# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Air pollution refers to the release of pollutants into the air-pollutants that are detrimental to human health and the planet as a whole. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) , each year, indoor and outdoor air pollution is responsible for nearly seven million deaths around the globe. Ninety-nine percent of human beings currently breathe air that exceeds the WHO's guideline limits for pollutants, with those living in low- and middle-income countries suffering the most. In the United States, the Clean Air Act , established in 1970, authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to safeguard public health by regulating the emissions of these harmful air pollutants.

What Causes Air Pollution?

"Most air pollution comes from energy use and production," says , director of the Clean Air team at NRDC. Driving a car on gasoline, heating a home with oil, running a power plant on fracked gas : In each case, a fossil fuel is burned and harmful chemicals and gases are released into the air.

"We've made progress over the last 50 years in improving air quality in the United States, thanks to the Clean Air Act. But climate change will make it harder in the future to meet pollution standards, which are designed to protect health ," says Walke.

Air pollution is now the world's fourth-largest risk factor for early death. According to the 2020 State of Global Air report -which summarizes the latest scientific understanding of air pollution around the world-4.5 million deaths were linked to outdoor air pollution exposures in 2019, and another 2.2 million deaths were caused by indoor air pollution. The world's most populous countries, China and India, continue to bear the highest burdens of disease.

The effects of air pollution on the human body vary, depending on the type of pollutant, the length and level of exposure, and other factors, including a person's individual health risks and the cumulative impacts of multiple pollutants or stressors.

Smog and soot

These are the two most prevalent types of air pollution. Smog (sometimes referred to as ground-level ozone) occurs when emissions from combusting fossil fuels react with sunlight. Soot-a type of particulate matter -is made up of tiny particles of chemicals, soil, smoke, dust, or allergens that are carried in the air. The sources of smog and soot are similar. "Both come from cars and trucks, factories, power plants, incinerators, engines, generally anything that combusts fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline, or natural gas," Walke says.

Smog can irritate the eyes and throat and also damage the lungs, especially those of children, senior citizens, and people who work or exercise outdoors. It's even worse for people who have asthma or allergies; these extra pollutants can intensify their symptoms and trigger asthma attacks. The tiniest airborne particles in soot are especially dangerous because they can penetrate the lungs and bloodstream and worsen bronchitis, lead to heart attacks, and even hasten death. In 2020, a report from Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health showed that COVID-19 mortality rates were higher in areas with more particulate matter pollution than in areas with even slightly less, showing a correlation between the virus's deadliness and long-term exposure to air pollution.

Hazardous air pollutants

Another category of toxic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are by-products of traffic exhaust and wildfire smoke. In large amounts, they have been linked to eye and lung irritation, blood and liver issues, and even cancer. In one study , the children of mothers exposed to PAHs during pregnancy showed slower brain-processing speeds and more pronounced symptoms of ADHD.

Greenhouse gases

While these climate pollutants don't have the direct or immediate impacts on the human body associated with other air pollutants, like smog or hazardous chemicals, they are still harmful to our health. By trapping the earth's heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases lead to warmer temperatures, which in turn lead to the hallmarks of climate change: rising sea levels, more extreme weather, heat-related deaths, and the increased transmission of infectious diseases. In 2021, carbon dioxide accounted for roughly 79 percent of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions, and methane made up more than 11 percent. "Carbon dioxide comes from combusting fossil fuels, and methane comes from natural and industrial sources, including large amounts that are released during oil and gas drilling," Walke says. "We emit far larger amounts of carbon dioxide, but methane is significantly more potent, so it's also very destructive."

Pollen and mold

Mold and allergens from trees, weeds, and grass are also carried in the air, are exacerbated by climate change, and can be hazardous to health. Though they aren't regulated, they can be considered a form of air pollution. "When homes, schools, or businesses get water damage, mold can grow and produce allergenic airborne pollutants," says Kim Knowlton, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University and a former NRDC scientist. " Mold exposure can precipitate asthma attacks or an allergic response, and some molds can even produce toxins that would be dangerous for anyone to inhale."

Pollen allergies are worsening because of climate change . "Lab and field studies are showing that pollen-producing plants-especially ragweed-grow larger and produce more pollen when you increase the amount of carbon dioxide that they grow in," Knowlton says. "Climate change also extends the pollen production season, and some studies are beginning to suggest that ragweed pollen itself might be becoming a more potent allergen." If so, more people will suffer runny noses, fevers, itchy eyes, and other symptoms. "And for people with allergies and asthma, pollen peaks can precipitate asthma attacks, which are far more serious and can be life-threatening."

Air Pollution in the United States

More than one in three U.S. residents-120 million people-live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution, according to the by the American Lung Association (ALA). Since the annual report was first published, in 2000, its findings have shown how the Clean Air Act has been able to reduce harmful emissions from transportation, power plants, and manufacturing.

Recent findings, however, reflect how climate change-fueled wildfires and extreme heat are adding to the challenges of protecting public health. The latest report-which focuses on ozone, year-round particle pollution, and short-term particle pollution-also finds that people of color are 61 percent more likely than white people to live in a county with a failing grade in at least one of those categories, and three times more likely to live in a county that fails in all three.

In rankings for each of the three pollution categories covered by the ALA report, California cities occupy the top three slots (i.e., were highest in pollution), despite progress that the Golden State has made in reducing air pollution emissions in the past half century. At the other end of the spectrum, these cities consistently rank among the country's best for air quality: Burlington, Vermont; Honolulu; and Wilmington, North Carolina.

Air Pollution and Environmental Justice

No one wants to live next door to an incinerator, oil refinery, port, toxic waste dump, or other polluting site. Yet millions of people around the world do, and this puts them at a much higher risk for respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, neurological damage, cancer, and death. In the United States, people of color are 1.5 times more likely than whites to live in areas with poor air quality, according to the ALA.

Historically, racist zoning policies and discriminatory lending practices known as have combined to keep polluting industries and car-choked highways away from white neighborhoods and have turned communities of color-especially low-income and working-class communities of color-into sacrifice zones, where residents are forced to breathe dirty air and suffer the many health problems associated with it. In addition to the increased health risks that come from living in such places, the polluted air can economically harm residents in the form of missed workdays and higher medical costs.

Environmental racism isn't limited to cities and industrial areas. Outdoor laborers, including the estimated three million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States, are among the most vulnerable to air pollution-and they're also among the least equipped, politically, to pressure employers and lawmakers to affirm their right to breathe clean air.

Recently, cumulative impact mapping , which uses data on environmental conditions and demographics, has been able to show how some communities are overburdened with layers of issues, like high levels of poverty, unemployment, and pollution. Tools like the Environmental Justice Screening Method and the EPA's provide evidence of what many environmental justice communities have been explaining for decades: that we need land use and public health reforms to ensure that vulnerable areas are not overburdened and that the people who need resources the most are receiving them.

Controlling Air Pollution

In the United States, the Clean Air Act has been a crucial tool for reducing air pollution since its passage in 1970, although fossil fuel interests aided by industry-friendly lawmakers have frequently attempted to its many protections. Ensuring that this bedrock environmental law remains intact and properly enforced will always be key to maintaining and improving our air quality.

But the best, most effective way to control air pollution is to speed up our transition to cleaner fuels and industrial processes. By switching over to renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar power), maximizing fuel efficiency in our vehicles, and replacing more and more of our gasoline-powered cars and trucks with electric versions, we'll be limiting air pollution at its source while also curbing the global warming that heightens so many of its worst health impacts.

And what about the economic costs of controlling air pollution? According to a report on the Clean Air Act commissioned by NRDC, the annual benefits of cleaner air are up to 32 times greater than the cost of clean air regulations. Those benefits include up to 370,000 avoided premature deaths, 189,000 fewer hospital admissions for cardiac and respiratory illnesses, and net economic benefits of up to $3.8 trillion for the U.S. economy every year.

How to Help Reduce Air Pollution

"The less gasoline we burn, the better we're doing to reduce air pollution and the harmful effects of climate change," Walke explains. "Make good choices about transportation. When you can, ride a bike, walk, or take public transportation. For driving, choose a car that gets better miles per gallon of gas or buy an electric car ." You can also investigate your power provider options-you may be able to request that your electricity be supplied by wind or solar. Buying your food locally cuts down on the fossil fuels burned in trucking or flying food in from across the world. And most important: "Support leaders who push for clean air and water and responsible steps on climate change," Walke says.

How to Protect Your Health

"When you see in the news or hear on the weather report that pollution levels are high, it may be useful to limit the time when children go outside or you go for a jog," Walke says. Generally, ozone levels tend to be lower in the morning.

If you exercise outside, stay as far as you can from heavily trafficked roads. Then shower and wash your clothes to remove fine particles.

The air may look clear, but that doesn't mean it's pollution free. Utilize tools like the EPA's air pollution monitor, , to get the latest conditions. If the air quality is bad, stay inside with the windows closed.

If you live or work in an area that's prone to wildfires, stay away from the harmful smoke as much as you're able. Consider keeping a small stock of masks to wear when conditions are poor. The most ideal masks for smoke particles will be labelled "NIOSH" (which stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) and have either "N95" or "P100" printed on it.

If you're using an air conditioner while outdoor pollution conditions are bad, use the recirculating setting to limit the amount of polluted air that gets inside.

This story was originally published on November 1, 2016, and has been updated with new information and links.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can't resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can't republish our material wholesale or automatically-you need to select stories individually; you can't republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should to let us know when you've used one of our stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air Pollution: Everything You Need to Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The effects of air pollution wreck havoc on human health and our planet as a whole. Learn about what causes air pollution and how to help reduce the effects.

# data[].attributes.body
Image

# data[].attributes.body
Effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6.45pm BST

I approached Shell, BP and Cairn Energy about their past operations and future plans in the Arctic. All of them declined to comment saying they were not currently drilling in the region.

Parliamentary green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, produced a report last year on the impact of climate change on the Arctic and the safety of oil and gas drilling in the region.

The committee said:

It [the report] concluded that the lack of proven oil spill response techniques makes exploring for new reserves in the extreme Arctic environment needlessly risky. The MPs also pointed out that the world already has more proven oil and gas reserves than can be burnt without exceeding a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees - widely regarded as a dangerous threshold.

The report called for a moratorium on Arctic oil and gas drilling, and challenged the UK government - which supports drilling by UK companies like Shell in the Arctic - to set out how future Arctic oil and gas extraction could be reconciled with its commitment to limit global temperature increases to below 2C.

Joan Walley, chair of the committee, said:

"Protecting the Arctic should automatically be high on the political agenda. It should not be left to peaceful protesters to insist that risks from oil exploitation in this fragile environment be urgently addressed.

"There should be informed international dialogue and action and I hope our report and follow up to it can be part of the process for tackling the threats that the Greenpeace protesters have so graphically exposed."

"The government has sadly not been very receptive to our recommendations, but did at least acknowledge the need for an Arctic strategy cutting across the remits of all relevant government departments. We will be scrutinising that policy framework carefully when it is produced."

Professor Klaus Dodds, professor of geopolitics at Royal Holloway's department of geography, says:

"... drilling in the Arctic varies so very greatly depending on where you are talking about e.g. Northern Norway is very different to say Alaska. Offshore drilling is less well developed compared to onshore. And places like the Hibernia development is arguably more challenging in the sub-Arctic than parts of the so-called blue Arctic north of Scandinavia ... so geography matters.

"My own view is that the environmental impact needs to be juxtaposed with social-cultural impact as well as possible benefits. In Greenland, opinion is divided and one thing to be clear on is that northern communities are not always opposed to resource extraction. The issue is sharing and consultation as well as regulation."

Dr Simon Boxall from the University of Southampton says that, at present, Arctic drilling does not have the technology to clean up a spill.

"Companies will say that it won't happen, we've got so many fail-safes these days that it's a perfectly safe operation. But there's no such thing as a fail-safe. If there was a a fail-safe, we wouldn't have planes crashing... Human error and humans cutting corners means that accidents happen. And there will be a spill in the Arctic. And as with the Gulf of Mexico it'll probably be fumbling in the dark a bit, dealing with it as it happens."

But Boxall says that the Arctic climate means an oil spill in the far north could be much harder to clean up than the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"The environment in the tropics and certainly in the Gulf of Mexico is such that nature kicks in and it deals with oil that gets spilt in the tropics very efficiently. Even in fairly temperate climates, bacteria take over and they clean up what we leave behind. Now in the Arctic things are very different. In the Arctic it's much much colder first of all, which means that the whole process takes much longer. So we have a problem, the fact that we are putting our oil in the fridge and that keeps it in its natural state.

"Problem number two is the spill, when it happens, whether it's from a tanker, whether it's from a drill operation if it's close to the ice edge, will go under the ice and we have no research and no experience with a spill that goes under ice.

"Problem number three is that we are working in a remote part of the world. In the Gulf of Mexico we are close to big international airports, we can get big heavy equipment in. There are ships sitting there, there's big industry there. There are small ships ready to deal with clean up and that sort of thing. That infrastructure doesn't exist in the Arctic."

Boxall says that the issue is complicated by the need to find new reserves of oil:

"There are lots of unknowns in terms of what happens. So scientifically, I suppose, our role is to say, what are the problems? What are the solutions? The problems are oil won't break down quickly, it will be diffuclt to tackle and we don't have models and detailed methodology for dealing with oil in that kind of climate. What are the positives? There's lots of oil up there. So it's a balance between are we ready to go oil free yet as a society? And the answer is no. Personally, I'm not a great fan of exploring the Arctic but I can see that there is an imperative almost that if we don't start exploring less suitable places then we are going to run out of oil."

Reaction is coming in quickly now so stay tuned for further updates.

The Guardian's energy editor, Terry Macalister, has written extensively on this topic, including an e-book called Polar Opposites, Opportunities and Threats in the Arctic, published last year.

Today he writes of the need for transparency from exploration companies:

The oil industry is looking down a telescope from the wrong end. To them the Arctic area is just another geological prospect to be looked at like any other. Big Oil has been spurred on by US Geological Surveyors who claim a quarter of the recoverable hydrocarbon reserves may lie there.

But the far north is a special area - one of the world's last pieces of wilderness - and should be recognised as such: a priceless environmental gem, like Antarctica which is guarded by international treaty.

Much of the Arctic is untouched by human footprint and there is an array of unique animal species which live there and are already in danger. The fact that it is one of the places in the world that is most exposed to climate change makes it ironic, if nothing else, that the oil industry is determined to extract more fossil fuels there.

Drilling for oil is a messy business at the best of times. Look at pictures of the early days of Baku to see what impact it can have on the environment, or more recently of course the beaches off the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was able to call upon dozens of marine craft to help with the Macondo blowout at short notice. Obtaining the same kind of support would have been much harder had there been an oil spill off Greenland when Cairn Energy was drilling there.

There are all sorts of special problems that arise with working in the Arctic, not least the exact impact of a crude spill in ice conditions. I have read nothing that makes me feel this issue is properly understood.

Equally Cairn and the Greenland government both seemed queasy about releasing details in public of oil spill plans. That secrecy gets to the heart of the problems in the far north today.

The littoral states that surround the Arctic Ocean would like the rest of the world to leave them alone to explore for oil, iron ore or just tourist opportunities, none more so than Russia where the government expects to get its own way on most things and does not recognise any right to scrutiny by outside interests, certainly not environmentalists.

But if the Arctic is to be left purely to the control of the surrounding countries then they owe the rest of the world one thing at least: transparency. In the absence of this we need someone to act boldly as our eyes and ears: if not Greenpeace then who?

Professor Rick Steiner from Oasis Earth Sustainability Consultancy wrote this assessment of what he says are the inherent and unavoidable risks of Arctic exploration. I highly recommend a full read of the document as Steiner goes to the heart of today's Eco Audit question.

"Put simply oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean cannot be done safely - there will be chronic degradation, there will be spills. So the policy question is whether we wish to expose the Arctic Ocean and its people to such risk.

"And, perhaps a larger issue is that all of the carbon produced from the Arctic seabed will ultimately be emitted into the global atmosphere and oceans, further compounding climate change that is already devastating the Arctic ecosystem."

Louise Rouse from NGO ShareAction says there are many examples of the oil industry's unpreparedness to move into the challenging Arctic region:

In the case of Russian Arctic projects, the risks that Shell - one of the most advanced and experienced oil companies in the world - could not successfully navigate are compounded by a lack of relevant experience by the two Russian companies with exclusive rights to drill in the Russian Arctic and with whom international oil companies like Shell are entering into alliances - Rosneft and Gazprom.

Arctic oil and gas exploration presents new and unique challenges to the oil industry. These challenges are compounded in the Russian Arctic by Gazprom and Rosneft's lack of experience of offshore projects at senior level, poor environmental and health and safety track records, a lack of transparency in company reporting and questionable corporate practices at board level. These unpredictable and risky corporate practices are compounded by a complex political regime that is currently divided over the future of the Russian energy sector. In this context, the rush to gain access to the Russian Arctic seas through JVs with and/or share acquisitions in Russian oil and gas giants, Gazprom and Rosneft, is worthy of investor scrutiny.

To illustrate this lack of experience:

Rosneft:

Has never brought an offshore project to extraction stage as operator.

Responsible for 2,727 or 75% of spills in Russia's largest oil province Yugra in 2011 while extracting only 25% of the total regional output that year.

Still lacks sufficient expertise at appropriate levels despite recent appointments.

Gazprom

The Kolskaya rig sank, killing 53 of its 67 crew after Gazprom's subsidiary Gazflot continued drilling outside of the approved season and without carrying out all necessary assessments

No member of the board of directors has specific offshore experience or with special responsibility for offshore projects

Has taken no steps to address the lack of offshore drilling expertise or oversight at board level.

Gazprom's headline Arctic JV with Total and Statoil, which was to operate the massive Shtokman field in the Barents Sea, fell apart in 2012 after years of delays, a cost rise from $20bn to $40bn and lack of clarity over fiscal conditions made extraction economically unfeasible.

One of the major narratives the green movement has been propagating is that of an oil and gas rush with irresponsible companies storming north trying to beat one another to tap newly available reserves.

But an article by Paul Betts in Oil Magazine suggests otherwise. "After a period of "irrational exuberance," the pace in the Arctic is slowing. In the last year; Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Statoil have stopped drilling, and Gazprom has suspended the Shtokman project," he says.

Betts says the industry may have gotten ahead of itself in its excitement at new opportunities presented by retreating sea ice. He said it was clear that the industry had become "increasingly skeptical about the ability of oil companies - at least for now - to drill, extract and ship the oil and gas safely in the extreme weather and sea conditions of this remote region".

The enormous costs of developing new technologies was a deterrent to investment he said. As well as embarrassing incidents such as the grounding of a Shell rig in January 2013, which highlighted the difficulty of operating in the storm torn seas of the north.

Betts says these costs, when combined with low oil prices and competition from new energy resources like coal-seam gas and LNG, mean that the Arctic region has become less enticing for oil companies.

A report by consultancy firm Ernst and Young said Arctic exploration is "not for the faint of heart, nor for those with less than deep pockets".

Betts says extra pressure is being applied to companies by uncertainty over the geopolitics of the Arctic. Russia is one of the key drivers of Arctic exploration. Oil and gas resources in the region are key to Russia's geopolitical strategy and energy security. "Russia, however, is also fully aware that it cannot do this by itself and that the development of the oil and gas sector, particularly offshore, depends to some extent of the participation and cooperation of Western oil companies," says Betts.

Statoil spokesperson Bård Glad Pedersen says the Norwegian oil and gas company is exploring the Arctic through a step-by-step approach that builds on decades of experience in cold water regions.

"Statoil have taken a step-wise approach to the Arctic. A prerequisite to any activity or any drilling is that we are able to do it safely and responsibly. We have 20 years experience from the Norwegian Barents Sea in ice free areas. We have around 90 wells and also made large discoveries. Currently we are drilling in ice free areas or ice free periods of the year.

"I think this step-wise approach where you develop competence. experience and technology to take on new challenges going forward is the right approach to have. We will not move faster into the Arctic than technology allows us to make sure than we are able to do it safely."

He says different Arctic regions offer different challenges to drilling companies:

"It is important to understand that there are different areas within the Arctic that present different challenges. A substantial part of the Arctic is ice-free. But it could be areas which are dark, remote and maybe you could have icing of equipment so you need to take those challenges seriously. I think we are able to do that.

"Where there's no ice you need to have heating equipment and insulation to avoid freezing on the rigs. On the east coast of Canada, where we recently made a large oil discovery, you need to have a system to manage icebergs who occasionally drift by. We have ships in place to tow them on to different routes. In this area there has been oil and gas activity for years and you have these systems developed."

On the activities of other Arctic exploration companies, he said: "I think there is a general understanding of the challenges in the Arctic and the need to develop technology and competence."

Oil Magazine, an energy industry quarterly, devoted the whole of its March 2013 issue to Arctic energy exploration. Disappearing Arctic sea ice is seen as a huge opportunity for an energy industry seeking new reserves of fossil fuels. "20% of the world's unexplored gas and oil potential lies in the Arctic," says Oil.

"The new frontier of energy procurement runs along the Arctic Circle," says editor-in-chief, Gianni di Giovanni.

Economist Geminello Alvi writes: "With the melting of the ice, this most inhospitable of areas might one day be green again, and even inhabited, as in the myths about the Hyperboreans."

It is clear from reading Oil that the energy industry sees an exciting future beneath the Arctic seas. But Oil journalist Moisés Naím says: "Critical environmental, technological, political and institutional questions remain unanswered."

Naím says the impacts of climate change have led to inevitable interest from oil and gas companies as the retreating sea ice exposes large, untapped resources: "The trend, then is for climate change to make the region more accessible, bolstering the attraction to the Arctic's wealth of oil, gas, and mineral supplies."

But Naím says the cost implications should mean exploration is cautious and mindful of the delicate Arctic environment: "Limiting the costs and damages associated with industrial development, climate change, pollution, natural resource extraction, and disturbance to the precious ecosystem must be prioritized and monitored with great attention."

Naím identifies two extreme futures for the Arctic. An anarchic, exploitative future where poor governance, activism and pollution are rife and a sustainable, harmonious future in which governments, energy companies and NGOs cooperate to decide on best practice exploration. He admits that the second alternative seems utopian.

Greenpeace identifies two distinct threats posed by drilling in the Arctic. One is the immediate threat of an oil spill. Greenpeace claims oil companies do not have appropriate risk mitigation against this kind of accident.

The indirect threat to the Arctic ecosystem posed by climate change and the fossil fuel industry's contribution to carbon emissions is the underpinning motivation for Greenpeace's actions. Diminishing Arctic sea ice poses a direct threat to the Arctic's biodiversity and eventually to the planet, say Greenpeace.

Their website says Arctic oil exploration is being assisted by the melting ice:

The fragile Arctic is under threat from both climate change and oil drilling. As climate change melts the Arctic ice, oil companies are moving in to extract more of the fossil fuels that caused the melt in the first place. But above the Arctic circle, freezing temperatures, a narrow drilling window and a remote location mean that an oil spill would be almost impossible to deal with. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen. Greenpeace is working to halt climate change and to stop this new oil rush at the top of the world.

Shell has been a particular target of Greenpeace. To examine some of Greenpeace's claims against the Dutch and British-owned company you can read a list of their charges against them. Mostly Greenpeace says it is concerned about the company's unpreparedness to contain any accident.

"The Arctic is the air conditioner and the refrigerator of the planet and what happens here affect all of us," says Kumi Naidoo in this interview with Bill Moyers.

Russia today charged Greenpeace activists with piracy for their protest action on a Gazprom oil rig in the Arctic Circle. Russia's police action and the potential for draconian punishments (piracy carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in Russia) is "the most serious threat to Greenpeace's peaceful environmental activism" since the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, according to Greenpeace executive director, Kumi Naidoo.

Apart from Greenpeace's right to protest, what is at stake in the Arctic? And why is Greenpeace so concerned about Arctic drilling in particular?

Today I will be talking to experts, industry and scientists about the potential environmental impacts of an Arctic energy rush.

You too can help with the investigation. Please write your thoughts in the comments below, or tweet me, or email me. If you are quoting figures or studies, please provide a link through to the original source. Later I will return with my own verdict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drilling in the Arctic - what is the environmental impact?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
6.45pm BST I approached Shell, BP and Cairn Energy about their past operations and future plans in the Arctic. All of them declined to comment saying they were not currently drilling in the region. Parliamentary green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, produced a report last year on the impact of climate change on the Arctic and the safety of oil and gas drilling in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deep Sea (Offshore) Drilling Oil Well Exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They are virtual cities stuck in the middle of some of the most dangerous seas on earth. Life on them is hard and fraught with danger from calamitous fires a. Animation of deepwater drilling. Drilling wells is one of the most important activities in the process of finding hydrocarbon reservoirs and producing oil and gas from these reservoirs to me.

# data[].attributes.body
Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harmful Environmental Impacts of Oil Drilling in Alaska

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public argument about oil drilling in Alaska for my English 102 class.

# data[].attributes.body
Effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about land pollution and how it effects the environment and health. Study causes, pollutants, garbage, landfills, trash, and facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the decades before government regulations were put in place for landfills, anything and everything could be buried beneath the ground at an old dump site, some of which may still be releasing toxic chemicals or other hazardous materials into the Earth. As buried organic materials decompose, they release methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read)

Landfills and dumps buried over often become suburban home sites in later years, unbeknownst to people who may live on them. Landfills have a distinctive effect on air pollution, nature, land and humans. Soil in the area may be saturated with chemicals or hazardous substances

About two-thirds of landfill waste contains biodegradable organic matter from households, business and industry. As this material decomposes, it releases methane gas. As a potent greenhouse gas, methane traps up to 20 times more heat in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide the EPA states. In the U.K., much of that methane from landfill sites produce electricity, with carbon dioxide as a by-product, which has a weaker global warming effect. Oftentimes the air surrounding landfill sites smells unpleasant, due to the decaying organic waste.

According to the Romanian Ministry of Environment and Forests, the development of a landfill site means the loss of approximately 30 to 300 species per hectare. Changes also occur in local species, with some mammals and birds being replaced by species that feed on refuse, such as rats and crows. Vegetation changes also occur, regardless of the duration of the landfill site, as some plant species are replaced by others.

As rain falls on landfill sites, organic and inorganic constituents dissolve, forming highly toxic chemicals leaching into groundwater. Water that rinses through these chemicals collects at the base of the landfill and usually contains high levels of toxic metals, ammonia, toxic organic compounds and pathogens. This can result in serious contamination of the local groundwater. Even more dangers, this mixture usually creates a high biological oxygen demand, meaning it can quickly de-oxygenate water. If or when these noxious chemicals reach rivers or lakes, it could result in the death of aquatic life.

The mixture of toxic substances and decaying organic material can impact the soil quality of the areas surrounding a landfill site. This can compound the effects on biodiversity as local vegetation may cease to grow and be permanently altered.

Landfill sites are often very unpopular with residents, often called "Not in My Back Yard" or NIMBYs. Landfill sites impact the natural landscape: they stink, they are trashy looking and a become a bacteria breeding ground. The smell, traffic, noise and vermin that accompany landfills can lower house prices. Because of the increase in vermin surrounding landfills, disease becomes an issue with other adverse health effects, such as birth defects, cancer and respiratory illnesses also being linked with exposure to landfill sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Landfills on the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the decades before government regulations were put in place for landfills, anything and everything could be buried beneath the ground at an old dump site, some of which may still be releasing toxic chemicals or other hazardous materials into the Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to research published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology, health is at risk for those who live within five kilometres of a landfill site.

Researchers in Italy evaluated the potential health effects of living near nine different landfills in the Lazio region, and therefore being exposed to air pollutants emitted by the waste treatment plants. 242,409 people were enrolled in the cohort from 1996 to 2008.

The results showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from the landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalizations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children. The annual average exposure levels of Hydrogen Sulphide was 6.3 ng/m ³, compared to people living close to larger landfills in Rome whose levels averaged 45.ng/m ³. At the end of the follow-up period there were 18,609 deaths.

Co-author Francesca Mataloni commented that, "The evidence on the health of those living near landfills is still controversial. Most of the published studies only use aggregate health data and do not adjust for social-economic status. We have used a residential cohort approach to attempt to overcome these limitations."

Respiratory symptoms were detected among residents living close to waste sites. These were linked to inhalation exposure to endotoxin, microorganisms, and aerosols from waste collection and land filling. This is consistent with other studies; however the association between living proximity to landfill sites and cases of lung cancer is a new finding. The authors stressed that further studies need to be completed to confirm this.

Journal Reference:

Karen A Lillycrop, Paula M Costello, Ai Ling Teh, Robert J Murray, Rebecca Clarke-Harris, Sheila J Barton, Emma S Garratt, Sherry Ngo, Allan M Sheppard, Johnny Wong, Shaillay Dogra, Graham C Burdge, Cyrus Cooper, Hazel M Inskip, Catharine R Gale, Peter D Gluckman, Nicholas C Harvey, Yap-Seng Chong, Fabian Yap, Michael J Meaney, Anne Rifkin-Graboi, Joanna D Holbrook, Keith M Godfrey. Association between perinatal methylation of the neuronal differentiation regulatorHES1and later childhood neurocognitive function and behaviour. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2015; 44 (4): 1263 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv052

Cite This Page:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
diseases and conditions; lung disease; health policy; alzheimer's research; recycling and waste; environmental science; hazardous waste; environmental issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living near a landfill could damage your health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to research published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology, health is at risk for those who live within five kilometres of a landfill site. Researchers in Italy evaluated the potential health effects of living near nine different landfills in the Lazio region, and therefore being exposed to air pollutants emitted by the waste treatment plants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A study by the New York State Department of Health released in June reports that women living near solid waste landfills where gas is escaping have a four-fold increased chance of bladder cancer or leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming cells).
The new study examined the occurrence of seven kinds of cancer among men and women living near 38 landfills where naturally occurring landfill gas is thought to be escaping into the surrounding air. Of the 14 kinds of cancer studied (seven each in men and women), 10 (or 71%) were found to be elevated, but only two (bladder and leukemia in women) achieved statistical significance (at 5%).

The seven cancers were leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver, lung, kidney, bladder and brain cancer. In women living near landfills, the incidence of all seven cancers was elevated. In men, the study found elevated (though not statistically significant) incidence of lung cancer, bladder cancer and leukemia.

What is most surprising about the study is that it only examined 38 landfills. The department began looking at 131 landfills, but eventually studied only 38 (29%) of them on the grounds that only those were likely to be releasing gases. In contrast, a 1990 study of 356 California landfills found 240 of them (or 67%) emitting one or more toxic solvents.

Landfill gas consists of naturally occurring methane and carbon dioxide, which form inside the landfill as the waste decomposes. As the gases form, pressure builds up inside a landfill, forcing the gases to move. Some of the gases escape through the surrounding soil or simply move upward into the atmosphere.

Typically, landfill gases that escape from a landfill will carry along toxic chemicals such as paint thinner, solvents, pesticides and other hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), many of them chlorinated.

The department tested for VOCs escaping from 25 landfills and reported finding dry-cleaning fluid (tetrachloroethylene, or PERC), trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene, vinyl chloride, xylene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethene and chloroform in the escaping gases.

Consistent evidence

This is not the first study to show that people living near landfills have an increased incidence of cancer. A 1995 study of families living near a large municipal solid waste landfill (the Miron Quarry) in Montreal, Quebec, reported an elevated incidence of cancers of the stomach, liver, prostate and lung among men, and stomach and cervix/uterus among women.

A 1984 study reported that men (but not women) living near the Drake Superfund site in Pennsylvania had an excessive incidence of bladder cancers, though occupational exposures could not be ruled out as the source.

A 1990 study found an increased incidence of bladder cancers in north-west Illinois where a landfill had contaminated a municipal water supply with TCE, PERC and other chlorinated solvents.

A 1989 study by the Environmental Protection Agency examined 593 waste sites in 339 US counties, revealing elevated cancers of the bladder, lung, stomach and rectum in counties with the highest concentration of waste sites.

Increased incidence of leukemia has been reported in a community near a toxic waste dump in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

A 1986 study of children with leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts, statistically linked the disease to drinking water supplies that had been contaminated by a waste site.

Leukemia and bladder cancer are the most commonly reported cancers among populations living near landfills, providing support for the recent findings in New York.

It should be no surprise that living near a landfill is hazardous to your health - and it doesn't matter whether the landfill holds solid waste or hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste landfills hold unwanted toxic residues from manufacturing processes. Municipal solid waste landfills hold discarded products, many of which were manufactured from toxic materials.

The wastes go out the back door of the factory while the products go out the front door, but after they have been buried in the ground, both wastes and products create very similar hazards for the environment, wildlife and humans. The leachate (liquid) produced inside the two kinds of landfills is chemically identical.

Effects on children

The most commonly reported effect of living near a landfill is low birth weight and small size among children.

The first careful study of this subject took place at Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York. In a blinded study published in 1989, researchers found that children who had lived at least 75% of their lives near Love Canal - the notorious toxic chemical dump - had significantly shorter stature than children who lived farther away. These results held up even after controlling for birth weight, socioeconomic status and parental height.

A 1984 study had shown that children who lived near Love Canal had abnormally low weight at birth. The following year, another study confirmed low birth weight in children born to parents living near Love Canal.

There does not seem to be any remaining doubt that the children of Love Canal were put in harm's way by exposure to the 18,140 tonnes of chemical wastes buried in their back yards.

A study of families living near the Lipari landfill in New Jersey reported low birth weight among babies born during 1971-1975, when the landfill was thought to have leaked the greatest quantity of toxic materials into the local environment.

A study of people living near the BKK landfill in Los Angeles County, California, in 1997 reported significantly reduced birth weight among children born during the period of heaviest dumping at the site.

A 1995 study of families living near the Miron Quarry found a 20% increased likelihood of low birth weight among those most heavily exposed to gases from the landfill.

At least five studies have found an increased chance of birth defects among babies whose parents live near a landfill.

In Wales, the chances of birth defects were doubled among families living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill. A 1990 study in the San Francisco region found a 1.5-fold greater chance of birth defects of the heart and circulatory system among newborns whose parents lived near a solid or hazardous waste site.

A 1990 study of 590 hazardous waste sites in New York state found a 12% increase in birth defects in families living within a mile of a site. A 1997 study of women living within a quarter-mile of a Superfund site showed a two- to four-fold increased chance of having a baby with a neural tube defect or a heart defect.

A preliminary report in 1997 found a 33% increased chance of a birth defects occurring in babies born to families living within three kilometres of any of 21 landfills in 10 European countries.

Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine recently reviewed 46 studies of the human health effects of landfills. They concluded, "[L]andfill sites may represent real risks in certain circumstances". They also pointed out that exact mechanism of the hazard remains unknown.

Is the biggest hazard air or water pollution? No one knows, but the evidence seems overwhelming: living near a landfill can be dangerous.

So long as we remain a society addicted to chlorine chemistry and other toxic technologies, our discards will be toxic, and the places where we bury them will be hazardous to health for a long time to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peter Montague A study by the New York State Department of Health released in June reports that women living near solid waste landfills where gas is escaping have a four-fold increased chance of bladder cancer or leukemia (cancer of the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extreme heat. If high temperatures, especially when combined with high relative humidity, persist for several days (heat waves), and if nighttime temperatures do not drop, extreme heat can be a killer. Of all climate-related projections by scientists, rising temperatures are the most robust. Higher temperatures are also the most influenced by human behavior: the fewer heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere, the cooler we can keep our planet. Because winter temperatures are rising faster than summer ones, cold-related deaths are likely to decline.

"Natural" disasters. Projected changes in temperature and precipitation under global warming are likely to lead to other effects that threaten human health and safety. For example, changing precipitation patterns and prolonged heat can create drought, which can cause forest and peat fires, putting residents and firefighters in danger. However, a warming atmosphere also holds more moisture, so the chance of extreme rainfall and flooding continues to rise in some regions with rain or snow. In many heavily populated areas, sea-level rise is more likely to put people in the path of storm surges and coastal flooding. Warmer ocean waters may spawn more intense tropical hurricanes and typhoons while ocean cycles continue to be a factor in the frequency of tropical cyclones.

Poor air quality. Three key ingredients-sunlight, warm air, and pollution from power plants and cars burning coal and gasoline-combine to produce ground-level ozone (smog), which humans experience as poor air quality. Higher air temperatures increase smog, if sunlight, fossil fuel pollution, and air currents remain the same.

Allergens and other nuisances. Warmer temperatures and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stimulate some plants to grow faster, mature earlier, or produce more potent allergens. Common allergens such as ragweed seem to respond particularly well to higher concentrations of CO2, as do pesky plants such as poison ivy. Allergy-related diseases rank among the most common and chronic illnesses that can lead to lower productivity.

Spreading diseases. Scientists expect a warmer world to bring changes in "disease vectors"-the mechanisms that spread some diseases. Insects previously stopped by cold winters are already moving to higher latitudes (toward the poles). Warmer oceans and other surface waters may also mean severe cholera outbreaks and harmful bacteria in certain types of seafood. Still, changes in land use and the ability of public health systems to respond make projecting the risk of vector-borne disease particularly difficult.

People do not bear the health risks of climate change equally because:

Climate trends differ by region. People who live in floodplains, for example, are more likely to see river or coastal flooding. Similarly, people who live in regions with poor air quality today are at greater risk from poor air quality days in the future.

Some people are more vulnerable to illness or death. Young children, the elderly, and those who are already ill are less able to withstand high temperatures and poor air quality, for example. Temperature extremes and smog hit people with heart and respiratory diseases, including asthma, particularly hard.

Wealthy nations are more likely to adapt to projected climate change and recover from climate-related disasters than poor countries . Even within nations, less economically fortunate individuals are more vulnerable because they are less likely to have air conditioning and well-insulated homes, and because they have fewer resources to escape danger.

Better planning-through investments in infrastructure and public health strategies-can help communities become more resilient in a warming world. However, the costs of coping with health risks linked to severe climate change are often higher than the costs of curbing heat-trapping emissions in the first place.
See references.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme heat. If high temperatures, especially when combined with high relative humidity, persist for several days (heat waves), and if nighttime temperatures do not drop, extreme heat can be a killer. Of all climate-related projections by scientists, rising temperatures are the most robust.

# data[].attributes.body
Article Defines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about global warming and changes in the Earth's climate. What are some causes? Teach greenhouse gases and carbon footprint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Warming and its Effect on Wildlife

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Litter-strewn beaches and trash-clogged coasts are unsightly, but it's what is invisible to the human eye that may pose a threat to animal and human health.

The oceans are a veritable stew of sesame seed-sized bits of degraded plastic, commonly known as microplastics. They are either broken down from larger pieces of plastic or were already small particles, such as beads in facial scrubs.

Each square kilometer of ocean has 63,320 such particles floating at the surface, according to one recent study. The 2016 United Nations Frontiers report estimates that East Asian seas are worst hit with levels some 27 times higher than average. Microplastics have been detected in environments as far-flung as Mongolian mountain lakes and the Arctic Circle. But what does that mean for human beings?

The jury is still out on if and how microplastic impacts various animals, including humans. But there is growing evidence to suggest it has the potential to mess with our health. So much so, that the UN has earmarked the tiny grains as one of six emerging environmental threats warranting further study.

"The scientific community is racing to understand the level of exposure and physiological impacts of microplastic contaminants on various organisms, as well as the risk to human health through consumption of contaminated food," stated the UN Frontiers report.
You are what you eat
Bits of microplastic drift on ocean currents and into the paths of sea creatures foraging for food. Scientists have recorded zooplankton, which usually snack on algae, feeding on it. Microscopic themselves, plankton are a source of food for certain fish and other organisms, which are in turn a prey for seabirds and higher predators.

And so microplastics move into and up the food chain. According to another recent study, 25 percent of marine fish tested in markets in Indonesia and California were found to have plastic and textile fibers in their guts.

Microplastic is abundant in the ocean but scientists are trying to figure out whether it is dangerous for human health

While microplastic in food may increase human exposure to chemicals found in the substance, so far there is no evidence that the risk is higher than exposure through other routes. But there is concern that microplastics bonded with microbes and persistent organic compounds (POPS) such as pesticides and flame-retardant materials, present a danger to marine life and humans, if ingested in sufficient quantities.

Lucy Gilliam, co-founder of eXXpedition, is part of an all-female research team investigating such marine pollution. "Microplastic is lipophilic," Gilliam told DW. That means, the tiny shards and filaments of plastic also "act like little sponges" absorbing POPs, added the British microbiologist.

A life-long sailor, Gilliam worked at the UK's environment ministry on policy issues relating to plastic and endocrine disruptors, which are chemicals believed to disrupt hormones. Inspired by the ocean campaigners 5 Gyres, she co-founded eXXpedition in 2011, with oceans advocate Emily Penn. The duo wants to highlight the microplastic problem and encourage women to take leadership roles in ocean protection and science. Hence, the double XX chromosomes that determine female sex.

Research has shown that once these contaminants enter the marine environment, they build up over time (a process known as bioaccumulation). They magnify each time a predator consumes its prey, to concentrate in the tissue of species at the top of the food chain.

So determining how microplastic enters and then work its way up the food chain warrants additional scrutiny, says Dick Vethaak, a water quality and ecotoxicology expert at the Vrije University in Amsterdam.

"I consider microplastics to be a health hazard," Vethaak told DW. However, the ecological effects on marine life in the wild are understudied and inconclusive, at least for now, he explained.

"You need to know something about the levels of exposure in the environment before you can say anything about the risk. Exposure and hazards makes the risk," said Vethaak.
Connecting the dots
Gilliam's team and 5 Gyres are on a quest to detect those hazards and measure the level of microplastics in the ocean. The organizations' 72-foot (22 meter) sailing vessel Sea Dragon has been out on the high seas collecting water samples for analysis by the Global Microplastics Initiative - a project organized by US-based nonprofit Adventure Scientist, which promotes citizen science among outdoor recreationists.

eXXpedition is investigating the marine microplastic problem and promoting women in science

One thing is for sure, "microplastic is pervasive," says Katie Holsinger, the coordinator responsible for collecting the data. And it comes from multiple sources, including lax landfill management, practices, illegal dumping and overtaxed sewage systems. But one aspect of the research surprised Holsinger.

"Ninety percent of our water samples contain microfibers resulting from clothing or textiles," she said. Findings indicate that many of the synthetic garments designed to keep us warm in the outdoors are contributing to the ocean pollution problem.

A recent study commissioned by the eco-minded apparel company Patagonia Inc. concluded that a single fleece jacket sheds up to 250,000 microfibers with each washing. Based on the calculation that 100,000 fleece jackets were washed each year, researchers estimated the amount of fibers entering waterways equaled the amount of plastic found in up to 11,900 plastic grocery bags.

Given the piles of synthetic garments in need of scrubbing, it's not too hard to imagine that microfibers enter marine and freshwater systems undetected via the spin cycle. And if we want to avoid eating the results, this is one of the pollution pathways we have to tackle, say scientists.

"I think there's been a wake up," said Gilliam. "We need to solve this, the oceans are choking."

Growing litter problem in the Arctic depths

Never too late to change

It would still be possible to change our lifestyles. Reducing the amount of waste we produce and raising awareness on the importance of recycling could be the next step to start cleaning up our seas.

Author: Irene Banos Ruiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is marine plastic pollution a threat to human health? | Global Ideas | DW | 08.06.2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Litter-strewn beaches and trash-clogged coasts are unsightly, but it's what is invisible to the human eye that may pose a threat to animal and human health. The oceans are a veritable stew of sesame seed-sized bits of degraded plastic, commonly known as microplastics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marine pollution comes in a variety of

shapes and forms, but is increasing across the world. Improved industrialisation of poorer countries, increased consumerism, and greater pressures on world waste disposal services have all led to large amount of pollutants entering the oceans in a variety of ways.

Types of ocean pollution include:

Oils from a number of sources, including oil spills, drilling leaks, and seepage from factories and vessels.

Dumped trash. This is a big problem in poorer countries, where waste is either thrown into rivers or directly into the ocean.

Sewage is often released untreated from coastal communities.

Air pollutants can dissolve in the ocean and cause a number of problems, including ocean acidification.

Agricultural runoffs like fertilizers and pesticides which can decimate sensitive marine populations¹.

How marine pollution affects human health

All of the world's oceans contain huge amounts of plastic, ranging in size from microscopic beads to huge pieces of trash. Since plastic doesn't biodegrade, it usually just keeps breaking up into smaller and smaller bits, eventually becoming microscopic sized pieces. As they are breaking up, plastics also release a number of deadly chemicals into the environment, some of which are easily absorbed by fish and shellfish².

Humans feel the effects of plastic pollution when they consume seafood. Tiny plastic beads are ingested by fish and marine mammals - intentionally or not - and make their way up the food chain. These plastics can contain heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. Many also contain Diethylhexyl phthalate, an extremely toxic carcinogen. These and other toxins are often linked to cancer, birth defects, immune system problems, and childhood developmental issues².

Many other activities, especially around ports and other industrial areas, also have a direct impact on human health. Port activities can often result in the release of heavy metals and toxins directly into the ocean, where they are absorbed by the local sea-life. Filter feeding animals such as oysters and mussels simply feed on whatever they filter from the water, which unfortunately includes any toxins which are present. They can then store these toxins - often heavy metals - in quite high concentrations. This can cause problems if commercial fishing or aquaculture operations are happening in the same area, as harvested seafood may be contaminated. The toxins can then be passed on to humans, and have the potential to cause extremely damaging health problems and birth defects³.

Agricultural runoff and sewage dumping can lead to major algal blooms, which in turn can have terrible consequences on anyone who comes into contact with them. The high nutrient concentration in most agricultural runoff provides the perfect ingredients for algal blooms, which produce nasty toxins and lower the oxygen concentration of the water - particularly in protected areas such as bays and estuaries. People who go swimming or perform other water-related activities in the area can come into contact with these toxins, which can make them very sick or cause long-term problems. Seafood harvested from the affected area can also contain high concentrations of toxins, which can cause food poisoning if they are consumed. For this reason, certain fisheries are often closed when major algal blooms occur⁴.

It is obvious that human-induced marine pollution is not only harmful to the environment, but to humans themselves. It can cause the build-up of toxic pollutants in marine food-products, and even has the potential to make the ocean itself unsafe for us. In order to survive as a successful race, humans MUST do whatever it takes to reduce marine pollution.
References
¹ http://goo.gl/ha4HbF
² http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html
³ http://www.seaweb.org/markets/health.php
⁴ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676275/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
effects of marine pollution on human health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Marine Pollution on Human Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
shapes and forms, but is increasing across the world. Improved industrialisation of poorer countries, increased consumerism, and greater pressures on world waste disposal services have all led to large amount of pollutants entering the oceans in a variety of ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given current gas prices, the arguments for and against drilling for oil offshore are being reconsidered.

Credit: stock.xchng

With gas prices skyrocketing and President Bush and other politicians calling to lift a ban against offshore drilling, a polarized debate has again flared up over the true risks and rewards of this approach to oil prospecting.

"There are extremes on both sides," said Judy Penniman of the American Petroleum Institute.

A federal ban was initiated by Congress in 1981 to protect sites off California and Massachusetts and has been repeatedly expanded since then. President George H.W. Bush put his own ban in place, by executive order, in 1991, and Bill Clinton extended it to 2012. Together, the rules now thwart drilling in Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and elsewhere.

Scientists and politicians disagree on how much effect any new drilling might have on prices at the pump. Further, they argue about potential impacts on the ecosystem.

Impact on marine life

Concerns over new drilling amount to more than just a worry about spills.

To find potential oil reserves, researchers send seismic waves into the ground. The waves bounce back to reveal the buried topography and can hint at a possible reserve. But seismic noise disorientates whales and leads to mass beachings, said Richard Charter, a government relations consultant for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

Laboratory experiments attempting to pin down the impact of seismic waves on wildlife often must rely on caged animals, which raises questions about whether the animals would have fled and avoided ear damage if they could have, note Robert McCauley and colleagues in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

However, Andy Radford, a policy advisor at the American Petroleum Institute, isn't worried. "[We] make sure there are no whales in the area when we are doing our seismic search," Radford said.

Several weeks ago, ExxonMobil suspended exploration near Madagascar because more than 100 whales had beached themselves.

Ultimately, the seismic tests only help geologists make educated guesses. "You never know until you drill," said Eric Potter, associate director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin. The usual outcome is failure, Potter said, sending wildcatters back to the seismic drawing board.

Questions on land too

There are also questions about the impacts on land.

Radford described advances that reduce oil drilling's environmental footprint. For instance, oil companies are now able to drain several oil fields from one platform. And new horizontal drilling techniques allow more oil to be extracted from a single well.

Major infrastructure - such as roads, jet landing strips, repair shops, homes and industrial complexes - is, of course, still necessary and could disturb wildlife that is accustomed to pristine land, said Charles Clusen, director of National Parks and Alaska Projects for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Similar concerns about wildlife arose before construction of the Alaskan Pipeline, built in the 1970s.

"But there hasn't really been any effect on the wildlife; they congregate near the pipeline and it doesn't seem to bother them," said UT's Eric Potter.

However, any development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling, as President Bush has long advocated for, could have a greater impact. Polar bears, caribou and other animals trek across this unique area to give birth, said Clusen. Birth is the most vulnerable time in a species' life cycle and disrupting it will lead to diminished populations, he explained.

The true overall environmental impact of oil drilling is hard to gauge, due to the paucity of baseline studies, said Jeff Short, a supervisory researcher for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In the wild, most animals quickly flush PAH, a toxin associated with oil wells, from their bodies - which is why PAH rarely concentrates in the food web and is of minimal risk to humans. The animal's justifiably panicked immune response to PAH can cause cancer - especially if the animal is exposed continually by, say, living near an oil platform, explained Short.

As for human populations, many coastal communities depend on tourism and fishing - both of which may be affected by off-shore drilling by increased development, pollution and disruption of marine life habitats. Among traditional communities in the ANWR, some oppose drilling while others have cautiously welcomed it - within limits - for the improved access to jobs and amenities it could bring.

Spills and transportation

"The public doesn't have a clear idea of how much oil is moved every day," said Potter. "The amount spilled is miniscule, compared to the amount that is transported," he said.

The industry now has a great track record, said API's Penniman. "Back in the 1880s, we would have had a pretty good chance of ruining the world," she said, but technology and safety regulations are now significantly improved.

Today, according to the Mineral Management Service, of the billions of oil transported in U.S. water, 0.001 percent is spilled. Far more oil seeps naturally into the sea, reports the National Research Council (NRC). According to the NRC's most recent analysis, almost half of oceanic oil worldwide arises from natural processes. Oil spills contribute about 12 percent.

Even so, says Clusen, there are 300 to 500 spills every year, a number which will grow with increased production.

"And once you have a spill, you are pretty much screwed," NOAA's Short said. That's because oil spreads on water at a rate of one-half a football field per second. Recovery can take decades.

After 20 years of natural weathering, Prince William Sound - the area affected by the Exxon-Valdez spill - appears completely recovered to the casual observer, said Short, but animals high up on the food chain are just now starting to re-colonize.

Even a perfectly functioning oil well is a cause of concern due to "produced water," explained Short.

Produced water - which rises with oil and contains environmental toxins such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) - is usually tossed overboard. At high concentrations, the contaminants are lethal to marine life. At lower concentrations, according to lab experiments, they can cause birth defects, impaired growth and skewed sex ratios.

Prices at the pump

Estimates for the output of oil drilling sites can only accurately be given in very large ranges, Potter explained. For example, the Energy Information Administration predicts ANWR could produce between 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels of oil, and that might not do much for our pocketbooks. In 2007, the United States consumed 7.5 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

In the best-case scenarios, said Clusen, "we're talking lowering the price of gas by three cents, 20 years from now."

The American Petroleum Institute is more optimistic. "When we went into Prudhoe Bay [in northern Alaska], we expected nine billion barrels, and we have already pumped 15," Radford said. And the White House estimates that lifting the drilling bans would produce an extra 18 billion barrels from various locations.

But the federal EIA sees no short-term value in additional drilling, a process that takes years for awarding contracts and obtaining permits.

"Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," the EIA states on its web site. "Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."

Potter and others note that drilling that began 30 years ago, such as in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, are helping meet today's demands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With gas prices skyrocketing and President Bush and other politicians calling to lift a ban against offshore drilling, a polarized debate has again flared up over the true risks and rewards of this approach to oil prospecting. "There are extremes on both sides," said Judy Penniman of the American Petroleum Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world seeks to slow the pace of climate change, preserve wildlife, and support more than eight billion people, trees inevitably hold a major part of the answer. Yet the mass destruction of trees-deforestation-continues, sacrificing the long-term benefits of standing trees for short-term gain of fuel, and materials for manufacturing and construction.

We need trees for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they absorb the carbon dioxide we exhale and the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that human activities emit. As those gases enter the atmosphere, global warming increases, a trend scientists now prefer to call climate change.

There is also the imminent danger of disease caused by deforestation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world seeks to slow the pace of climate change, preserve wildlife, and support more than eight billion people, trees inevitably hold a major part of the answer. Yet the mass destruction of trees-deforestation-continues, sacrificing the long-term benefits of standing trees for short-term gain of fuel, and materials for manufacturing and construction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Deforestation For Kids: Information And Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is deforestation? Information & facts about deforestation for kids. Why are areas of rainforest being lost each year & what is being done to stop it?

# data[].attributes.body
Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about air pollution and how it effects the environment and health. Study causes, pollutants, and facts including acid rain and smog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oil and gas drilling can be a dirty business. Drilling projects operate on a 24-hour basis, disrupting wildlife, water sources, human health, recreation and other purposes for which public lands were set aside and held in trust for the American people.

As the industry continues to creep closer and closer to our nation's pristine wilderness areas and national parks, consider some of these top environmental threats presented by oil and gas drilling.

What happens to wilderness when oil and gas drilling moves in?

1. Disruption of wildlife migration routes and habitats from noise pollution, traffic and fences

Biological systems are incredibly complex, and can fall victim to serious ecological consequences when disturbed by human activity. Increased vehicle traffic at oil drilling sites contributes significantly to noise pollution in wildlands. Wild mammals and birds respond to noise disturbances with short-term avoidance behavior, but many studies have shown that these behaviors become habituated. Negative impacts include disruption of songbird communication in breeding and nesting seasons, as well as altered predator and prey dynamics. Mammals habituated to traffic may be more vulnerable to road kill.

Jackson Hole's pronghorn antelope are an unfortunate example of the effects that oil and gas development (in this case, fencing and other infrastructure) have on wildlife's ancient migration routes. The survival of pronghorn antelope in Grand Teton National Park depends on their annual migration from the Upper Green River Valley. This seasonal migration is the second longest mammal migration route in the western hemisphere, clocking in at around 200 miles. But the Jonah oil and gas field has made their age-old trek incredibly difficult, and future energy development will ultimately cut off their route at key passages, threatening their survival as a species.

Photo: Larry1732, flickr

2. Oil spills on land and offshore drilling sites

Oil operations on land require drilling fluids (sometimes called "mud") that are injected into the wellbore to lubricate the drilling bit. These fluids are supposed to be captured in lined pits for disposal, but very often they are spilled and splashed around the well pad.

One oil production company in La Plata County, Colorado, spills drilling fluids so frequently, it's currently hoping to reduce its number of reported spills to an occurrence every other day (160 spills per year!). The devastating cumulative effects of numerous small spills on land present long-term environmental impacts and chronic health effects including the potential risk of cancer.

Offshore oil spills, such as the explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon unit in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, affect marine mammals through direct contact, inhalation and ingestion of toxic oil. Certain inhaled and ingested chemicals in oil may:

Damage animals' organs such as the liver, kidney, spleen or brain

Cause cancer, immune system suppression and lead to reproductive failure

Further injured or disturb animals due to response activities and long-term ecological changes

In spite of these threats posed to the environment, the oil and gas industry has been exempted from all or portions of seven key environmental statutes.

Right now, the oil and gas industry is pressuring decision makers in Washington to open special areas of Alaska's Arctic to oil and gas drilling. The Wilderness Society continues to oppose efforts to open up the Arctic to drilling that would carve up the Arctic Refuge with roads and industrial infrastructure, fragmenting otherwise pristine habitat and exposing the fragile tundra and wildlife to toxic chemicals and oil spills.

( Note: The oil-coated sea otter pictured above, nicknamed "Olive," successfully recovered and was released after intense veterinary care from the California Department of Fish and Game in 2009.)
Photo: California Department of Fish and Game
3. Landscape changes from well pads and roads

Construction activities associated with oil and gas drilling leave behind radical impacts to the landscape. Well pad and road construction require the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, road graders and gravel trucks. Development of oil and gas complexes:

Strip the environment of vegetation

Increase erosion (which could lead to landslides and flooding) and the opportunity for weed infestation

Disturb the land's ground surface

Seriously fragment once unspoiled wildlife habitats

The impacts caused to public lands by construction of oil and gas sites are often irreversible.
Photo: dsearls, flickr
4. Oil and gas infrastructure and traffic spoil peaceful settings for visitors

Outdoor recreation and tourism are major economic engines for America's local communities. But oil tanks, power poles, noisy compressors and a network of roads compromise scenic values and important sources of revenue for our local communities. Too much noise near a good fishing hole, a reduction in numbers of an interesting bird species or excessive weedy plants such as thistles and tumbleweeds may lead to reduced satisfaction with the outdoor experience among fishermen, hunters, hikers, nature photographers and bird watchers.

Reduced recreational use of an area, due to the unsightly effects of oil and gas, can result in a loss of economic activity for the local community. American spend $646 billion on outdoor recreation every year-a benefit that depends on healthy wild lands in which to get out and play.
Photo: Richard Masoner, flickr
5. Haze, toxic chemicals and dust pollute the air and water

Open pits, ponds, and lagoons can contain wastewater, organic chemicals, petroleum hydrocarbons, surfactants and other substances which compromise the safety of our water. Pipeline explosions and wells (even if properly drilled) can cause drinking water problems by cross-contaminating aquifers. Development of gas wells may even require releases of methane and myriad toxic gases into the atmosphere.

In some Western states, air pollution from wells, tanks and pipelines is turning into ground level ozone. Oil and gas emissions in Colorado are now the main source of volatile organic compounds and the third-largest source of nitrogen oxides. But gaps in data and scientific understanding of how these emissions could negatively affect human health are currently hindering the creation of policies that would protect residents' well-being.

Photo: Libelul, flickr

6. Machinery, gas flares and light pollution disrupt scenic views and clear night skies

Even in areas without specific cultural significance, the ongoing presence of oil and gas production and well sites destroys precious scenic values. Particularly along major travel routes or uniquely beautiful public lands, the presence of oil or gas wells is devastating.

The glare of America's oil and gas boom is even visible from space, as shown in NASA's high-definition photos of Earth at night, where North Dakota's Bakken oil fields burns almost as bright as nearby Minneapolis and Chicago. In the Bakken, much of that light is produced by burning off-or flaring-natural gas that is produced as a byproduct from oil wells.
Photo: dandeluca, flickr Bakken oil fields from space. Photo: NASA/Ceres

7. Dangerous methane emissions contribute to climate change

Methane, the main component in natural gas, is up to 84 times more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, trapping heat more effectively and intensifying global warming. What is even more worrisome is that 21 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, can be traced to oil, gas and coal extracted from federal lands, according to a December 2014 study by The Wilderness Society.

Preventable leaks and faulty infrastructure in natural gas production are so common that they contribute significantly to methane pollution in and around wild lands. In one recent case, a noxious methane plume the size of Delaware was discovered hovering above the Four Corners region of New Mexico. Oil and gas companies also often deliberately discharge methane into the air through venting, the controlled release of natural gas, and flaring, the burning of it off in the air.

Methane emissions on public lands are not well documented or reported, and The Wilderness Society has been urging the Bureau of Land Management to hold oil and gas companies accountable for this super pollutant.
Methane flare on Pawnee National Grassland, Colorado. Photo: Mason Cummings
Much of America's oil and gas comes from public lands, which is why The Wilderness Society continues to fight against drilling in our nation's wildest places. We have successfully protected several wildlands from the encroachment of oil and gas, and we can win again!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven ways oil and gas drilling is bad news for the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oil and gas drilling can be a dirty business. Drilling projects operate on a 24-hour basis, disrupting wildlife, water sources, human health, recreation and other purposes for which public lands were set aside and held in trust for the American people.

# data[].attributes.body
Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about water pollution and how it effects the environment and health. Study causes, pollutants, sources, and facts including acid rain.