ice Ages, known to geologists as the Eemian.

“We show that a target of limiting global warming to no more than +2°C relative to pre-industrial levels is not sufficient, as +2°C would be warmer than the Eemian period, when sea level reached plus 6-9 meters relative to today,” Hansen said.

Lower CO2

At the heart of such arguments are calculations about imponderables that climatologists like to call the carbon budget and climate sensitivity. The first of these concerns the terrestrial and oceanic processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then absorb them, and the second is a calculation about what a change in carbon dioxide levels really means for average global temperatures.

For most of human history, CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million. In the last two years they have reached 400 ppm, as a response to two centuries of fossil fuel combustion, and average global temperatures have risen by almost 1°C, with a record reading in 2016 of 1.3°C.

Hansen and his colleagues want to see these atmospheric CO2 levels lowered to 350 ppm, to bring global temperature rise down to no more than a rise of 1°C later this century.

If the world’s nations can co-operate to do that, then most of the hard work to remove the carbon dioxide surplus from the air could be left to the world’s great forests.

However, if carbon emissions go on growing at two percent a year (and during this century, they have grown faster), then those who are children now would have to commit to a costly technological answer based on the belief that carbon dioxide can be captured, compressed and stored deep underground.

Nobody knows how to do this on any significant scale. And if it could be done, it would be expensive: an estimated $535 trillion.

“It is apparent that governments are leaving this problem on the shoulders of young people. This will not be easy or inexpensive,” said Hansen.

“We wanted to quantify the burden that is being left for young people, to support not only the legal case against the U.S. government, but also many other cases that can be brought against other governments.”

Do Plants Really Purify Our Air?

Nordic Pure ® Leave a comment

If you are on Pinterest as much as we are then you will have noticed lots of pretty graphics about how this plant can make you sleep better, these plants will purify your air and so on. But do they really? Or like so many other posts, is that fake?

We have even reported in the past that a certain few plants do purify your air as long as you have as many as are needed. But after some research and digging we have found some interesting information.

We are not scientist and can’t begin to agree or contradict any research done. But we can look at the facts.

Now I believe this all started from a 1989 NASA report that was intended for a space station. They were having problems with air pollution in their sealed crafts. So they researched how to fix the issue. They started with several different plants in potting soil and an activated carbon filter system in Plexiglas chambers. They then injected three different pollutants into these chambers. Some plants were successful and others were not. The three pollutants were benzene, trichloroethylene and formaldehyde. They not only tested these plants in the soil but also plants without leaves and then just the soil. There conclusion is this:

“Low-light-requiring houseplants, along with activated carbon plant filters, have demonstrated the potential for improving indoor air quality by removing trace organic pollutants from the air in energy-efficient buildings. This plant system is one of the most promising means of alleviating the sick building syndrome associated with many new, energy efficient buildings. The plant root-soil zone appears to be the most effective area for removing volatile organic chemicals. Therefore, maximizing air exposure to the plant root-soil area should be considered when placing plants in buildings for best air filtration. Activated carbon filters containing fans have the capacity for rapidly filtering large volumes of polluted air and should be considered an integral part of any plan using houseplants for solving indoor air pollution problems.”

A few years later in 2009, Kamal Meattle gave a Ted Talk about a few plants in a work space that cleared the air of pollutants. His stance is that only 3 varieties of plants will grow fresh air for all and keep us healthy. Per the 300 occupants in the office building they had to have 1200 of these plants. He states in the video that per person you need between 4 to 8 of each plant. So if you have a household of four people that is 48 of these specific plants. Do you have room for those 48 plants? We don’t unfortunately.

In 2014, Robert Pavlis wrote a very convincing article in the respect of gardening that plants don’t really purify our air. He talks in length about the false reports of those who pulled the highest percentage from the NASA report and said plants purify this amount without reading the report. Which unfortunately happens a lot in our society. He goes into the the different factors of the NASA report and how it doesn’t really prove anything. He reports even in their concluding statement which is in this blog that they said “potential” in how houseplants can filter our air. What I was most impressed with was the fact that he took the time to calmly and professionally answer all critics and questions at the bottom of the article.

These three reports have the most data and the most information surrounding this topic. Each is published and linked in this blog for you to come to your own conclusion. Each deserves to be read fully. And are actually very interesting. We have our own conclusion though. Keeping a quality air filter in your system and changing in regularly will keep your air fresh. We also love plants so we keep plants just because they make us happy. If they filter our air even just a little then all the better, if not then they are here to make our spirits happy!

We Hear You

Nordic Pure ® Leave a comment

In a company like ours; small, family owned, and growing like mad, there will be some growing pains. Every company experiences them from time to time when trying to figure out the best answer to the problem. We have heard your suggestions and we want to address them here.

First of all we want to thank you for being our loyal customers. We know that it would be easier for you to grab a filter at the store along with your other groceries. But we also know that you are concerned about your indoor air quality so you choose to use our product and we thank you for that. We are equally proud of our filters and want to make sure that we put your indoor air quality above all else.

In order to do that we are constantly trying to re-imagine and re-figure pricing and cost and everything else to ensure you are getting a quality filter for a good price but also keep our lights on. Any of you who own a small business you will understand how sometimes we have to make do with something even though it might not be the best choice until we can get to a point where we can justify that choice.

That being said our number one complaint is that the merv rating is not on the filter frame. Trust me, we fully understand. At the moment what we have established is our best option. We are now putting a sticker on the side of the box it ships in that has the corresponding merv rating, color we associate with that merv and a picture of what the filter looks like. We understand that it would be a lot easier to put the merv rating on the filter and it would put your conscience at ease but it would greatly affect the price of our filters and that is something we aren’t willing to compromise right now.

To help put your conscience at ease we operate on a very tight routine. As you know our filters are handmade and are made to order therefore we only make certain merv ratings on certain days to negate any confusion of mixing the merv ratings. That is why when you order a Merv 14 on a Monday it typically won’t get shipped out until later in the week because Merv 14 is made on a particular day. That is how we know that what was made that day is also what is on the sticker on the box. Because nothing else was made that day.

People also commonly ask if they can look at the filter and tell what merv it is. The answer is yes and no. For merv 8-12 the “weave” is such a similar pattern you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. On the other hand if you order merv 14 or merv 15 then yes you would be able to tell because there is a lot more material, it looks fluffier.

In conclusion we hear your suggestion and when we feel we can accomplish that request without compromising the price and quality of the filter we will. We thank you for your loyalty and we hope that you understand we are thinking of you first before anything else. If you have any further questions or suggestions let us know by emailing info@nordicpure.com or giving us a call at our 1800 number. This is how we grow and we intend to keep growing and expanding with your help.

Thank you.

Your Nordic Family

HOW INDOOR AIR POLLUTION AFFECTS US

Nordic Pure ® Leave a comment

How indoor air quality affects us
Many of us are correctly concerned about the pollution and contaminants in the outside air we are breathing. Where I live, for example, the community is concerned about the amount of emissions from the nearby factories and the growing amount of traffic on the roads. We are concerned about inversion during the spring and take steps to improve the quality of the air.

Indoor Air vs. Outdoor Air

However, one place that many of us overlook, when it comes to breathing clean air, is the air inside our own homes. While we should take steps to improving the air quality of our communities, we also need to focus on the air inside. Information from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and other scientific sources tell use the air inside our homes, work places, and other buildings is often much more polluted than the air outside. This number ranges from two times more polluted to over a thousand times more polluted than the outside air. Consider the fact that most of us are spending the majority of our time (about 90%) indoors and this means that we are subjected to many more contaminants inside than those which are breathing while we are outside.

The Causes of Poor Indoor Air Quality

Just where does all of that indoor air pollution come from? There are two main causes of indoor air pollution: the contaminants themselves and the lack of proper ventilation.

Indoor Air Contaminants

There are quite a few natural and man-made air pollutants which lead to indoor air pollution. These include: Natural Contaminants

  • Moisture leading to mold and mildew
  • Pollen
  • Animal dander
  • Cockroaches, dust mites, and other pests
  • Bacteria, viruses, and other airborne pathogens

Man-made Contaminants

  • Building and furnishing materials
  • Household cleaning supplies
  • Central heating and cooling systems
  • heating materials used by furnaces
  • Pesticides

Lack of Proper Ventilation

Many of us work hard to prevent the flow of air between the inside of our homes and the outside of our homes. After all, the costs of heating and cooling the building are much less when we can keep out the chill of winter and the heat of the summer. As we work to improve the insulation of our homes, however, we do need to keep in mind the fact that the pollutants inside our home will continue to accumulate until our health can no longer withstand the levels of contaminated air. In the struggle to save money on our energy bills, we mustn’t lose sight of the healthcare costs that can be attributed to preventing fresh air from making its way through our homes, offices, and the other buildings where we spend so much of our days.

The Effects of Poor Air Quality

There are many different effects of poor air quality and these will be felt more or less depending upon each individual. In some cases, the introduction of fresh air throughout the building can remove the effects and in other situations entire buildings will need to be renovated in order to remove pollutants which are causing life-threatening symptoms.

What are some of the first symptoms you’ll feel when you have poor air quality in your home?

Everyone, whether they suffer from asthma and allergies or not, can feel the effects of air pollution over time. The most common symptoms include:

  • headaches, itchy irritation of the eyes, the nose, and the throat, unexplained fatigue, typical allergy symptoms, and dizziness

Unfortunately for many people, by the time the cause of these symptoms has been discovered, the physical effects of breathing in poor quality air may have developed into more serious conditions. These may include:

  • asthma, humidifier fever, pneumonitis, respiratory tract infections, deep coughs, and general susceptibility to other damaging health conditions

According to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, other effects of poor indoor air quality include reduced attendance and productivity and decreased abilities to concentrate, calculate, and memorize information. The same document describes the deterioration of buildings as indoor pollutants take their toll. It also goes on to state that family, work, school, and other social relationships will feel a strain when the people involved are suffering from the effects of poor indoor air quality.

The Good News

With the realization that your home, the place where many of us feel safest, may actually be the cause of your discomfort or the development of health-threatening conditions, you may wonder what you can do to correct this situation. Fortunately, there are some simple steps which you can take; and in many cases, you can implement these steps at the work place as well. First, take steps to improve the ventilation of your home. Open the windows when the weather is nice. During the summer months, you might open the windows during the cool nights. Use fans to circulate this cooler air through your home, improving the ventilation of your home and reducing the costs associated with running the air conditioning through the night. Second, pay attention to your ventilation system. Make sure that any appliances are properly vented to the outside. Pay attention to where that vented air will flow once outside. (Vents near windows could exacerbate the problem.) Routinely clean vents and filters. Third, think about your use of cleaning chemicals. In some cases, you may be able to eliminate some of the air pollution in your home by switching from the use of chemical cleaners to warm water and a mild detergent. You may also consider only using certain cleaners on days when you can ventilate the home as you clean. Fourth, contact a professional in the field of air purification. These qualified men and women can work with you to install a heating and cooling system with a home dehumidifier (when needed) which will provide sufficient ventilation and which will also filter out pollutants. In some cases, the qualified professional may be willing to consult with you about other steps you can take to improve the air quality in your home. Fifth, choose plants which have air purifying effects. While plants can’t undo all of the effects of indoor air pollution, when they are used in conjunction with the above steps, air purifying plants, such as the Peace Lily, English Ivy, and the Gerber Daisy, can improve the air and provide other important benefits in your home.

Featured images:

Lauren Hill does her best to live a green life and takes air contaminates seriously.  You’ll find her writing on subjects from gardening to air quality all over the internet.  You can follow her on Google+ or at www.laurenqhill.com