All Healthy News

Clean Air. Pure Water. Healthy Home.

HEALTH BEGINS WITH:
Clean Air. Pure Water. Healthy Homes.

Staff Reporter

Feature: Should healthcare professionals do more to warn their patients about the risks of air pollution?

by

Healthcare providers have an important role to play in informing patients about the risks of air pollution, but they are only one part of the jigsaw, Tamara Krivskaya reports. 

In February, the Mayor of London said the NHS should step up its efforts to inform patients about the risks of air pollution.  

The announcement followed a verdict on the death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who passed away in 2013 following a fatal asthma attack and was the first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. She lived in Lewisham, South London, close to the busy North Circular Road. The judge concluded that not enough was done to protect her, that health professionals knew far too little about air pollution to help her, and that her family weren’t provided with the information they needed to do what they could to reduce her exposure to air pollution. 

Dr Andy Whittamore, Clinical Lead at Asthma + Lung UK and a practising GP, says: ‘Long-term exposure to air pollution can cause some people to develop lung conditions including asthma. It has also been linked to an increased likelihood of developing heart conditions, suffering strokes, and developing dementia, as well as worsening mental health outcomes. 

‘It is harmful for everyone, but some groups are more vulnerable, such as pregnant women, children, older people, those living with lung conditions and those on the lowest incomes who tend to live in urban areas where there are higher concentrations of air pollution.’ 

Trust Air Quality Manager at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Tanja Dalle-Muenchmeyer, adds that Covid-19 has brought respiratory health into focus. 

She says: ‘Exposure to air pollution is also likely to make us more susceptible to other diseases affecting our airways and/or the severity with which we experience these. A report led by Imperial College’s School of Public Health’s Environmental Research Group published in September 2021 found that long-term exposure to elevated levels of air pollution increases the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19. More research into this area is needed but what we know so far all points towards the need to improve air quality to increase our resilience to respiratory disease.’  

Tanja continues: ‘Air pollution is now considered the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. Its impact includes well-established effects on our hearts and lungs, but our increased understanding now also shows the damage poor air quality can do to every single organ in our body and our mental health too.’ 

According to recent statistics from Asthma + Lung UK, 77% of people living with asthma say that air pollution effects their health and wellbeing and 55% say they have difficulty breathing when air pollution levels are high.  

Statistics outlined in the Clean Air Hospital Framework show that air pollution causes over 20,200 respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions per year in the UK , for asthma, coughs, bronchitis, lung cancer and pneumonia. London has some of the worst levels of air pollution in the country and, according to some figures, poor air quality is responsible for triggering asthma attacks in around 337,500 Londoners registered with the condition. Moreover, more than 1 in 10 children in London have asthma. 

Ruth Fitzharris, whose son suffers from recurring asthma attacks, was told by a respiratory consultant that air pollution is likely to be exacerbating his symptoms. Their family lives in North London. 

‘There are 30 children in my son’s class. In the first term, three of them were hospitalised with asthma attacks, which I just think is madness. It’s not like the school is even near a busy road,’ Ruth tells Air Quality News. 

When her son received his diagnosis, Ruth said that advice from medical professionals was limited: ‘[The consultant] just told me to take back street routes where I could. That’s all he said, though.’  

Ruth continues: ‘Imagine you’re pregnant and a midwife tells you air pollution is harmful to the unborn foetus. I mean, what are you going to do at that stage? It’s not like you can just up sticks and move house to an area with lower air pollution, can you? 

‘It’s not like living in a quiet rural area would even guarantee low air pollution because you could be living next to someone who is constantly burning wood stoves. It’s almost inescapable.’ 

Ruth says she has been following doctors’ advice but she’s unsure if it’s making a significant difference: ‘I do take backstreet routes where I can and there’s certain places I don’t take my son. I don’t take him to high streets or grocery shopping, for example. But no one can really measure how much of a difference that makes.’ 

Tanja says that, while there are significant limitations to what doctors and patients can do individually, this does not negate the role of healthcare professionals, who still have a huge role to play in sign-posting patients with information about air pollution and limiting its effects on public health. 

‘It’s not about stoking fear but about helping patients understand what actions they can take to reduce their own exposure as well as their own contribution to the problem. This information needs to be delivered in an empowering way,’ she says. 

She adds that there is a range of practical advice medical professionals can give, such as encouraging patients with lung conditions to use their preventer inhalers, which build up protection in the airways over time, as well as monitoring the levels of air pollution on days where you intend to be outside. Adults should also be encouraged to quit smoking indoors and stop using wood burning stoves, which produce high levels of indoor air pollution.  

She continues: ‘Much of the air pollution we are exposed to may be background driven, but that does not mean we have no power to take action. Simple advice we can give to most patients includes signing up to air pollution alerts to know when to take action, leaving the car behind, taking side streets when walking and cycling, and keeping indoor air well ventilated.’ 

Dr Whittamore echoes this view: ‘For patients thought to be at risk, they can outline both the long-term health impacts of air pollution and its sources, as well as the short-term exposure reduction measures that people can take to protect themselves, especially those in vulnerable groups.  

‘Encouraging patients with lung conditions such as asthma to take their preventer medicines is a vital way the NHS can help, but sometimes getting this message to stick is a challenge, especially because it’s all too easy for routines to slip.’   

He admits, however, that environmental justice plays a large role in tackling air pollution: ‘Healthcare professionals can only do so much in terms of protecting and helping patients. The real changes need to be made outside of the NHS to reduce the levels of toxic air in order to improve the nation’s health long term, especially in deprived areas where levels are often dangerously high.’   

It is also worth noting the role of cars as accessibility aids for many disabled people. Advice which involves ditching the car and cycling or walking instead, while good for pollution levels, risks excluding those who rely on cars for essential transport.  

A report by climate charity Possible and the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy revealed that disabled people often feel ‘left out’ of planning decisions which aim to reduce emissions. Medical professionals must take care to tailor their advice to individual circumstances, rather than making sweeping recommendations. As the authors of the report conclude, a transition away from cars has to be ‘fair for everyone’. 

Dr Whittamore concludes: ‘Social and environmental justice has to be at the heart of our work to clean up toxic air pollution. It is not right simply to ask those most vulnerable to air pollution due to health conditions, or those living in more deprived areas to change their behaviour. Particularly when those who are more deprived are less likely to be causing the levels of pollution in their areas. In 2019, for example, just over half of those on the lowest incomes had access to a car or van, compared to almost 90% of those on the highest incomes.’  

Evidently, the approach to tackling high levels of air pollution and the threat it poses to public health needs to involve healthcare professionals. They have a large role to play in informing the public about the risks of air pollution and individual mitigation measures available to them. 

However, this is not enough in and of itself. Individuals can be limited by finances or access needs in what actions they are able to take, and healthcare professionals must take care to account for this in the consultation room. 

Clean air zones, investment in green public transport and national awareness raising campaigns all play an important role in protecting us against the effects of air pollution. Healthcare professionals are just one piece of the jigsaw. 

This feature originally appeared in the April issue of Air Quality News magazine – click here to read it in full.

Subscribe to our newsletter

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Leave your shoes outdoors, these scientists say

by

We are environmental chemists who have spent a decade examining the indoor environment and the contaminants people are exposed to in their own homes. Although our examination of the indoor environment, via our DustSafe program, is far from complete, on the question of whether to shoe or de-shoe in the home, the science leans toward the latter.

It is best to leave your filth outside the door.

What contaminants are in your home?

People spend up to 90% of their time indoors, so the question of whether or not to wear shoes in the house is not a trivial one.

The policy focus is typically on the outdoor environment for soil, air quality and environmental public health risks. However, there is growing regulatory interest in the question of indoor air quality.The matter building up inside your home includes not just dust and dirt from people and pets shedding hair and skin.About a third of it is from outside, either blown in or tramped in on those offensive shoe bottoms.Some of the microorganisms present on shoes and floors are drug-resistant pathogens, including hospital-associated infectious agents (germs) that are difficult to treat.Add in cancer-causing toxins from asphalt road residue and endocrine-disrupting lawn chemicals, and you might view the filth on your shoes in a new light.READ MORE: Comparing the dust in 35 countries

A roll call of indoor nasties

Our work has involved the measurement and assessment of exposure to a range of harmful substances found inside homes including:

  • antibiotic-resistant genes (genes that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics)
  • disinfectant chemicals in the home environment
  • the perfluorinated chemicals (also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” because of their tendency to remain in the body and not break down) used ubiquitously in a multitude of industrial, domestic and food packaging products

A strong focus of our work has involved assessing levels of potentially toxic metals (such as arsenic, cadmium and lead) inside homes across 35 nations.These contaminants — and most importantly the dangerous neurotoxin lead — are odorless and colorless. So there is no way of knowing whether the dangers of lead exposure are only in your soils or your water pipes, or if they are also on your living room floor.The science suggests a very strong connection between the lead inside your home and that in your yard soil.

The most likely reason for this connection is dirt blown in from your yard or trodden in on your shoes, and on the furry paws of your adorable pets.

This connection speaks to the priority of making sure matter from your outdoor environment stays exactly there. (We have tips here.)

A Wall Street Journal article argued shoes in the home aren’t so bad. The author made the point that E. coli — dangerous bacteria that develop in the intestines of many mammals, including humans — is so widely distributed that it’s pretty much everywhere. So it should be no surprise it can be swabbed on shoe bottoms (96% of shoe bottoms, as the article pointed out).

But let’s be clear. Although it’s nice to be scientific and stick with the term E. coli, this stuff is, put more simply, the bacteria associated with poo.

Whether it is ours or Fido’s, it has the potential to make us very sick if we are exposed at high levels. And let’s face it — it is just plain gross.

Why walk it around inside your house if you have a very simple alternative — to take your shoes off at the door?

READ MORE: Pollen season is getting longer and more intense

On balance, shoeless wins

So are there disadvantages to having a shoe-free household?

Beyond the occasional stubbed toe, from an environmental health standpoint there aren’t many downsides to having a shoe-free house. Leaving your shoes at the entry mat also leaves potentially harmful pathogens there as well.

We all know prevention is far better than treatment, and taking shoes off at the door is a basic and easy prevention activity for many of us.

Need shoes for foot support? Easy — just have some “indoor shoes” that never get worn outside.

There remains the issue of the “sterile house syndrome,” which refers to increased rates of allergies among children. Some argue it’s related to overly sterile households.

Indeed, some dirt is probably beneficial as studies have indicated it helps develop your immune system and reduce allergy risk.

But there are better and less gross ways to do that than walking around inside with your filthy shoes on. Get outside, go for a hike, enjoy the great outdoors.

Just don’t bring the muckier parts of it inside to build up and contaminate our homes.

READ MORE: Do I really need a specific shoe for a specific sport?

Mark Patrick Taylor is chief environmental scientist with Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria in Australia and honorary professor at Macquarie University. Gabriel Filippelli is chancellor’s professor of earth sciences at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and executive director of the Indiana University Environmental Resilience Institute. Taylor received funding via an Australian Government Citizen Science Grant. Filippelli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

COVID is airborne and why it took WHO 2 years to admit it

by

FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Earlier this year, President Rodrigo Duterte expressed bewilderment about how Omicron, a variant of the COVID-causing virus SARS Cov-2, was able to infect more people, including those who just stayed home.

“This Omicron has hit so many people who wear masks, who are vaccinated. Even those who just stay at home, they get infected,” Duterte said, speaking in a mix of English and Filipino, addressing his question to Health Secretary Francisco Duque in a taped meeting aired last Jan. 17.

“There are others—or there are many of them—who are vaccinated who still get infected. Is that airborne? There are so many people who are already wearing masks who still get infected,” Duterte went on.

READ: Duterte asks: ‘Is COVID-19 airborne?’ Duque blames spread on ‘token compliance’ with rules

Duterte raised two questions in total—first was how even people at home who followed health protocols still got infected with the COVID variant. Second, he asked Duque whether the COVID. virus is airborne.

In this article, INQUIRER.net will try to provide answers to both questions, and discuss one of the overlooked observations in terms of answering whether the COVID virus is airborne, which took World Health Organization (WHO) two whole years to acknowledge.

Indoor transmission

Duque, who was asked to answer Duterte’s curious question, did not categorically answer whether the COVID virus is airborne.

However, he pointed to “token compliance” of minimum health standards, like improper wearing of face masks, as a possible reason for the spread of Omicron.

“Those who get infected are either wearing their mask wrongly or with their nose sticking out. That’s useless. That is what we call token compliance, but it’s the wrong way of doing things,” Duque said.

“It is the wrong way of complying with our minimum public health standards. For example, when it comes to avoiding contact, instead of [distancing] one meter, people talk close together,” he added.

The health secretary also cited the recent holiday celebrations which might have caused at the time a surge in COVID cases.

READ: Blank space left in 2022 PH budget: Funds for free COVID tests

To further explain how COVID spreads among people—even within households that follow health protocols—WHO stated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads “mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, for example at a conversational distance.”

“The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time,” WHO said on Dec. 23, 2021.

Yes, it is ‘airborne’, but…

On its website, WHO also said last year that the COVID virus can be transmitted among people in poorly ventilated, crowded indoor settings because it is airborne.

“This is because aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel farther than conversational distance (this is often called long-range aerosol or long-range airborne transmission),” WHO explained.

This answered Duterte’s question on whether the COVID virus is airborne.

But did you know that it actually took around two years before WHO confirmed it?

who's changing views

GRAPHIC: Ed Lustan

The statement released by WHO last December on a page titled “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted?” was the very first time that the organization applied the word “airborne” in reference to COVID-19.

“On 23 December the World Health Organization (WHO) uttered the one word it had previously seemed incapable of applying to the virus SARS-CoV-2: ‘airborne’,” science journalist Dyani Lewis wrote in an article published in Nature, a peer-reviewed science journal.

“It was a relief to finally use the word ‘airborne’, and to say clearly that airborne transmission and aerosol transmission are synonyms,” said Jose-Luis Jimenez, an aerosol chemist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The statement bearing WHO’s latest tweak on COVID’s transmissibility, according to Lewis, was the clearest statement yet about the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

This recent pronouncement by WHO placed SARS-CoV-2 on the list of airborne infections which included the world’s most virulent pathogens such as measles, chickenpox, and tuberculosis.

WHO’s changing views: COVID transmission

Early in the pandemic, studies and articles showed that many experts have stepped up and reached out to WHO to defend their claims about the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

However, experts said the organization was reluctant to accept and communicate evidence of airborne transmission.

On Mar. 29, 2020, WHO tweeted: “FACT #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs or sneezes.”

FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.

The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.

To protect yourself:
-keep 1m distance from others
-disinfect surfaces frequently
-wash/rub your 👐
-avoid touching your 👀👃👄 pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) March 28, 2020

WHO, following this finding, recommended social distancing of more than a meter—within which these droplets were thought to fall to the ground—hand washing, and surface disinfection to further prevent the transfer of droplets to the eyes, nose, and mouth.

Previous records showed that even before the organization recognized the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, it first acknowledged that the virus can be transmitted through droplets.

The organization took until Oct. 20, 2020, to acknowledge that aerosols, or tiny specks of fluid, can actually transmit the virus. However, at first, WHO noted that this can only occur particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation.

It was not until six months when the organization gradually altered its advice and said that aerosols could carry the virus for over a meter and could remain in the air.

“The disconnect was there even in the use of scientific terms. Infection-control experts have long drawn a hard line between droplet viruses and airborne ones, seeing only the latter as capable of traveling far and lingering in the air,” Lewis wrote.

Here is a timeline showing WHO’s changing views of how SARS-CoV-2 spread among people.

Feb. 23, 2020: WHO said the virus could spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth. The organization has yet to mention transmission by means of aerosols.

“The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person.”

“Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick.”

Mar. 29, 2020: WHO announced that the virus is not airborne, despite mounting reports and studies by experts pointing out that it could be.

“FACT #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs or sneezes,” WHO said in a tweet.

July 9, 2020: In a ‘Scientific Brief’, the organization acknowledged possible transmission of the virus by aerosol—contradicting its previous statements—while emphasizing the virus is transmitted through droplets that fall onto surfaces and can spread through surface contamination or close contact.

“Outside of medical facilities, some outbreak reports related to indoor crowded spaces have suggested the possibility of aerosol transmission, combined with droplet transmission, for example, during choir practice, in restaurants or in fitness classes.”

“In these events, short-range aerosol transmission, particularly in specific indoor locations, such as crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time with infected persons cannot be ruled out.”

READ: WHO: Indoor airborne spread of coronavirus possible

READ: WHO reviewing new evidence on airborne coronavirus range

Oct. 20, 2020: WHO announced that aerosol transmission occurs outside medical settings. The organization noted that more studies are underway to better understand aerosol transmission occurring outside medical settings.

“Current evidence suggests that the main way the virus spreads is by respiratory droplets among people who are in close contact with each other.”

“Aerosol transmission can occur in specific settings, particularly in indoor, crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces, where infected person(s) spend long periods of time with others, such as restaurants, choir practices, fitness classes, nightclubs, offices and/or places of worship.”

Apr. 30, 2021: For the first time, WHO mentioned that aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel long distances.

“Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, typically within 1 meter (short-range).”

“A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth.”

“The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 meter (long-range).”

Dec. 23, 2021: Almost two years into the pandemic, for the first time, WHO used the term “airborne”.

“Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, for example at a conversational distance…”

“The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel farther than conversational distance (this is often called long-range aerosol or long-range airborne transmission).”

READ: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted?

Why wait?

There have been many exchanges made and statements released as to why the WHO took two years to use the term “airborne”. A common defense by experts pointed out the rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation.

“I really don’t think anybody dropped the ball, including WHO,” said  Mitchell Schwaber, an infectious-disease physician at Israel’s ministry of health and an external adviser to WHO.

“So many assumptions that we had about this virus were proven false. We always, we always were learning new things,” Schwaber added.

Virologist May Chu, a member of the Infection Prevention and Control Guidance Development Group (IPC GDG)—an external group of about 40 clinicians and researchers that advisesWHO on infection containment—believed that the conservative recommendations by the organization might be due to prevent putting out information that might later prove to be incorrect.

“You can’t be backtracking then you lose complete credibility,” said Dale Fisher, an infectious diseases physician at the National University Hospital in Singapore and chair of the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network steering committee.

Science vs Lies

GRAPHIC: Ed Lustan

While the organization was able to try different things and approaches in the past—such as during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa—the COVID pandemic made it very tempting to be “very, very cautious” on releasing recommendations as it can impact millions of lives worldwide, according to Jody Lanard, an independent risk-communications specialist who previously worked with WHO.

Still, experts sought accountability from WHO, as well as clear communication of the transmission of COVID-19 and similar viruses in the future.

“We’re really talking here about two failures, not one. Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed your mind,” said independent risk-communications specialist and former WHO consultant Peter Sandman, who added that WHO and similar organizations “are afraid of losing credibility by acknowledging that they got something wrong.”

TSB

RELATED STORY: Lies about COVID remain contagious 3 years into pandemic

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

For more news about the novel coronavirus click here.

What you need to know about Coronavirus.

For more information on COVID-19, call the DOH Hotline: (02) 86517800 local 1149/1150.

The Inquirer Foundation supports our healthcare frontliners and is still accepting cash donations to be deposited at Banco de Oro (BDO) current account #007960018860 or donate through PayMaya using this link .

Read Next

Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.


[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Addressing the history and inequities in drinking water advisories

by

Access to clean drinking water is recognized as a human right by the United Nations (UN) and the quality of water is a determinant of human and ecosystem health. Canada holds over 20 per cent of the global freshwater supply, yet marginalized communities continue to be affected by drinking water advisories because drinking water supplies are not up to safe standards. 

These water advisories indicate a public safety threat posed by the current drinking water supply resulting from microbiological, chemical, and infrastructural factors, which are issued as a “boil water”, “do not consume”, or “do not use” advisories. 

Trudeau’s 2015 election campaign stated that long-term water advisories would be eliminated by March 2021. Since then, over 131 drinking water advisories have been resolved. However, seven years later, 34 long-term drinking water advisories are in effect in marginalized communities in Canada. 

Water advisories were never meant to be enforced long-term, and as it can take years to resolve the problems from which the advisories arose, the current system is an inadequate water safety tool. 

For example, the Shoal Lake Reserve No. 40, has had a water advisory in place for over 24 years. When the City of Winnipeg built an aqueduct to supply the capital with clean water in 1919, the Anishinaabe community of Shoal Lake 40 was displaced and isolated geographically from drinking water supplies, creating obstacles in accessing clean water, food, emergency services, as well as other necessities for over a century. 

After continuous rejection of water treatment facility proposals by the federal government due to the high costs, the construction of a road to connect the community to the Trans-Canada highway, dubbed “Freedom Road,” finally made this task feasible. The road allowed for the construction of a water treatment facility and the end of a 24-year long boil water advisory in September 2021, as it facilitated safe and year-round travel to the reserve and enabled affordable infrastructure development. 

This story is one of many, and despite 126 long-term drinking water advisories being lifted since November 2015, there are still 34 long-term drinking water advisories in effect — 24 being on-reserve.

A class-action litigation was recently filed against the federal government by Indigenous communities that had been without clean water for more than two years, arguing that Canada had failed to fulfill its duties according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

After a lengthy legal struggle, spanning several years and garnering abundant media attention, the Government of Canada paid a settlement of $8 billion to those who suffered due to water advisories that had been in place for an extended time. 

Just as with Shoal Lake 40, satisfactory solutions are very involved undertakings and require much more than financial compensation. Therefore, we call to hold the government accountable to ensure that all communities in Canada have immediate equitable access to essentials like clean drinking water.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Colorado environmental officials seek millions more to fight pollution

by

With the threat of missing another benchmark for improving air quality hovering like a blanket of summer smog, Colorado’s top environmental officials are asking the legislature for $47 million to hire more people and build better technology for monitoring unhealthy air, especially along the northern Front Range.

Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division expects the Environmental Protection Agency later this year to classify the state as a severe violator of federal air quality laws after the state recorded its worst-ever ozone levels during the summer of 2021, division director Michael Ogletree said in an interview with The Denver Post.

In 2019, the EPA declared Colorado a serious violator, forcing more enforcement of air pollution controls, and a move to the severe classification would further increase those enforcements to reign in the state’s worsening ozone problem.

“We’ve heard from folks that we will be reclassified to severe in the near future,” Ogletree said. “We’re preparing for that.”

A change in its status with the EPA would force lower emissions thresholds for manufacturers and other industrial facilities, meaning more work for the Air Pollution Control Division, which already is operating with a short staff, Ogletree said.

The division needs the $47 million requested from the legislature to prepare for the incoming workload, and the larger budget would help put more programs in place to control greenhouse gas and other emissions that deteriorate the Front Range’s air quality and harms people’s health.

A more strict classification also would impact the state’s oil and gas industry.

Gov. Jared Polis asked for the money in the budget he proposed to the legislature.

As the Front Range population grows so does the number of gasoline-powered cars and trucks on the road. Those vehicles are the No. 1 source of nitrous oxide emissions, which is a major contributor to the region’s ozone problem. Emissions from power plants and oil and gas production facilities contribute by releasing volatile organic compounds into the air while bigger and more frequent wildfires in the West also add to the problem.

During the summer of 2021, ozone levels at all 16 of the state’s measuring stations exceeded 78 parts per billion, above the federal health standard of 70 ppb. And scientists expect the Front Range’s air quality to continue to deteriorate unless immediate action is taken.

The governor also is working with Democrats to create more laws that would address the worsening air quality. Multiple bills are pending this year that would spend almost $125 million to buy a fleet of electric school buses, replace old diesel trucks with newer ones that produce fewer harmful emissions, make electric bicycles more accessible and allow for free public transit fares during the worst summer ozone days.

Already, the state has implemented new laws and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. But many of those things take years to make a difference, and Polis’s administration hopes this year’s asks will have a more immediate impact, said Jill Hunsaker Ryan, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

“The thing that’s probably hard for the public to understand is we’ve had so much go on in the last few years with these laws and regulations, but the state hasn’t seen the full benefit of these actions yet,” Hunsaker Ryan said.

The Air Pollution Control Division is operating with a permitting system that was created in the 1990s and complex air permit applications are still filled out on paper, she and Ogletree said. They want to move everything to a digital format and create online dashboards where people can check the state’s various pollution levels in near real-time.

“We can provide transparency to the community and everyone who is interested,” Hunsaker Ryan said.

The division employs 185 people, and if the budget request was approved, it would pay for an additional 106 full-time equivalent positions, Ogletree said.

One reason the Polis administration wants a huge infusion of money for its air pollution division is a change in how the division is funded. The division is financially supported through fees levied on industry, and, in the past, the division had to ask the legislature to increase fees, Hunsaker Ryan said.

“That always was a tough thing to do and it just didn’t happen,” she said. “Politically, it was a tough thing to do to go the legislature and get fees raised on industry.”

In 2019, the legislature allowed the Air Quality Control Commission to set the fees, but the commission didn’t want to place a sharp increase on industry right from the start, Hunsaker Ryan said. The budget request would give the division what it needs for two years to boost its staffing and technology.

“This is the way we intend to solve the problem of long-term underinvestment,” she said.

So far, Colorado’s efforts to improve air quality are earning support from environmental advocacy groups.

The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a public interest group that promotes energy efficiency in six western states, including Colorado, is urging the legislature to approve the package of air quality measures to combat drought, wildfires and other climate disasters.

Even though the organization supports the legislation, there are parts it disagrees with. For example, one bill would replace aging diesel trucks with newer models, but the groupwants all diesel trucks off the roads, said Will Frommer, the group’s senior transportation association.

“It seems like we are going backwards to create a new program for diesel trucks when we need to go all-in on electric trucks,” Frommer said. “We don’t have time to waste.”

2022 Air Quality Legislation

SB22-193

A big bill that would:

  • Create a $25 million fund to provide grants to industrial and manufacturing facilities and local governments for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Among the projects that would qualify are efforts that would use hydrogen fuel, electric vehicles and projects to reduce carbon and methane emissions. The grant program would dissolve on Sept. 1, 2029.
  • Create a $12 million fund to increase public access to electric bicycles through grants and rebates. The program would be repealed on Sept. 1, 2028.
  • Spend $15 million to decommission the oldest diesel trucks operating in Colorado and replace them with newer, more fuel-efficient models. The grant money would be available for public and private entities through July 1, 2032.
  • Spend $65 million to buy electric school buses in Colorado through Sept. 1, 2034
  • Provides $7 million to the state health department for aerial surveillance of pollutants
  • Provides $750,000 to the state health department provide free RTD passes for employees
  • Caps annual fees for industry at $1 million this year and allows those caps to rise annually until they reach a $5 million maximum on July 1, 2024.

SB22-180

This bill would set aside $14 million to provide free public transportation, largely through RTD, for one month each year when ozone pollution is at its highest levels. It also would provide $30 million to expand Bustang, the state’s regional bus service.

HB22-1244

A proposal that would give the state’s Air Quality Control Commission the authority to adopt rules that are more stringent than the federal Clean Air Act. The commission would be asked to regulate toxic air contaminants and companies that are sources of air pollution would have to submit annual reports that list the amount of contaminants they release. The bill also would develop a statewide air quality monitoring system and it would create a toxic air contaminant advisory board to determine which emissions would be monitored and regulated.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Red Hill Elementary remains cautious after drinking water contamination

by

Red Hill Elementary remains cautious after drinking water contamination | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Photos by Jamm Aquino |
April 10, 2022 

1 of 11

Our Privacy Policy has been updated. By continuing to use our site, you are acknowledging and agreeing to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Service.
I Agree

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

5 Easter gifts that aren’t chocolate – Royal Examiner

by

When the weather starts to warm up, it’s time to take care of your spring cleaning and yard work. Here’s a list of tasks to complete both inside and outside your home.

Inside

1. Sort through your belongings and throw away, sell and donate what you no longer need.
2. Air out each room.
3. Dust and clean the walls, ceilings, floors, and carpets.
4. Wash the windows, curtains, and blinds, and reinstall your window screens.
5. Clean out the pantry, refrigerator, freezer, cupboards, drawers, and medicine cabinets.
6. Wipe down the inside and outside of your small and large appliances.
7. Disinfect your garbage cans.
8. Dust all fan blades, baseboard heaters, and light fixtures.
9. Vacuum your chair cushions and mattresses and turn them inside out.
10. Check the attic to ensure there’s no water or pest damage.
11. Test your air conditioning unit.

Outside

12. Examine your home’s roof, skylights, and chimney, and schedule any necessary repairs.
13. Inspect your home’s foundation and seal any visible cracks.
14. Clean your gutters and make sure they’re in good condition so water drains away from your home.
15. Check all your door and window seals and make any necessary repairs.
16. Check your home’s siding, faucets, light fixtures, and electrical outlets.
17. Wash your home’s windows and siding.
18. Wash your deck, sand, and paint it if needed.
19. Hook up your water outlets and reinstall your garden hoses.
20. Put away your snow shovels and de-icers.
21. Open up your pool by removing the liner and turning on the water treatment system.
22. Inspect and repair your garden accessories, barbecue, and tools.
23. Trim back any tree branches or shrubs that are too close to your home.
24. Pull weeds, and rake and fertilize your yard.
25. Clean up your flower beds, remove any winter coverings and prune perennials, roses, evergreens, and spring-flowering shrubs.

Don’t delay — it’s time to get to work.



[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Board Of Water Supply Won’t Compromise Safety For Oahu Customers

by

The Honolulu Board of Water Supply would like to thank Civil Beat columnist Danny De Gracia for his efforts to continue the conversation regarding the ongoing drinking water crisis caused by the contamination of Oahu’s irreplaceable sole-source aquifer from the U.S. Navy’s operations at Red Hill. We cannot let this issue disappear; so long as millions of gallons of fuel remain directly over our aquifer, the very drinking water upon which the people of Oahu rely will be in peril.

Unfortunately, Mr. De Gracia’s opinion on the BWS’ response to the Red Hill emergency (“Don’t Stick Oahu Residents With The Bill For Red Hill”) simply misses the mark. It is not clear how Mr. De Gracia arrived at the idea the BWS is not pressing the Navy to take responsibility for the humanitarian and environmental emergency and disaster it caused.

For years, the BWS has been warning of the danger that the Red Hill facility poses to our drinking water and has written over 140 letters urging the Navy to take decisive action to address the Red Hill problem. Tragically, these pleas went largely unheeded until the Navy’s fuel releases impacted the drinking water of thousands of service members and their families.

Mr. De Gracia’s statements about the BWS “playing it safe” are simply wrong. To be clear, the BWS will not compromise when it comes to the safety of the water we supply to the people of Oahu. We take pride in ensuring our water is safe and pure when the communities we serve turn on their taps.

Mr. De Gracia appears to have misunderstood manager and chief engineer Ernie Lau’s important message. Mr. Lau was attempting to show the impact the Red Hill crisis was having on the Board of Water Supply and the tremendous amount of investment required to address the resulting fallout. The Board of Water Supply would like to assure Oahu residents that with the support of Hawaii’s congressional delegation and a direct request to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, we have made strong demands for federal financial support for these unplanned requirements.

Board of Water Supply Manager and Chief Engineer Ernie Lau fuel leak v3Board of Water Supply Manager and Chief Engineer Ernie Lau speaking to the media in December. Public hearings may be held on possible changes in customer water rates. Cory Lum/Civil Beat/2021

But, we cannot wait until the BWS receives federal funding before finding solutions to the existing problem; namely, the loss, possibly permanently, of vital drinking water sources, such as the Halawa Shaft, Aiea Well and Halawa Well. We must continue to be proactive in advancing our mission to provide safe, dependable, and affordable water now and into the future.

In furtherance of this mission, we do all that we can to ensure our rates remain affordable for the community. The BWS is funded by its rate payers; we do not receive any funding from the city.

Rate Study Planned

The BWS will be starting our five-year rate study shortly, a project already in procurement when the Navy service members and their families experienced the contamination of the Navy’s drinking water system. We will look very closely at what the rate study says, share this information with the community, and hold several public hearings on possible new rates as well as provide presentations to community groups and neighborhood boards.

It is certainly premature to assume rates will rise significantly. We will also consider any funding received from the federal government during or after this process and how it can benefit our rate payers — we have received a number of excellent, creative ideas from the community.

Safe water must be delivered to our customers.

Any possible rate increases would not be implemented until fiscal year 2024, at the earliest, and must be approved by the BWS Board. The BWS’ financial information and annual audits are available for review on our website and we update our board quarterly on budget performance. Our board meetings are open to the public.

In closing, Mr. De Gracia says “Don’t make locals fix problems they didn’t create. This is not our war, and this is not our bill to pick up.”

Mr. De Gracia is correct that we, the people of Oahu, did not create this problem. Our community is not responsible for the Navy’s actions, and the BWS will continue to do all that we can, including working to secure funding and reimbursement from the federal government, to hold the Navy accountable.

In the meantime, safe water must be delivered to our customers. That is something the BWS refuses to compromise on, and we will do everything in our power to ensure the availability of pure drinking water for the people of Oahu. We hope others will join the BWS in seeking federal government support to ensure we have a safe, reliable drinking water supply.

Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.

Sign Up

Sorry. That’s an invalid e-mail.

Thanks! We’ll send you a confirmation e-mail shortly.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Funding Deadline Extended to April 11 – Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Funding Available for Private Schools Throughout California | News

by

– Emergency Funding for at least $180M available to California K-12 Non-Public Schools (NPS) through the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Emergency Assistance to Non-public Schools (EANS II) Program.

– BOX Pure Air is the predominant listed vendor in the Vendor Selection and Services – Federal Stimulus Funding (CA Dept of Education) for Portable Air Purification Systems.

– Deadline For Needs Assessment Extended to April 11, 2022. All submissions need to be received by 5:00 pm.  Please contact Ryan Cowell at BOX Pure Air for immediate assistance.

Email: [email protected]  Phone: (843) 412-9388

CHARLESTON, S.C., April 8, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Eligible California Non-public Schools (NPS) have until April 11, 2022 at 5PM Pacific Time to apply for access to over $180 million made available through the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Emergency Assistance to Non-public Schools (EANS) Program which provided for over $5.5B to assist Non-Public Schools that can be utilized to supplement purchases designed to enhance health and safety in schools and classrooms such as Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). The federal government has previously allocated over $121B for our national K-12 Public Schools and in March 2022 the White House highlighted an additional $350B that is available to address improving Indoor Air Quality through its “Clean Air in Buildings Challenge”.  Clean Indoor Air in schools, buildings, and the places we gather is essential and can no longer be ignored.

Eligible California Non-Public Schools have until April 11, 2022 at 5PM Pacific Time to apply for access to over $180M 

BOX Pure Air (www.boxpureair.com) and its commercial-grade solution, built in the USA, products and services are listed in the Vendor Selection and Services to address Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) utilizing HEPA filters and Portable Air Purification Systems.  The solutions provided by BOX Pure Air are designed, built and certified to US Government standard and enhance existing room ventilation systems, increase the indoor air exchange rate, filter and purify the air to improve Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) for teachers, students and staff.

The BOX Pure Air products and services on the Vendor Selection include the following:

     Portable Air Purification Unit Apex 2.0

     Portable Air Purification Unit Peak

     Portable Air Purification Unit Mesa

     Replacement HEPA Filter – replace every 4 years

     Replacement Pre-Filter Set – replace every 6 months

     Consulting Services (hourly rate) – Training and professional development for staff on sanitation, the use of PPE, and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases

For more information, please visit the California Department of Education website at https://surveys3.cde.ca.gov/s.asp?k=164789404567

American Rescue Plan Act: Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools Program Needs Assessment: California Department of Education

A program sponsored under the American Rescue Plan Act to provide funding to Non-Public Private Schools and eligible Non-Public Schools

As part of the ARP 2021, Public Law 117-2, Public Law 117-2, Congress set aside $2.75 billion of the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund specifically to provide emergency assistance to students and teachers in non-public schools (NPS), as defined below, through the ARP EANS program. The purpose of the ARP EANS program is to provide services or assistance to NPS that enroll a significant percentage of students from low-income families and are most impacted by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency.

The Needs Assessment window is from March 25−April 11, 2022. All submissions need to be received by 5:00 pm on April 11, 2022.

     The survey consists of two parts: Part A: Cover Sheet and Part B: Vendor Selection and Services. A completed spreadsheet will be uploaded as an attachment in Part B as an Excel file

     The Vendor Selection and Services Excel file is available from the CDE EANS Program Web page. All questions are required except where it is denoted next to the question in parenthesis.

About BOX Pure Air

BOX Pure Air is a subsidiary of SinglePoint Inc (OTC: SING). The company strives to provide the best products to help clean air through the deployment of high-efficiency air purification technologies. Learn more at www.boxpureair.com

Contact Information

[email protected]

843.936.6649

www.boxpureair.com

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this news release may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of Rule 175 under the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 3b-6 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and are subject to the safe harbor created by those rules. All statements, other than statements of fact, included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential future plans and objectives of the Company, are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.

 

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/funding-deadline-extended-to-april-11—indoor-air-quality-iaq-funding-available-for-private-schools-throughout-california-301520678.html

SOURCE BOX Pure Air

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Josef Newgarden holds off Grosjean, Palou to win Long Beach

by

LONG BEACH, Calif. — A game of leapfrog during the pit sequences, an in-lap that went terribly wrong for the polesitter and a late-race caution turned IndyCar’s Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach on its head multiple times Sunday.

When the dust settled, last month’s race-winner at Texas, Josef Newgarden, got the best of the defending series champ, Alex Palou, as well as Romain Grosjean, and took over the 2022 championship lead.

Here’s how Newgarden’s second win of the year unfolded.

Apr 10, 2022; Long Beach, California, USA; Team Penske driver Josef Newgarden (2) of United States during morning warm up for the Grand Prix of Long Beach at Long Beach Street Circuit.

Alex Palou wins the first pitstop game

After a relatively quite first sequence of the race, Palou seemingly came out of nowhere and jumped pole-sitter Colton Herta and front-row starter Newgarden on the first set of pitstops. Palou pitted Lap 28 from 3rd-place, two laps earlier than Herta and three sooner than Newgarden. When the No. 2 Team Penske Chevy came out and blended into the field, all eyes were on whether Newgarden would come out ahead of Herta or not.

He did but more than three seconds up the course sat Palou, whose undercut strategy by pitting early gave him some clean air to stretch his legs. The Chip Ganassi Racing driver, who narrowly took runner-up in the season’s first street race in St. Pete two months ago, rode his lead that ranged from just under two seconds to nearly four for the rest of that stint.

After Herta looked as if he had by far the dominant car, Palou became the unbeatable-looking one. Until…

Apr 10, 2022; Long Beach, California, USA; Andretti Autosport with Curb-Agajanian driver Colton Herta (26) of United States during morning warm up for the Grand Prix of Long Beach at Long Beach Street Circuit.

Josef Newgarden jumps Alex Palou back

Palou pitted Lap 56, again ahead of Herta and Newgarden. Andretti’s Herta looked to be doing so the following lap when, on his in-lap, he clipped the wall in Turn 9 and smashed his car beyond repair. He was able to get it off the course and near pitlane via the alternate pit entrance, requiring only a local yellow. Curiously, IndyCar opted not to throw a full-course yellow flag for the debris Herta’s crash left on the track.

“Just a stupid mistake,” Herta said of his accident. “We were definitely in that thing and were keeping up with Alex and Josef. It’s just unfortunate. I feel really bad.”

Uncertain whether IndyCar would throw a yellow or not, Newgarden pitted on Lap 58 and did what Palou had done 30 laps prior — leapfrogging into the lead after a faster stop. Newgarden’s blend onto the track put him square in front of Palou, and the two had contact in the ensuing corners, but Newgarden held onto the lead. Two laps later, Simon Pagenaud spun after hitting the side of Takuma Sato around the fountain, and his car ended up turned around 180-degrees in the bushes.

More:IndyCar Long Beach: Pole winner Herta crashes from second; Pagenaud drives over flowers

A full-course caution came out, and it took the AMR safety team six laps to get the track cleaned before the race restarted on Lap 66 with 20 to go. On the restart, Marcus Ericsson, running 3rd up from starting 8th, lost the rear of his car in Turn 4, hit the wall, and then was run into by his teammate Scott Dixon in Turn 5.

Able to get his car off the track, the race remained green, and equipped with a push-to-pass advantage and the only car in the front pack on red tires to finish the race, Romain Grosjean overtook Palou to move into 2nd-place.

Apr 10, 2022; Long Beach, California, USA; Andretti Autosport driver Romain Grosjean (28) of France during morning warm up for the Grand Prix of Long Beach at Long Beach Street Circuit.

Newgarden holds on amid late chaos

By Lap 71, though, Grosjean had eaten up all his push to pass, and his red tires were starting to wear. Five laps later, Jimmie Johnson struggled on the brakes and smashed the wall for his third time this weekend in Turn 8. David Malukas couldn’t avoid him, causing another late caution, bunching up the field.

More:IndyCar: Johnson’s difficult weekend continues, Malukas dealt second DNF in three races

With no push-to-pass, Grosjean couldn’t muster a jump on the race-leader. Sato ended up in the wall moments before the white flag flew and the race ended under yellow, giving Newgarden his first Long Beach victory in his 11 years in the series after leading 32 of 85 laps.

“Very close, but just not close enough,” Grosjean said of his fourth IndyCar podium through 16 starts.

Newgarden’s victory meant three consecutive wins to start the season for Team Penske, the first time it has done so since they won Races 1-4 in 2012. Newgarden now holds a five-point lead on McLaughlin heading into next month’s race at Barber.

“This was a fight today, This was not an easy win. It might have looked simple on the outside, but I was working my butt off with Grosjean at the end there,” Newgarden said. “With the used reds, I hoped he would fade a bit towards the end, and I was hoping I could hold him off.

“I think Romain, overall, had a better shot at pulling this out (than Palou), and fortunately, we were able to hold on.”

Email IndyStar motor sports reporter Nathan Brown at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @By_NathanBrown.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here