air quality

Study: U.S. health care system a top global emitter of greenhouse gas emissions

kkrisberg — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:32:49 +0000

Study: U.S. health care system a top global emitter of greenhouse gas emissions

Dr. Jodi Sherman wants to expand the medical profession’s understanding of patient safety far beyond the exam room and hospital bed. For Sherman, the oft-heard medical mantra of “first do no harm” should also push the health care system to do more to reduce its harmful air emissions and their impact on people’s health.

“Traditionally, our duty has been to the patient in front of us,” Sherman told me. “But we have a duty to protect society as well.”

Sherman, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Yale School of Medicine, recently co-authored a new study on harmful air pollutants coming from the health care sector and their effect on public health. The study, published earlier this month in PLOS ONE, found that if the U.S. health care system were its own country, it would rank 13^th in the whole world for greenhouse gas emissions, a major contributor to global warming. That ranking would put it ahead of the entire United Kingdom. The study also found that in 2013, the health care sector was responsible for significant portions of overall U.S. emissions and impacts, including 12 percent of acid rain, 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, 10 percent of smog formation, 9 percent of respiratory diseases from particulate matter, and 9 percent of criteria air pollutants, which include ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide and lead.

To measure the public health impact of such health care emissions, Sherman and her study co-author, Matthew Eckelman, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northeastern University, used the disability-adjusted life year metric, or DALY, which measures disease burden via the number of years lost due to poor health, disability and premature mortality. They estimated that in 2013, the health care emissions measured in the study resulted in 470,000 DALYs lost due to pollution-related disease.

“Health care is such a large sector as a portion of the economy that we knew the contributions were going to be big,” Eckelman told me. “But we didn’t have a sense of the patterns or how large they would be.”

Sherman and Eckelman’s study isn’t the first to examine health care sector pollution. The first study to estimate the sector’s carbon footprint came out in 2009 and found that 8 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions came from health care, with such emissions stemming directly from health care activities and purchases as well as indirectly through the sector’s supply chain. Sherman and Eckelman’s study updates that 2009 estimate using more recent data; it examines a wider range of health care-related air pollutants; and it’s the first to translate the pollution estimates into a commonly used public health measurement — DALYs.

Sherman and Eckelman write:

Hospitals are the second-most energy-intensive commercial buildings in the country, after food service facilities. Hospitals are typically large buildings, open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and contain several energy-intensive activities, including sophisticated heating, cooling, and ventilation systems, computing, medical and laboratory equipment use, sterilization, refrigeration, laundry, as well as food service. In addition to energy used on site in the form of heating fuels and electricity, the health care system also uses vast quantities of energy-intensive goods and services, such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices, which require significant energy inputs for their manufacturing. As the U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, it follows that the health care sector is an important target for emissions reductions as well.

To conduct the PLOS ONE study, the researchers used economic modeling and national health expenditure data to estimate emissions over a 10-year period, 2003-2013. The study found that the health care sector’s greenhouse gas emissions increased more than 30 percent in the last decade, representing nearly 10 percent of national totals in 2013. The majority of such emissions wasn’t directly from health care facilities, but associated with the sector’s suppliers of energy, goods and services, such as power generation and construction.

In regard to non-greenhouse gas emissions, power generation for the health care industry was the largest contributor to acidification, respiratory impacts and smog formation. The sector’s largest contributors to ozone depletion were surgical and medical instrument manufacturing as well as pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing, while the biggest contributors to ecotoxicity and human health toxicity were health care-related waste management and remediation.

Overall, the study found the 470,000 DALYs lost to health care-related emissions is in the “same order of magnitude” as deaths due to preventable medical errors.

Both Sherman and Eckelman said while there’s no way to get health care emissions to zero, there are ways to reduce the sector's pollution. For example, Eckelman said many health care facilities produce their own power, as opposed to relying on outside energy suppliers. As such, he said studies such as his could help justify new energy management and efficiencies. In the day-to-day practice of medicine, Sherman said clinicians can play a key role in reducing waste, which in turn could help reduce emissions within the health care supply chain. For instance, changes in how medical supplies and services are used could conserve resources, reduce waste and curb upstream emissions.

“A critical knowledge gap exists in the medical community regarding the indirect health consequences of wasteful, non-value added practices in all their forms, making resource conservation education and leadership crucial to improving the health system,” the study stated.

The study also noted that a number of efforts are already underway to reduce health care-related pollution and the sector’s role in climate change. For example, Health Care Without Harm has programs around the world to help health care facilities reduce their environmental footprints; the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hospital Energy Alliance is helping facilities improve their energy efficiency; and Practice Greenhealth works toward sustainable health care. However, Sherman said the role of individual clinicians is often missing from such efforts.

“So many of the drivers behind this problem are related to clinical decision-making, so it’s critical that they see this issue as a new way of viewing patient safety,” she told me. “Until we get the clinical side of the equation activated, we are missing a big opportunity to make headway here.”

As for future research on the topic, Sherman and Eckelman plan to continue updating their estimates as well as conduct an international comparison of health care-related emissions. Sherman said she also hopes to better quantify excess anesthetic gases that escape during medical procedures — such vapors, considered greenhouse gases, are typically vented off hospital rooftops and weren’t included in the PLOS ONE study.

“We both hope this study helps justify and helps spur more engagement between hospitals and clinics and their supply chains,” Eckelman told me. “The health care sector can leverage its purchasing power to create change.”

For a full copy of the health care emissions study, visit PLOS ONE.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Fri, 07/01/2016 - 15:32

Study: Preterm birth price tag related to air pollution tops $5 billion

kkrisberg — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:11:03 +0000

Study: Preterm birth price tag related to air pollution tops $5 billion

In debates over air pollution control, it’s always a tug-of-war between the cost to business and the cost to public health. Late last month, a study emerged with new data for the public health column: the cost of the nation’s nearly 16,000 annual preterm births linked to air pollution is more than a whopping $5 billion.

Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the study estimated the burden of U.S. preterm births and related costs associated with fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) — a pollutant from motor vehicles and the burning of fuels such as wood and coal. While preterm birth is a complex, multifactorial event, research is increasingly pointing to environmental exposures such as air pollution as an independent contributor. Preterm birth (birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation) affects about one in every eight U.S. babies, is the leading cause of infant death and a top cause of long-term neurological disabilities. However, study co-author Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor in the Departments of Pediatrics, Environmental Medicine and Population Health at New York University, noted that preterm birth is often a preventable event, and fine particulate pollution is a modifiable contributor — “you just have to find the source and regulate it.”

“What’s more salient here too and what should raise an alarm is that just this one environmental contributor produces such a substantial proportion of preterm births in the U.S. — and this isn’t the only environmental exposure that likely contributes to preterm birth,” Trasande told me. “So for the average obstetrician or public health worker, this adds to the need for a bit of a paradigm shift — (preterm birth) isn’t simply avoidable through medical means; we also need to start considering environmental causes and preventing them.”

To conduct the study, Trasande and his colleagues analyzed federal health and environmental data from agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Environmental Protection Agency and then measured air pollution exposures and preterm births at the county level. They then estimated the costs related to air pollution-attributable preterm births, such as early death, decreased IQ, decreased work productivity and overall poor health. While the science on exactly how air pollution triggers preterm birth is still emerging, some research points to oxidant stress, inflammation and placental weakening as possible mechanisms. Co-authors Trasande, Patrick Malecha and Teresa Attina write:

A major barrier to reductions in outdoor air pollution is the perception that these reductions will undermine economic productivity. As with outdoor air pollution-associated respiratory illnesses, the costs associated with adverse birth outcomes are born by society, rather than those who gain from industrial processes that emit pollutants. These include health care costs for treatment of prematurity-associated comorbidities and lost economic productivity due to (preterm birth)-associated reductions in cognitive potential. Yet, to our knowledge, estimates of the air pollution-attributable burden of preterm birth, and associated economic costs have not been made. Our primary objective was to provide an estimate of the economic costs associated with (preterm births) attributable to PM_2.5 exposure (as a proxy for outdoor air pollution) in the US, estimates that could be used by decision-makers when regulatory interventions to reduce air pollution exposures are considered.

In examining data on more than 475,000 preterm births across 48 states, researchers found that more than 3 percent of preterm births in 2010 were linked to fine particulate matter exposure. Those preterm births costs $760 million in medical care and $4.33 billion in lost economic productivity. In total, the study estimated $5.09 billion in preterm birth-related costs that may be due to air pollution.

Not surprisingly, the burden varied across the country. For example, California had the largest number of preterm births linked to fine particulate matter — more than 2,100 at a cost of $692 million. The highest fraction of preterm births associated with PM_2.5was found in Ohio, while the lowest fractions were in New Mexico and Wyoming. In general, rates of air pollution-related preterm births were higher in major urban regions.

“These costs add to the aggregate costs of environmental health issues in children,” Trasande said.

Next, Trasande said he plans to expand this line of research to a global scale. He noted that while women can take some action to reduce their exposures to hazardous air pollutants, real inroads will be made at the policy level.

“There are personal-level behaviors one could take, but the ultimate answer will come in the form of policymaking,” he told me. “And these data add to the business case for prevention.”

To download a full copy of the preterm birth study, visit Environmental Health Perspectives.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Mon, 04/04/2016 - 12:11

Researchers link high exposure to air pollution to increased risk of premature birth

kkrisberg — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:55:40 +0000

Researchers link high exposure to air pollution to increased risk of premature birth

Each year, the U.S. spends $26.2 billion on costs associated with preterm birth — that’s birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond the costs, babies born too early experience immediate and long-term problems, from developmental disabilities to asthma to hearing loss. For years, scientists have been studying possible environmental contributors, with many finding an association between preterm birth and air pollution. Earlier this week, a new study brought even more depth and clarity to this connection.

Published in the journal Environmental Health, the study found that exposure to high levels of fine particulate matter — particles that measure 2.5 microns or less and are commonly known as PM_2.5 — were associated with a 19 percent increased risk of preterm birth. High levels of exposure during a woman’s third trimester of pregnancy were associated with the greatest risk of preterm birth. Overall, preterm birth rates were higher among women exposed to air particle pollution levels that exceeded federal air quality standards, women 40 years old and older, black women, women with no prenatal care, and women with low educational attainment.

Study co-author Emily DeFranco, a physician-researcher at the Center for Prevention of Preterm Birth at Cincinnati Children’s and an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Cincinnati, described preterm birth as a complex condition with multiple contributing factors, including genetic predisposition, birth spacing and whether a woman smokes. She said the link between air pollution and preterm birth has “biological plausibility” and “makes medical sense” based on what scientists know about the health impacts of air quality as well as the growing scientific literature on pollution and birth outcomes.

“Preterm birth is a complex disease and if you have the right combination of risk factors in the same person, you can develop a perfect storm of conditions for a woman to deliver too early,” DeFranco told me.

To conduct the study, DeFranco and her research colleagues examined Ohio birth records for 2007 through 2010, which consisted of nearly 225,000 single live births, of which more than 19,000 were preterm. Those birth records were then linked with daily average measures of fine particulate matter as recorded by 57 air monitoring stations across the state. Most of the births analyzed — 97 percent — occurred in urban areas, where pollution exposure is typically highest. Fine particulate matter comes from a variety of combustion sources, such as motor vehicles and power plants. In addition, these types of air particles are highly stable, can travel over long distances and can travel deep into a person's lungs.

Researchers found that the frequency of high exposure to fine particulate matter was greater among preterm births than among full-term births. Increases in the preterm birth rate coincided with high pollution exposures during the first and third trimesters as well as in cases with high exposure levels during the entire pregnancy. Researchers estimated that decreasing fine particulate matter levels below 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality standard during the 2007-2010 study period — could decrease preterm birth by more than 17 percent among women with high exposure rates and by more than 2 percent among the overall population. (Since that study period, EPA has lowered its fine particulate matter standard to 12 micrograms.)

DeFranco and study co-authors William Moravec, Fan Xu, Eric Hall, Monir Hossain, Erin Haynes, Louis Muglia and Aimin Chen write: “While this study does not precisely define a safe threshold for exposure, it does support the EPA’s decision to decrease the standard exposure limit of PM_2.5 concentration for individuals in the U.S. Additional research is needed to determine individual-level exposure as measured by ambient air and internal biomarkers of exposure and effect.”

DeFranco told me that scientists aren’t entirely sure how fine particulate matter interacts with the human body to increase the risk for preterm birth. However, she said many hypothesize that because preterm birth is fueled by abnormal inflammation and because we know that air pollution is linked to inflammatory processes in the human body, inflammation could be the mechanism by which pollution adversely impacts gestational length.

DeFranco noted that as with many environmental health hazards, there’s not much one person can practically do to prevent or reduce exposure to air pollution. But from a public health perspective, this study can help underscore the need for health-protective air quality standards.

“We’re not suggesting that a woman has any control over this,” she said. “But emerging data like this can spur the desire for us — as a community — to continue to make improvements.”

To download a full copy of the study, visit Environmental Health. To learn more about fine particulate matter pollution in your community, visit EPA.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Thu, 01/28/2016 - 11:55

Study: Reduced emissions from electric cars could prevent thousands of deaths

kkrisberg — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:46:06 +0000

Study: Reduced emissions from electric cars could prevent thousands of deaths

When compared with gasoline-powered cars, vehicles fueled with electricity from renewable sources could cut air pollution-related deaths by 70 percent, according to a new study, which noted that air pollution is the country’s greatest environmental health threat.

Published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study’s researchers examined the impact of various vehicle energy sources on the concentrations of two types of air pollutants known to affect human health: particulate matter and ground-level ozone. Previous research has found that air pollution causes 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year and vehicle emissions are the most significant contributor. For fine particulate matter alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites studies finding a 15 percent decrease in the risk of heart attack deaths with every decrease of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of particulate matter. Ground-level ozone can trigger a number of adverse health events, such as chest pain and breathing difficulty, and is particularly dangerous for people already living with respiratory illnesses such as asthma.

In the recent journal study, researchers studied a variety of alternative fuels in comparison to gasoline, including liquid biofuels, diesel and compressed natural gas used to fuel internal combustion engines as well as electricity from a range of traditional and renewable sources. Using state-of-the-art simulations and modeling to estimate the changes in pollutants, researchers then used population data as well as major epidemiological studies to estimate the effect on human mortality. And in addition to analyzing the pollution that came from the vehicles, the study also considered the emissions emitted during the production of the fuels or electricity on which the vehicles run. They found that switching to vehicles that run on electricity derived using natural gas results in large health benefits, while vehicles that run on corn ethanol or are powered by coal-based or “grid average” electricity are worse for health. In fact, the study found that switching from gasoline to corn ethanol or grid average electricity would increase air pollution-related deaths by 80 percent or more.

Study authors Christopher Tessum, Jason Hill and Julian Marshall write:

Our assessment of the life cycle air quality impacts on human health of 10 alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles finds that electric vehicles powered by electricity from natural gas or wind, water, or solar power are best for improving air quality, whereas vehicles powered by corn ethanol and (electric vehicles) powered by coal are the worst. This work advances the current debate over the environmental impacts of conventional versus alternative transportation options by combining detailed spatially and temporally explicit emissions inventories with state-of-the-science air quality impact analysis using advanced chemical transport modeling. Our results reinforce previous findings that air quality-related health damages from transportation are generally comparable to or larger than climate change-related damages.

The study found that human health impacts range from 230 deaths per year for the scenario considering wind, water and solar-powered electric vehicles (including the emissions from producing the energy source) to 3,200 annual deaths for the coal-powered electric vehicle scenario. When compared to gasoline, transportation scenarios that significantly decreased air quality-related health effects included gasoline hybrid vehicles, which resulted in a 30 percent decrease, and electric vehicles powered by natural gas or wind, water and solar, which resulted in a 50 percent and 70 percent decrease, respectively. Those scenarios that resulted in increased health damages when compared to gasoline included corn ethanol, an 80 percent increase, and electric cars powered by grid average or coal electricity, at 200 percent and 350 percent, respectively.

The authors write that while much of the research on life cycle environmental impacts zeros in on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, it’s critical to consider the impact of alternative fuels on air quality and thus human health as well. For example, the study noted a six-fold difference between the most-polluting and least-polluting methods for generating electricity for electric vehicles when air quality impacts are considered along with climate impacts, compared to when climate impacts are considered on their own. The authors also write that the study supports the inclusion of human health effects when analyzing the impacts of transportation choices, as the economic burden of adverse health effects can be as great, or greater than, the effects on climate change. Of course, the authors wrote that their study “should not be taken as a final statement” and that further research is needed.

“Instead, these results can be seen as an indication of how light-duty transportation fuels could shift to reduce or increase pollution, and as an encouragement into the research of less polluting, more sustainable transportation options for the future,” they concluded.

To read a full copy of the study, visit the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Wed, 12/17/2014 - 02:46

It's a nice report, but similar reports on nuclear power have failed to stir any public interest.

"similar reports on nuclear power have failed to stir any public interest."

If you built a nuclear plant that would be used exclusively to charge electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, there would be a whole lot of public interest.

Why don't you write to Elon Musk and the NEI with this suggestion-- you don't have to give me any credit at all.

zebra,

"If you built a nuclear plant that would be used exclusively to charge electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, there would be a whole lot of public interest."

That makes little sense - why build a power plant to only charge low-carbon vehicles? How do you determine which electrons come from the plant and which come from other sources?

Eamon, sorry I missed your reply. Hope you are still there.

I can explain but I am not sure what level of knowledge you have about the topic, so more detailed feedback would help.

1. Of course we can tell when a particular source is supplying the electricity-- we do it now with off-peak-pricing. For example, commercial buildings contract to buy electricity at night, when nuclear plants are burning fuel even though there is little demand. They then store that energy thermally to be released during the day when rates are higher.

NPP are perhaps the worst example of not matching fuel consumption to demand.

Now, of course, people argue along those lines about wind and solar, but if we had a plug-in fleet of passenger cars, that problem would be solved. And, well... there *is* no fuel consumption. And, well... if you feather a wind turbine, you don't have the danger of a meltdown when you start it up again.

But the point, if you want to have a serious discussion and not just bash renewables, is that nuclear proponents never propose a true energy policy, or even tell us how they expect to finance their NPP. My suggestion is an example of such a plan-- linking the characteristics of a generating source to the consumption modality to optimize the system.

You don't think that would grab the attention of those concerned with climate and the environment?

Study engages residents in collecting air samples around fracking sites, finds high levels of dangerous chemicals

kkrisberg — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:25:48 +0000

Study engages residents in collecting air samples around fracking sites, finds high levels of dangerous chemicals

A recent study of air quality around unconventional oil and gas extraction sites — more commonly referred to as fracking — found high levels of benzene, hydrogen sulfide and formaldehyde, all of which pose risks to human health. But what makes this study particularly interesting is that the air samples were collected by the very people who live near the extraction sites, and the collection times were specifically triggered by the onset of health symptoms.

Published yesterday in the journal Environmental Health, the study involved residents living near 11 unconventional extraction sites in five states: Wyoming, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Ohio. The residents involved in the study were trained to take a “grab air” sample using an inexpensive bucket outfitted with a battery-operated vacuum pump that sucks in air over two to three minutes. (The study authors noted that the bucket device has been subjected to numerous validation tests by public agencies and independent labs.) In addition to the grab air samples, residents were also given a device to measure formaldehyde levels. (That device is called the UMEx100 Passive Sampler and almost looks like an USB flash drive with a clip on it — here’s a picture.) In all, residents put out 41 formaldehyde badges near production facilities and compressor stations.

Residents ended up collecting 35 grab air samples in areas of particular community concern and “under conditions that would lead them to register a complaint with relevant authorities such as a county public health department or state oil and gas commission,” the study stated. Twenty-nine of the samples were taken in direct response to health symptoms, with the most common symptoms being headaches, dizziness, irritated, burning or running nose, nausea, and sore or irritated throat. Air samples were then tested for 74 volatile organic compounds, and formaldehyde samples were analyzed using a method recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ultimately, the study found that 16 of the 35 grab air samples and 14 of the 41 formaldehyde tests surpassed minimal risk levels set by EPA and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, with the three chemicals most commonly found to exceed such levels and which are linked to human disease being benzene, hydrogen sulfide and formaldehyde. Benzene, in particular, was detected at sample locations in Pennsylvania and Wyoming in concentrations that exceeded recommended safe levels “by as many as several orders of magnitude,” wrote the authors, who noted that benzene is a known human carcinogen.

In fact, some air samples had benzene levels that ranged from 35 to 770,000 times higher than background levels (defined as levels that researchers would expect to find naturally), according to a news release about the study. To put that in perspective, the study found benzene levels that were up to 33 times the concentration exposure a person gets when pumping gas. Here’s another comparison from the study’s authors: The benzene exposure a person would experience at one study site in Wyoming would be equal to the exposure of a person living in Los Angeles for two years or Beijing for nearly nine months.

For hydrogen sulfide samples that exceeded recommend levels, study results ranged from 90 to 60,000 times higher than background levels — concentrations that can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, irritability, poor memory and dizziness. In analyzing the formaldehyde samples that exceeded recommended safe levels, the study found that they were 30 to 240 times higher than background levels. In some cases, the formaldehyde concentrations were more than twice the concentrations found in rooms in which medical students dissect cadavers.

The study authors did note that while the samples taken during the study may reflect a “worst-case concentration,” engaging residents who are directly affected by unconventional oil and gas extraction can benefit long-term research on the topic.

“Community-based monitoring near unconventional oil and gas operations has found dangerous elevations in concentration of hazardous air pollutants under a range of circumstances,” said study author David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany. “In this study, we have shown that community-based research can improve air quality data while adhering to established methods. Our findings can be used to inform and calibrate state monitoring and research programs.”

To read the full study, visit Environmental Health.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Fri, 10/31/2014 - 12:25

We (on the Great March for Climate Action) received first hand accounts from many people whose lives have been severely affected, even taken from them, by the excesses of this industry. It is because of these friends of ours that we are compelled to take direct action against the Federal Energy Regulatory (sic) Commission this week, November 3rd through the 7th.

I see study after study but never in WV. We are that second most fracked in the US. People around me sick and dying. Our leaders pushing fracking more and more. What can we do? Who do we ask? How do we sample? I'm losing my mind !

Study: Trees save 850 lives every year, prevent thousands of health complications (seriously!)

kkrisberg — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:40:26 +0000

Study: Trees save 850 lives every year, prevent thousands of health complications (seriously!)

Next time you pass a tree, you might want to give it a second thought. Maybe even a hug. One day, that tree might just help save your life.

Let me explain. In a new study published in the Environmental Pollution journal, researchers found that the positive impact that trees have on air quality translates to the prevention of more than 850 deaths each year as well as 670,000 incidences of acute respiratory symptoms. In 2010 alone, the study found that trees and forests in the contiguous United States removed 17.4 million metric tons of air pollution, which had an effect on human health valued at $6.8 billion. The results are even more impressive when considering that trees’ pollution removal only resulted in an average air quality improvement of less than 1 percent. Every year in the U.S., poor air quality is responsible for about 50,000 premature deaths and $150 billion in health care costs.

Fortunately, trees can help — they intercept particulate matter and absorb gaseous pollutants, effectively removing pollution from the air we breathe. Researchers calculated the health-saving effects through analyzing four county-level characteristics: daily tree cover and leaf area index; the hourly flux of pollutants to and from leaves; the impact of hourly pollution removal on pollutant concentration; and the health effects and financial impact of changing levels of nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (also known as PM_2.5) and sulfur dioxide. They finally concluded that more tree cover means greater air pollution removal, and more removal coupled with a more densely populated area results in greater value to human health.

Study co-author David Nowak, a project leader with the U.S. Forest Service, told me that while previous studies have examined the local impact that trees have on air quality, this is the first to take that question to a national scale. Nowak said that while he expected some effect on human health based on previous studies, he was surprised by the impact that trees had on human mortality.

"To be honest, I really didn't know to expect," he said.

In addition to reducing mortality and acute respiratory symptoms, the study found that trees and their pollution removal powers prevented 430,000 incidences of asthma exacerbation and 200,000 school absences. The study also found that tree-related air pollution removal was substantially greater in rural areas (that’s where most of the forests are), but the monetary value of pollution removal was greater in urban areas (that’s where most of the people are). California, Texas and Georgia were home to the greatest pollution removal, while Florida, Pennsylvania and California reaped the greatest value from pollution removal. Nowak and co-authors Satoshi Hirabayashi, Allison Bodine and Eric Greenfield write:

As human populations are concentrated in urban areas, the health effects and values derived from pollution removal are concentrated in urban areas with 68.1 percent of the $6.8 billion value occurring with urban lands. Thus, in terms of impacts on human health, trees in urban areas are substantially more important than rural trees due to their proximity to people. The greatest monetary values are derived in areas with the greatest population density (e.g., Manhattan).

However, trees’ pollution capturing ability isn’t always a positive, Nowak tells me. If pollution is coming in from outside of a city, the more leaves the better. However, a street or highway with a thick canopy of leaves may simply trap pollutants and prevent them from dispersing — “and we don’t want to trap pollutants where we breathe,” Nowak said.

Nowak noted that trees are just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to improved air quality and he hopes the study findings can help local officials make informed decisions about managing vegetation in and around where people live. Next, Nowak is examining the link between trees and reduced emissions from power plants via variations in energy use linked to residential buildings. (In other words, how do trees and their effects on outdoor temperatures affect how we use energy?)

“I really hope that policy people will pick it up in terms of understanding that vegetation does have an impact on human health,” Nowak said of the study. “This is just one of the many services provided by trees…they provide so much from just one system and at one cost.”

To read a full copy of the tree study, click here. And to learn more about managing a community’s vegetation and calculating the value of trees, check out this free set of software tools that Nowak and colleagues developed known as i-Tree.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Wed, 08/06/2014 - 11:40

Tags

Climate

Environmental health

healthcare

Public Health - General

A serious question: How many people are killed or injured by falling trees or limbs every year?

A not quite serious suggestion: Perhaps we should plant more shrubbery?

Many thanks for bringing this broad evaluation to our attention. The study makes the tree mortality due to more frequent wildfires, droughts, pests in various areas in recent years all the more concerning.

The study makes the tree mortality due to more frequent wildfires, droughts, pests in various areas in recent years all the more concerning.

What about the apricot tree from which the Ayatollah Khomeni's father fell to his death at the age of 104?

New analysis offers a small snapshot of the toxic nature of oil and gas extraction

kkrisberg — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:20:58 +0000

New analysis offers a small snapshot of the toxic nature of oil and gas extraction

Crystalline silica, hydrofluoric acid and formaldehyde. Those are just three of the dozens of air toxic chemicals that oil companies have used thousands of times in southern California in just the past year.

The data has come to light thanks to new reporting rules adopted in 2013 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which now requires oil and gas well operators to disclose the chemicals they use in oil and gas operations. According to a recently released analysis of the first year’s worth of reported data, oil companies used 44 different air toxic chemicals more than 5,000 times in Los Angeles and Orange counties during the past 12 months. Crystalline silica, hydrofluoric acid and formaldehyde — all of which are considered harmful to human health — were among the most frequently used. Since reporting began in June 2013, companies have reported the use of more than 45 million pounds of air toxics at almost 500 fracking, acidizing and gravel packing operations in the two California counties. (Acidizing is the process of injecting a combination of acids and chemicals underground to clean a well or dissolve rock; gravel packing is a process of placing chemical-filled gravel into the well hole to act as a filter.)

“We understand the terrible health impacts caused by the chemicals being used to extract oil in Los Angeles and Orange counties,” said Angela Johnson Meszaros, general counsel at Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, in a news release. “Given the massive volume of chemicals being used so close to where people live, work and go to school, there is significant likelihood that people will be harmed by these chemicals. We routinely see reports of leaks, accidents and injury associated with oil extraction.”

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, conducted the chemical data analysis. Here are just a few of the unsettling findings as well as some of the health risks associated with the chemicals.

According to the analysis, oil and gas well operators used:

• more than 25 million pounds of crystalline silica, which is known to be harmful to skin, eyes, respiratory system, immune system and kidneys;

• more than 166,000 pounds of methanol, an endocrine disruptor and developmental inhibitor;

• more than 32,000 pounds of formaldehyde, which is harmful to skin, eyes, sensory organs, brain and nervous systems, and reproductive system;

• more than 69,000 pounds of 2-butoxy ethanol, which is harmful to a number of organs and systems, and is linked to liver cancer and adrenal tumors; and

• more than 5 million pounds of hydrofluoric acid, which is harmful to the reproductive and cardiovascular systems and can cause genetic mutations.

Moreover, the analysis reported that about 265 fracking, acidizing and gravel packing events happened within 1,500 feet of at least one hospital, preschool or residence. Children and the elderly may be particularly susceptible to air toxics. The analysis states:

These air toxics, which can be emitted before, during and after well stimulation, are endangering the health of nearby residents. In Los Angeles, the AllenCo oil facility has been cited for multiple air emission violations. The pollution has been linked to nosebleeds, headaches, breathing trouble and nausea suffered by nearby residents, leading to hundreds of complaints to (the South Coast Air Quality Management District). After AllenCo was forced to halt operations, the Los Angeles Times revealed that reports of illnesses had diminished significantly. Whether or not well stimulation is used, oil and gas operations are responsible for emitting air toxics throughout the process.

While the numbers in the analysis are worrisome on their own, they probably don’t account for all the chemicals being released. The analysis reported that operators withheld information in 5,050 instances. In claiming that some of the disclosures would jeopardize trade secrets, the companies only submitted vague descriptions to the air quality agency, such as “lubricant” or “mixture.”

“The pervasive and persistent use of these chemicals threatens to contaminate local air quality and put communities’ health and safety at risk,” the analysis concluded. “The reporting requirements have proven the need for immediate action to protect the public.”

To read the full analysis, click here. For some great coverage of this topic and the southern California data, check out this article from reporter Katie Rucke at MintPress News.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Thu, 07/03/2014 - 13:20

If we are faced with life threatening exposure to "• more than 25 million pounds of crystalline silica, which is known to be harmful to skin, eyes, respiratory system, immune system and kidneys;" what can be done to save the children from the even larger amounts of this existential threat contaminating the nation's beaches?

How much did federal officials know about air quality at Ground Zero?

lborkowski — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:00:59 +0000

How much did federal officials know about air quality at Ground Zero?

As Jori Lewis notes in the case study about World Trade Center recovery workers' health and safety, those who showed up at Ground Zero on the days and weeks after 9/11 got some misleading information about the risks they faced. Most notably, the EPA issued reassuring statements about the air quality - when, according to a 2003 EPA Inspector General report, the agency had insufficient data and analyses to support calling the air there safe. More accurate information might have increased the use of respirators and delayed people's return to homes and offices in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Now, new documents obtained by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) and analyzed by ProPublica, demonstrate the back-and-forth between federal officials that turned incomplete and alarming information into misleading reassurances.

Several years ago, NYCOSH workplace safety expert David Newman wanted to know more about how the involved various agencies (including multiple federal, state, and city entities) made decisions regarding worker safety, so he started filing Freedom of Information Act requests. ProPublica analyzed the many documents NYCOSH collected, and has posted them on online for easy access by the public. A ProPublica article by Anthony DePalma, author of "City of Dust: Illness, Arrogance and 9/11," describes the findings:

In one instance, a warning that people should not report to work on a busy thoroughfare in the financial district--Water Street--was rewritten and workers instead were urged to return to their offices as soon as the financial district opened on Sept. 17. In another, federal officials declared that testing showed the area was safe when sampling of the air and dust--which ultimately found very high levels of toxic chemicals--had barely begun.
... Early on Sept. 13, a day and a half after the World Trade Center towers collapsed, [Council on Environmental Quality Associate Director of Communications Samuel] Thernstrom called OSHA's New York office to say [EPA Administrator Christine Todd] Whitman was on her way to the city to talk to reporters about the agency's air testing "since all monitoring reports have been so positive thus far," according to an OSHA email. But according to its own records, the EPA had only tested a handful of asbestos samples before Sept. 14 and didn't get the results of tests for other contaminants until Sept. 23.

A joint press release put out by the EPA and OSHA said dust samples taken from cars and buildings on Sept. 13 had asbestos levels "slightly above" the 1 percent level at which federal regulations apply. The new documents, however, specify that the samples contained 2.1 to 3.3 percent asbestos--or 200 percent to 300 percent higher than the trigger standard.

The Council on Environmental Quality is a branch of the Executive Office of the President, and is perhaps best known for editing scientific reports to downplay the role of greenhouse-gas emissions in climate change during the Bush Administration. It played a significant role in the content of the communications from the executive branch in the days and weeks after September 11, 2001, DePalma reports:

Within days of the twin towers' collapse, when the air was heaviest with asbestos and dioxin, a warning that office workers in New York's Financial District might be at risk if they returned to their workplaces was removed from public statements at the request of the Council on Environmental Quality.

... The original draft of the release that was going to be issued by the EPA and OSHA said "higher levels of asbestos" had been found in seven samples taken by OSHA on Water Street in the Financial District. The Inspector General's office examined inter-agency emails and found that after the White House reviewed the draft and suggested revisions, the information about Water Street was removed, as was this warning to office workers: "The concern raised by these samples would be for workers at the cleanup site and for those workers who might be returning to their offices on or near Water Street."

The newly released documents show that, in place of the caution about Water Street, office workers were urged to return to work on Monday, Sept. 17. "Our tests show it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district," OSHA's administrator says in the final version of the release.

There's much more in the full article -- read it here.

NYCOSH's Newman explains what the official response was, compared to what it should have been: "These documents confirm that what happened at the World Trade Center is that we proceeded with a minimalist approach in terms of caution and never really scaled it up as it became necessary, rather than assuming the worst-case scenario and scaling it back as appropriate."

I like to think that the people who decided to withhold or invent information about air quality around the World Trade Center site didn't think their decisions would cost lives. Now we know that hundreds of people have been sickened, and in some cases killed, by respiratory and other illnesses linked to exposures in the area. I hope during the next disaster of this scale (which may be either natural or human-caused), officials remember that it's better to be honest than to offer false assurances of safety.

lborkowski Mon, 09/12/2011 - 04:00

Tags

Please watch the attached youtube clip, from last year, discussing EPA's emergency response to the BP Gulf Oil Spill and EPA's 9/11 emergency response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAb1-Heid9U

Then see if you believe that the EPA Regulators have "Learned From 9/11 Blunders"

(Hint: Follow the $ - In the 9/11 Case, the Insurance Companies, like Citigroup-Travelers, AIG, etc. saved billions of $ from the "blunders"; In the BP Oil Spill Case, Larry Fink's Blackstone, the largest shareholder of BP, saved billions of $ from the "blunders." Hmmmmm)

Published: September 9, 2011
EPA Regulators Say They've Learned From 9/11 Blunders
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/09/09greenwire-epa-regulators-say-…

I think OSHA was under a lot of pressure to "back off" at the WTC site, so as not to hinder rescue efforts. If they are to be responsible for safety at such a site, Congresss would have to revise the OSH Act, becuase OSHA has no jurisdiction over public employees (like fire and police). What a mess!

OSHA Expert,
It was indeed a mess. There are a couple of problems with the argument that OSHA would have hindered rescue efforts. First, after a week had passed, there was very little chance that any survivors would be found. The last person found alive at the site was rescued on September 12. Second, rescue-to-recovery work is a profession with a strong safety component. If one looks at training programs and training exercises for search-and-rescue, mine rescue, beach patrols, etc. the safety of the rescue-to-recovery teams is a core principle. It's true that federal OSHA did not/does not have jurisdiction over state/local employees in NY (because the State has an approved OSHA plan to have that responsibility itself) but many of the recovery workers were not state or local employees.

Not to excuse any blunders and coverups by the EPA or other agencies, but the distinction needs to be made between announcements about air quality AT Ground Zero and air quality in lower Manhattan NEAR Ground Zero. The EPA, OSHA, and the NYC and NYS DEP all quickly determined that the air at Ground Zero was not safe to breathe without the use of proper air filtration respirators. However, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks respirators were not available for most workers, nor was there sufficient training in the fitting and use of the respirators that were distributed. (Whether most workers would have used respirators - and used them properly - had they been available in the first few days, is unknown).

It was decided early on that New York City would be responsible for enforcing the respirator use rules. The city then decided to allow the four main cleanup contractors to supervise this enforcement for their workers. The result was enforcement that ranged from strict (some workers were fired for not wearing respirators) to nonexistent (in most photos of the cleanup site, most workers aren't wearing respirators). Once respirators were available for everyone, rarely were more than half of the workers on the pile using them. Compare that to the Pentagon attack scene, where if you didn't wear a respirator, you didn't work, period.

From the numerous accounts and studies I've read, and from speaking with Ground Zero workers, the lack of use of available respirators was primarily due to these factors, in order from most important to least:

1) Lax enforcement of existing rules.

2) A culture of disregard for personal danger, combined with a compulsion to work as much as possible on the pile, that prevailed among many workers. This was reinforced by FDNY commanders and contractor supervisors at the site who disregarded the rules, and by visiting celebrities and politicians, such as Mayor Giuliani, who appeared at Ground Zero for photo opportunities without respiratory protection.

3) Equipment that sometimes didn't fit well, was always uncomfortable to use, and that made verbal communication at the noisy site impossible except at very close range.

4) Spotty training in the fitting and proper use of respirators.

It's not just OSHA, either. It's the people who lived in Battery Park City and were told it was safe to go home, and the ones downwind in Brooklyn who were assured that the smoke and particles from the burning ruins were harmless.

Many workers and responders were told NOT to wear respirators, so as to not scare the public and keep the cover-up going.
EPA Administrator Whitman starting on Sept. 13, 2001 and continuing thru Oct. 31, 2001 and beyond continued to tell the news media, the responders, and the public that the air was safe, and experts and reporters saying anything different were fear mongering.
Mayor Giuliani was also doing the same. CBS News in their 10 year anniversary documentary aired on September 11, 2011 played a couple of those clips of Giuliani and Whitman.
8 billion lbs. of carcinogenic asbestos was released, and in the air for months. Yet even today, the Federal HHS says that there is NO evidence that the cancers of the heroic workers and responders could have been caused by the pollution.
DESPICABLE!

I wanted to ask that you include our wtc safety assessment, which gathered initial documentation on worker safety and health risks and laid the basis for the subsequent training program and ongoing worker surveillance by niehs and others. See reference url above for the historical reference. thank you.

I goofed before. Sorry. There was only 880 million lbs of asbestos released into the air at Ground Zero.

Hugh, that's silly. 880 million lbs is more than the weight of the WTC buildings.

Common sense tells us that the air at the site and down wind was toxic and dangerous, given the materials involved in the disaster. It was important that the financial markets reopened to avert collateral economic damage. It appears that the dangers were downplayed for the common good.

Surviving the Heat when the Power or the A/C is Out

sastyk — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:55:22 +0000

Surviving the Heat when the Power or the A/C is Out

As most of the country slowly roasts in one of the worst heat waves so far, I thought it was worth reminding people that one can stay safe in the heat, even without air conditioning. This is important now for the millions of people who don't own air conditioners, who don't want the environmental impact of an air conditioner, or who find themselves for various reasons, without power in the hot weather. As we all know, this is peak season for brown and blackouts.

Global warming means that people in hot places are likely to see more extreme heat, and thus bear the brunt of the weather, but it also means that those of us in cooler places need to know this stuff too - since we're probably not as well prepared.

The most likely victims of heat related illness and death are people who are already vulnerable, without a lot of community and social supports, whether we are talking about heat or cold. In fact, most of the people who die are elderly, disabled or ill, and they live ALONE. Tt might actually be more accurate to say they die, not from heat or cold, but from isolation and lack of support in a time of physical stress.

So as we talk about life without power in a heat wave, start thinking about your community and neighborhood. Are there people who are potential victims? Well, now would be the time to get to know them, start checking on them occasionally, build a relationship so that no one in your neighborhood dies from lack of other people's support. If you think of heat and cold related deaths as caused by isolation at least as much as temperature, then we find ourselves having some responsibility to keep one another alive. This is, I think, important in tough times.

Anyone who has trouble perceiving their body temperature or changes will have difficulty handling extreme heat. For example, Eric's grandfather, in his 90s (Eric's grandparents lived with us in their last years), felt cold pretty much all the time. It took some persuasion to get him to drink sufficiently and give up his wool sweater on the hottest days, Without this small, simple, easy, low tech attention, he could easily have been a victim.

Children are vulnerable as well, because they don't necessarily know enough to stop running around, to keep hydrated and seek shade - parents need to keep an eye on this. Anyone with respiratory illnesses is also vulnerable - keep a close eye on kids and adults with asthma or other related health problems.

How do we keep cool? Let's begin from internal systems outwards. This is different than the traditional developed world model that suggests that the best way to adjust temperature is not to adjust your body, but to heat or cool a whole house.

Just as it is possible to live without heat if you have sufficient food to keep you warm, it is possible to live without cooling in the worst hot weather for most people, but not without WATER. Without adequate water, you risk serious health consequences.. Add to that the fact that the most likely times to experience widespread power outages can affect water availability, and heavy storm backlash that contaminates water in warm times, and you have a recipe for being in a very hot period, often having to do strenuous things to adapt, with no water.

This is very bad. This is why you should store water, have a good filter system and work with your community to have back up water systems - because dehydration kills, and most heat mitigation strategies involve water.

Storing water is very simple - water will keep 2 months with no additives (you have to change it every couple of months) in old soda bottles, and you can use what comes out of your tap. There really is no excuse for not having some water on hand - all of us can do this. and best do it before you need it. If you have a freezer and any space in it, your freezer will run more efficiently if you fill it all the way up - so you can fill old bottles with water (leave room for the water to expand as it freezes) and store your water here, with the added benefit that your water will then be cold as it defrosts. If you wish to store water for more than two months, add 7 drops of bleach to the water, and rotate annually.

This is something everyone needs to know this, not just people in hot places. But ideally, don't get dehydrated to begin with if at all possible. You urine should be light colored, not dark. If it is dark, get drinking.

Make sure that babies nurse often - yes, nursing in the heat sucks, sweaty body against sweaty body, but don't let your child go too long without nursing in really hot weather. And nurse if at all possible - in a crisis, if safe water isn't available, breast milk can save lives! During Hurricane Katrina, quite a lot of babies suffered from severe dehydration due to lack of available water and formula.

Moving on to the outside of your body, dress for the weather. There are essentially two theories of how to dress for hot weather. The first is to wear something roughly like the Indian selvar kemise - loose fitting, light colored cotton clothing that covers your whole body, keeps the sun off you and allows you to breathe. Add a natural fiber hat that also breathes (remember, covering your head will keep in heat if it doesn't), and you are well set. The other possibility is "as little as possible" - this will depend also on where you live and how much time you spend in the sun and a host of other factors. I personally think the former has a lot of advantages, but there are many people who prefer the latter.

Ok, once you are dressed, how to deal with the heat? Again, we come back to lots and lots of water. If you don't have to sit in a board meeting, you might be able to sit in a pool - even a kiddie pool can do a lot. If you don't have that much water, how about a pan of water to put your feet in? Soak a bandana and put it over your head, or around your neck. Take a shower. Or if the power isn't on or you can't, fill a bucket and pour it over your head or dip it over. Sponge bathe.

Get outside in the shade - and if you don't have shade, make some, both in and out of your house. If you live somewhere hot, you need trees, lots of them. Plant trees that will shade your house and minimize your cooling costs and need for air conditioning (and to enable you to live without it). Vines can provide quick shade over your windows - you can plant them in containers and trellis them up over windows if you don't have dirt. The more green stuff around you, generally, the cooler you will be. Urban dwellers with flat roofs might look into green roofs, which help reduce heating and cooling costs.

Use awnings, blinds and shade screens to keep sun from warming the house. Open windows at night and close them during the day. If your heat is dry, hang wet laundry or sheets up in the house to reduce the temperature. Swamp coolers use less electricity than a/c. Just as insulation is the key to minimizing heat usage, it is also the key to cooling - just make sure you do it well and keep good air quality and ventilation in mind. Use common sense, and keep doors closed if one area gets more sun/heat than another.

Stay outside as much as you can if it is cooler outside than in, especially if outside has a breeze and the air quality isn't too horrible. Sleep there - this is what people did before air conditioning - they slept outside because the house didn't cool down enough. City folks slept on balconies and even fire escapes (latter is not legal or safe and I'm not recommending it), others got out in their backyards. Certainly do all cooking outside, or if you must cook inside, cook everything that needs heating the night before or early in the morning and don't cook again. Part of our problem is that we are such an indoor people - both for acclimation and comfort, we need to recognize that life can be moved outside, to the porch, the yard, etc... when time requires.

Once, farm families had summer kitchens screened or outdoor cooking areas designed for dealing with summer and keeping the heat out of the house. A simple screen house could provide eating and sleeping shaded areas, while a nearby firepit, earth oven, grill or sun oven (and probably better yet a combination) provides food preparation. Others might move a wood cookstove outside, or get fancier with some permanent structure - the more summer you have, the more this might be wise - having a way to simply keep most activities outdoors seems to be a fairly basic strategy.

If you can, shift your work times - get up very early, stay up late, sleep or rest or work quietly during the hottest periods. Get a headlamp so you can do chores outside at night. Don't exercise much during the worst weather, if you can avoid it (many people have no choice).

This gets people into the vicious circle of needing their a/c more and more - and then gets the whole of society into the vicious circle of brownouts, blackouts and more air pollution from the coal plants and dirty diesel backup generators. I realize there are places where this is not viable, but I encourage people who do not physically have to use air conditioning to avoid it whenever possible, and to air condition as small a space as they can tolerate.

Now we come to the fly in the ointment - air quality. While pure heat can be dealt with, there are many people who simply can't tolerate the air outside during the hottest weather. For those who are ill, or vulnerable to air quality (and while we vary in sensitivity, poor air quality affects everyone), and those who have to do strenuous stuff are at high risk.

If there's power in your area, you can go to a/c shelters. If nothing else has power, your local hospital may, and might allow someone with severe health issues to sit in their lobby. If there is no a/c around, go near water - even a small lake will have slightly better air quality over it, as well as cooler temperatures. You can also soak a bandana, piece of muslin or cheesecloth and tie it over mouth and nose to reduce pollutants and cool the air into your lungs. For those who have to be working outside, move slowly, take it easy, and again, drink.

If you have a serious health problem that means that the air quality and temperatures in your area are intolerable to you during routine summer temperatures, you may have to think about relocation. The statement that no one needs to die from cold is not quite as true for heat, sadly - that is, as long as we pollute air as heavily as we do, there are going to be people who suffer from that. If your life depends on adequate heat or cooling or air cleaning being provided by grid systems, I really don't like saying this, but you would be smart to seriously consider living in a place where you are not endangered - or less often endangered. Because fossil fuel or grid power or money to pay the bills for those things may not be available, even if your life depends on it.

In the meantime, take it slow, keep cool, and enjoy the ripe things that love this weather!

Sharon

sastyk Thu, 07/21/2011 - 07:55

Tags

Categories

Just 3 hours ago I got totally sick of the look people have been giving me when I say we live without A/C in both our house (by choice) and our car (it broke). It's not that big of a deal, but they look at me as if I've just said that I like to eat babies...raw.

We rely on big shade trees around our 150-year old brick house, and fans. A few nights ago, I attempted to cool off with an icy mint julep. That was a mistake. Now we set hydration goals (at least 3 tall glasses between dinner and bed) and we're really just fine.

as a retired nurse, i say "thank you" for your effort. excellent advice.

JoAnna, people look at me like I have three heads when I say my thermostat is on 80F, so I can guess what you are getting! I freeze at work in the 65F refridgerator we are forced to be sedentary in... and it's 105F outside.

When it's really hot and sunny, a bandana doesn't do much good since it dries out or heats up too fast. A sopping wet towel (hand towel size) is better and a neck cooler that has an absorbant filler that retains the water is better yet.

I don't know that north european heat can compare, but I've always found it hard to eat during extreme heat. If I switch the main meals of the day to a very early breakfast and a late supper, with only small snacks during the day, I endure much better. Rich, protein heavy meals seem harder to bear than plainer dishes, too.

Also, emphasis on the water thing: I've drunk twelve litres or more in a day exerting myself in 40C temperatures.

In extremis, I found that dampening the bed-linen or my nightclothes would let me get to sleep on even the hottest, stuffiest nights. This is also a handy trick if toddlers are refusing to go to bed because it's too hot.

JoAnna, we also get along fine without air conditioning in our home in southwest Virginia. We have a lot of trees around our house, and we keep the house closed up--windows shut, blinds drawn--throughout the day until the outside begins to cool off. As soon as it feels cooler outside than inside, we turn on the whole house fan that exhausts the interior air into the attic while pulling cooler air into the house. We run the whole house fan until we turn in for the night. We also have ceiling fans in all three bedrooms, in the living room, and in the study. Whenever we spend time in one of those rooms, we turn on the ceiling fan. We also keep the lights off as much as possible. Combine trees, closed blinds, whole house fan, ceiling fans, and switched off lights and you end up with a tolerable house even on hot and humid days.

Thank you,as somebody who is disabled and hates the heat I really appreciate this. However it may be worthwhile to point out that if people do want to plant trees for shade that most species require a lot of water. Even in cold and rainy England climate change has hit trees hard and it is worthwhile to do a little background reading to find trees that will suit local conditions and endure drought. I would never have a garden without a pond, not only does it create a cool spot but it's great for wildlife. Even the smallest space can have a container pond made from something like a half-barrel.

If you have a basement, it will be cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than the rest of the house (absent climate control), so consider spending time there.

Shade is critically important--it can be 10 degrees or more hotter in direct sun than in shade. So if an outdoor area where you need to work is shaded during a certain part of the day, consider adjusting your schedule so that you do the work while the area is shaded.

Sharon,

You should clarify that the 7 drops of bleach is per gallon rather than per soda bottle!

You urine should be light colored, not dark. If it is dark, get drinking.

This could be taken quite the wrong way!

On clothing - I'm a massive fan of light and loose (and vented! Although a $75+ vented shirt probably isn't part of sustainable living...) - I get some very odd looks out in the field in 100F+ weather clad as I am in full body cover, wide brimmed hat etc - but I get to retain my natural blue scots skintone and feel much more comfortable than I would if I had the vaguest amount of skin on show.

Acclimation also a great point... I've found that 85F at the start of the hot season can wind up being more uncomfortable and painful than 98F after a good couple of weeks prancing about in the heat - as such I now try to get myself acclimated as the temps go up, rather than hiding indoors until work forces me out into the midwest sun.

The difference in dress style, all-round covering versus as nude as practicable, comes from different climates. If humidity is low and temperatures very high, around 100F, an all-round covering absorbs the sweat, evaporates, drops the temperature, and creates a micro-climate around the body.

Do the same thing in high humidity and you will be miserable because the clothing surrounding you will get and stay wet. The humidity outside your covering may be near 100% but inside the sweat soaked cloth covering it will be higher. Which means less evaporation and less cooling. Coverings in high humidity become smothering and impede cooling.

Which goes a long way to explain customary dress in various hot regions. People in tropical climates, warm and humid, tend to wear very little. People in hot and dry climates go for all-over coverings.

This simple humidity divide also changes cooling methods. In hot dry places 'swamp' coolers work quite well. A towel kept wet with water cools incoming air and drop the temperature through evaporation. The same device set up in tropical zone often just raises the humidity, making you more miserable, and serves as a focal point for mold.

A helpful bit to remember when trying to stay cool is to 'get low' and 'hug the earth'. Heat rises and it is often several degrees cooler on the floor. Second, if you can get underground you get a nice cooling effect. It may be pushing, or over, 100F on the surface but even down in Florida it is in the seventies a few feet down.

Even on then proverbial burning sands of the desert it can be 140F on the surface but fifty degrees cooler less than foot underneath. People have survived and walked out of deserts by digging in every morning and walking at night.

Thanks so much for this practical advice. Not much of it is news to me - I grew up in the country, with 45Â°C summers and unreliable electricity (which also powered our water pump). We didn't have air-conditioning at all.

I'll be passing on this article to my friends who can't believe that we have neither heating nor cooling at our house - and much of the advice is also useful for disaster preparation (i.e. earthquakes and bushfires).

Thanks again!

For most people, air conditioning is a mixed blessing - as you become accustomed to heat, your body begins to adapt to it, to sweat more and handle the heat better.

Bear in mind that acclimation is slow -- it takes pretty near five years to fully acclimate to a hot climate, and there are actually anatomical differences in people who grew up where it's really hot [1]. Persistence counts.

Regarding water: don't forget the electrolytes. It's possible to consume upwards of 20 liters in a day (I've done it) and have precious little of it end up in the toilet. Our Outdoor Emergency Medicine training on environmental emergencies suggested a urine output of two liters per day. That's a lot, but the takeaway is that you watch output, not intake.

Some people just can't sweat enough to keep cool. Spray bottles can make up the difference very nicely.

Sitting is hotter than standing. Standing is hotter than strolling.

I'm a fan of layers. A very thin layer of silk next to the skin wicks moisture away for comfort; an outer layer of loose loose-weave cotton holds moisture for evaporation.

Know the wet-bulb temperature. Some parts of the Midwest are seeing it sneak up to the upper 20C range or higher; over 30C is into the range where your body is going to have a very hard time cooling itself to a healthy level by sweat alone -- certainly not during exertion. We lost a runner in Arizona a few years ago because she overheated despite good fluid intake.

Sleep: the sky is cold. Outdoors under cover is quite a bit warmer than outdoors under the sky.

[1] Per work done at Arizona State's physiology department long ago.

A white roof can save you 10 to 15 degrees F. We've never had air condition -- we're now in our sixties.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12305112@N07/5843426363/in/photostream/

Also we made blinds from burlap bags and use them on the inside in the winter (along with the storm windows and on the *outside* in the summer. Shading the windows is cooler than just shading the room, from inside the glass. This year our hops vines on the south and west sides of the house have matured --and the maples are finally getting tall enough to help. But the white roof seems to make the biggest difference. Comes in five gallon buckets -- just broom it on.

While waiting for a bus to get downtown I noticed something. Air Conditioning has become standard in pretty much every vehicle out there, including the buses.

Saw so many with those tinted windows rolled up tight.

You can make some great neck coolers by sewing some rectangular cloth strips (think long and narrow) into tubes. You can sew or tie the ends shut when you are done. Fill these with a few tablespoons of the floral water retention beads. Soak your bandana in water and drape it around your neck. Add your wide-brimmed hat and you will be much cooler for hours. This is an easy but useful project for kids at summer camp.

Great post! I'd like to recommend something else. I live in rural south Louisiana where it can be quite warm and humid this time of year. Something that I always keep with me when I'm out working is a wet neckerchief around my neck to keep my carotid arteries cool. It has many other uses, of course, but I find this practice very helpful. I've used it while tilling the garden as well as fishing in the marsh and I never leave home without one. Take care and keep cool.

Chad

Useful too when the anti-technology crowd have got the politicians to make us dependent on windmills and the wind isn't blowing during a temperature inversion.

Mind you life without air conditio9ning is survivalble - 30 below in the midwest winter without heating isn't.

Actually Neil, the facts say otherwise regarding heat and cold.

It's a fact that heat waves kill far more people than cold spells do.

I've survived winter camping when I've been outside for days and days when it's below freezing and that's without the benefit of a solid building around me. Based on that, I have no doubts I could survive many days if not much longer of near zero and below zero outside temperatures with (an unheated) building to hang out in. It wouldn't be fun, but it would be doable.

Also for Neil: I own a house in Aroostook County, Maine, where I routinely saw morning temps of -15 to -25 for most of January and February of the past winter.

Cold? I know of what I speak. :)

One more thing - Due to local history and geography, Aroostook County gets its power from the New Brunswick, Canada grid as opposed to the ISO New England Power Grid that the rest of Maine uses. The NB grid gets the majority of its power from renewables such as hydro and biomass along with a growing wind component. Renewables *don't* mean freezing in the dark.

Unless I missed it somewhere, you missed a big piece of it.

Animals. Don't forget your animals. Pets and livestock have just as much trouble with extreme heat as you do- and you're in charge.

There's a ton of advice out there for helping livestock get through heat waves. The most important point, often missed- DON'T wait until your animals are stressed before you do something.

We take it seriously. Moved our animals into paddocks where we have water pressure, and could spray them down. And of COURSE those paddocks have ample shade.

One of our immediate neighbors did NOT understand it all- and the result was over 100 dead cows. They eventually called the fire department, in a panic, to come and spray them out in the field- but it was too late.

In western Minnesota, the local papers reporting THOUSANDS of dead turkeys, hundreds of cattle and pigs. Not too much ruckus in the mainstream press yet, but I'm guessing they'll eventually pick up on it.

Our animals came through fine; here in Minnesota the heat has passed, and the animals moved back into regular pastures.

One benefit to look forward to- it's astonishing, afterwards, how COOL 80Â° is; downright comfy.

Greenpa, that's a good point - this post was focused only on humans, but animals are at risk too. Our rabbits are especially vulnerable - they get their own frozen soda bottles to snuggle up to, since the babies and the angoras can die easily in the heat. The goats and calves have plenty of water and plenty of shade.

Neil, there's plenty of evidence that people can conserve heat successfully and design to live only on body heat in small, contained spaces. Unfortunately, heatwaves are major killers - cold doesn't have to be, heat, with the air quality issues it comes with, is harder to navigate. Both can kill, but cold doesn't have to - Lapp people, for example lived in shelters heated only by body heat at 30 below and more.

DC, the idea of wearing a layer of silk, which doesn't breath that well, in this weather does not appeal. Different strokes, I guess.

Sharon

"this post was focused only on humans" - I know; and I know you know- etc. :-)

As we work here on "integrated" sustainable agriculture, I really do feel my identity getting fuzzy around the edges. The chickens, cats, dogs, sheep are, very seriously, our symbionts- we are part of the same creature, so to speak. Our farm is becoming a superorganism.

Tends to make my already fuzzy logic oriented brain even more fuzzy. :-)

Heat does that, too.

Worth thinking about...

Between 2010 and 2019 [9 years], temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 [a 48 year period] could occur four times over much of the U.S,

Noah Diffenbaugh and Moetasim Ashfaq
Woods Institute, Stanford University
Geophysical Research Letters
Intensification of hot extremes in the United States.
August 2010

If you move food prep and cooking outside remember that clean up goes along outside, unless you want to attract ants, racoons, rats and other freeloaders.

Stephen you may be good at low temperatures but in Britasin we have an excess of about 25,000 pensioner deaths annually of winter over summer. The phenomeon is undeniable. On a population proportion that would be about 125,000 in the UIS though it may be varied either by the US having an average temperature higher than ours or by the fact that, except near the coast, your winters are much colder, We evolved for Africann temperatures so it is hardly surprising we are more vulnerable to cold.

Just whiteroofs will be sufficient to avoid heat related problems. Also it is the only cheapest and the most effective way to reverse climate change problems. Whiteroofs reduce local heat, reduces evaporation loss of water which in turn will reverse the climate change problems. One square feet of whiteroof may avoid atleast 50 to 100 litres worth of water loss in a location, in one year.

Neil:

You're forgetting one very crucial aspect: You can put on a lot more clothing than you can take off. If it's 40 below, you can always put on seven layers, but if you're naked, you can't get any nakeder.

Art:

Precisely. People try to compare Florida (where the humidity is in the high 80s year round) with places like Arizona and the desert portions of California.

I've visited Palm Springs before; even walking four or five miles on foot, with temperatures in the high 90s, I wasn't horribly uncomfortable. Sweating worked; it didn't just drip off of my face like it does here in Florida.

Neil that is a failure of your system then, not human physiology. If the Lapps and the Inuit and whoever-else can survive the cold, so can the British, if they're knowlegeable and prepared and willing to aid their neighbors. The lack of those three things is what's killing them. Do something about it instead of complaining about sustainable energy.

Excess winter deaths in the USA 108,500

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the…

Check these things out before you make an ass of yourself Tenebras.

I grew up in Arizona where triple digit temperatures (100 - 118 degrees F.) are the norm. Take care of outside business in the early mornings and late evenings. Wear a big hat and loose light-colored clothing. Run for cover when the mid-day heat is at its worst. Avoid burns by keeping exposed skin away from plastic car seat covers, steering wheels, metal surfaces, concrete, asphalt and dirt... yes, dirt. Carry plenty of water... enough for yourself and at least one other person.

My great-grandmother grew up in south Louisiana with no A/C and never took to it. Every time her son moved, he built her a little house on his new property, and every time she refused to let him install A/C. She said it made her feel sick. I spent a lot of my summers with her when I was young- I kept a fan pointed at me while I slept, she didn't even do that. And now with my wife (who grew up in Bangkok), I have to fight to keep the temperature in the house at 78, as she will turn it up to 80 - 81 when I am not looking. So a lot of it is definitely acclimation.

Home design can definitely have an impact as well. My previous home, an early 1900s foursquare in Memphis, had 10' ceilings, wood floors, and windows on every wall- even in a hall closet. When the power was out for two weeks due to Hurricane Elvis, my house was still relatively pleasant- if a bit warm- while nearby houses with lower ceilings and carpeted floors were pretty miserable.

One of the unpleasant ways that being foster parents has affected our lifestyle is in terms of living in a sustainable way. The first time either a CPS caseworker or a therapist who comes to our home for one of our foster sons commented on our not having the AC on, I knew we were in for some serious changes to our energy-saving ways. It is challenging but when other people are projecting their idea of appropriate childrearing on you, compromises must be made. So while we've taught our foster son to not flush the toilet every time he pees, we can't get away with a fan-cooled house when caseworkers come to visit in the hot part of the summer. We are trying to find other ways to have less environmental impact, but I can't help but feel resentful that having all these professionals in and out of our house has compromised our teaching our kids how to live sustainably.

Air conditioning is worth it, guys. It's a major quality-of-life issue and for all intents and purposes is a non-negotiable component of whatever is worthwhile about modern civilization. If anything is worth energy, AC is.

Everything has an environmental impact. "Whiteroofing" your house presupposes that you have a house, meaning land had to be cleared for it and trees felled for the wood, there will have been mining to create the metal filaments in the wires and appliances, etc. Then more mining to create the metal paint cans, who-knows-what chemical-intensive procedure to create the paint, and then, of course, exhaust from the truck fleet that transported the paint to wherever you bought it. And the impact of the roads the trucks drove on too. And does that house contain a cat? If so, its biodiversity impacts just got even worse.

Why are those impacts to be taken for granted and normalized, but AC is not?

Years ago, on "The Streets of San Francisco" one of the cops had a mother who was freaking out from the heat wave. He told her to fill the bathtub with water and pretend it was a swimming pool. I've tried it, and depending on the humidity, it works.

"Air Conditioning has become standard in pretty much every vehicle out there, including the buses.

Saw so many with those tinted windows rolled up tight."

At Motorway/Highway speeds, A/C is cheaper energetically than the drag introduced by having your windows open. If the air is dry, the extra throughput at high speeds means less build-up of heat and moisture in the car.

At urban speeds, the A/C is using up fuel your car needs to move itself and airflow reduced so you need the fan working harder.

"If the Lapps and the Inuit and whoever-else can survive the cold, so can the British"

The British can. It's a Murdoch scare story to alarm people into thinking that mitigation of AGW is a bad thing. You know, the old "The gubmint is killing granpa!" schtick.

""Whiteroofing" your house presupposes that you have a house, meaning land had to be cleared for it and trees felled for the wood"

So I take it you don't have a house.

Note too, that having A/C presupposes you have a house or else your A/C is changing the climate of the entire region.

This isn't about houses, Wow. This is about why people shouldn't rely on weak and unsupported arguments that presume virtue upon themselves that they don't actually have.

All houses, and all of the maintenance thereof, are environmentally disruptive. That goes for whiteroofing, and the entire process of creating, packaging, shipping, and applying white paint. Those disruptions are completely ignored here because they are presumed to be better than the disruptions that go into air conditioning.

And they shouldn't be ignored, because they're not any better.

To spell it out a little clearer:

We have all proven ourselves to be perfectly willing to accept, and even directly cause, environmental disruptions for the sake of having a home. Let's not now overlook those impacts and disruptions as we cluck over the people who use AC in their homes.

TTT: Oooooh! I understand now. So really, I should go and get myself that SUV that I'm going to drive whenever I have to travel more than half a mile, because after all, those walking shoes that I've been making so much use of to transport myself from one place to another take resources to make and to ship and every once in a while I accidentally step on a bug and kill it. Everything has an environmental cost, so if those walking shoes are okay, then a car (a big one, while we're at it, because it's so great to be elevated while driving!) must be perfectly fine as well. Thank you so much for opening my eyes.

Sharon: WRT silk, you might try it.
It wicks moisture away from your skin, and the overlayer of loose-weave cotton manages the evaporation for cooling. It's surprisingly comfortable if you haven't tried it.

In premodern Japan, the silk trade was a very big deal largely because silk was tremendously more comfortable in hot, sticky summer weather.

Just whiteroofs will be sufficient to avoid heat related problems.

Not true in high humidity climates. Necessary, but not sufficient.

"This isn't about houses, Wow."

When you say:

""Whiteroofing" your house presupposes that you have a house, meaning land had to be cleared for it and trees felled for the wood"

Then in what way is it NOT about houses? I mean you mention a house, and mention how a house means all sorts of landscape modification/degradation. So in what way is this not about houses? It seems you don't actually read what you write.

"This is about why people shouldn't rely on weak and unsupported arguments"

Yet still you do. Why is that? Are you attempting to illustrate what happens when you do that?

"All houses, and all of the maintenance thereof, are environmentally disruptive."

I thought you said it wasn't about houses, TTT. Is it about houses or are you still misspelling a word?

"Those disruptions are completely ignored here because they are presumed to be better than the disruptions that go into air conditioning."

No, they're being ignored because the disruptions that go into A/C is OVER AND ABOVE the disruption of having a house.

Assuming it IS actually about houses, unlike your opening statement.

Congratulations, Wow--your streak of missing every single point that ever comes your way continues unbroken.

All houses are gigantic clusters of environmental impact. As I've pointed out about 3 times now--mining, chemically mixing, packaging, and shipping all the materials for this paint involves MORE environmental impact. No one has tabulated these impacts here. No one even seems to ACKNOWLEDGE them. Where is the proof of net environmental benefit? Obscured behind your clueless quibbling, which really does seem to be a feature and not a bug.

How Not to Fry: Keeping Cool without Air Conditioning

sastyk — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:43:02 +0000

How Not to Fry: Keeping Cool without Air Conditioning

The northeast is having its first heatwave of the year, and I thought it was a good time to re-run a piece I wrote about what to do in extreme heat if you don't have air conditioning. Because we all know what heatwaves mean - not just physical stress, health crises and unnecessary deaths from heat, but also blackouts and brownouts as everyone charges up their a/c. So what do you do when the power is out and the heat is on? These suggestions include, I think, the most important strategy - be aware of other people.

There are a lot of parallels between dealing with extreme heat and extreme cold in a difficult situation. The first and most important one is understanding the likely victims of each crisis. The most likely victims are people in extremely hot places (duh), often extremely hot places that haven't been that hot - for example, during heat waves there are often more victims in Chicago than Houston. Why? Because people who live in Houston are both physiologically and pragmatically better prepared for hot weather, becuase they have hot weather more often. Now global warming means that people in hot places are likely to see more extreme heat, and thus bear the brunt of the weather, but it also means that those of us in cooler places need to know this stuff too - since we're probably not as well prepared.

And the most likely victims of heat related illness and death are people who are already vulnerable, without a lot of community and social supports, whether we are talking about heat or cold. In fact, most of the people who die are elderly, disabled or ill, and they live ALONE - it might actually be more accurate to say they die, not from heat or cold, but from isolation and lack of support. So as we talk about life without power in a heat wave, start thinking about your community and neighborhood. Are there people who are potential victims? Well, now would be the time to get to know them, start checking on them occasionally, build a relationship so that no one in your neighborhood dies from lack of other people's support. If you think of heat and cold related deaths as caused by isolation, at least as much as temperature, then we find ourselves having some responsibility to keep one another alive. This is, I think, important.

Anyone who has trouble perceiving their body temperature or changes will have difficulty handling extreme heat. For example, Eric's grandfather, in his 90s, felt cold pretty much all the time. It took some persuasion to get him to drink sufficiently and give up his wool sweater on the hottest days - and without this small, simple, easy, low tech attention, he could easily have been a victim. Children are vulnerable as well, because they don't necessarily know enough to stop running around - parents need to keep an eye on this. Anyone with respiratory illnesses is also vulnerable - keep a close eye on kids and adults with asthma or other related health problems.

How do we keep cool? Let's begin from internal systems outwards, in opposition to the traditional model, that suggests that you should heat or cool a whole house.

Just as it is possible to live without heat if you have sufficient food to keep you warm, it is possible to live without cooling in the worst hot weather for most people, but not without WATER. Without water, you will die - and a lot faster in hot weather than in cold. Add to the fact that the most likely times to experience widespread power outages that affect water availability, or heavy storm backlash that contaminates water in warm times, and you have a recipe for being in a very hot period, often having to do strenuous things to adapt, with no water. This is very bad. This is why you should store water, have a good filter system and work with your community to have back up water systems - because dehydration kills, and most heat mitigation strategies involve water.

Storing water is very simple - water will keep 2 months with no additives (you have to change it every couple of months) on old soda bottles, and you can use what comes out of your tap. There really is no excuse for not having some water on hand - all of us can do this. and best do it before you need it. If you have a freezer and any space in it, your freezer will run more efficiently if you fill it all the way up - so you can fill old bottles with water (leave room for the water to expand as it freezes) and store your water here, with the added benefit that your water will then be cold as it defrosts.

How do you know if you are drinking enough? Well, if it is really hot, you should pretty much always have water around. If you are working hard in hot weather, you should be drinking pretty constantly - and some of what you drink (assuming you aren't eating things that fit this) should have a little bit of sugar or fruit juice in it. The website www.rehydration.org has information in making rehydration syrups and also what the best things to drink when you are dehydrated are. This is something everyone needs to know this, not just people in hot places, since dehydration is also common when you are ill - but don't get dehydrated to begin with if at all possible. You urine should be light colored, not dark. If it is dark, get drinking.

Ok, dress for the weather. There are essentially two theories of how to dress for hot weather. The first is to wear something roughly like the Indian selvar kemise - loose fitting, light colored cotton clothing that covers your whole body, keeps the sun off you and allows you to breathe. Add a natural fiber hat that also breathes (remember, covering your head will keep in heat if it doesn't), and you are well set. The other possibility is "as little as possible" - this will depend also on where you live and how much time you spend in the sun and a host of other factors. I personally think the former has a lot of advantages, but there are many people who prefer the latter.

Ok, once you are dressed, how to deal with the heat - again, we come back to lots and lots of water. If you don't have to sit in a board meeting, you might be able to sit in a pool - even a kiddie pool can do a lot. If you don't have that much water, how about a pan of water to put your feet in? Soak a bandana and put it over your head, or around your neck. Take a shower. Or if the power isn't on or you can't, fill a bucket and pour it over your head or dip it over. Sponge bathe.

Stay outside as much as you can, if outside has a breeze and the air quality isn't too horrible. Sleep there - this is what people did before air conditioning - they slept outside, if the house didn't cool down enough. City folks slept on balconies and even fire escapes (latter is not legal or safe and I'm not recommending it), others got out in their backyards. Certainly do all cooking outside, or if you must cook inside, cook everything that needs heating the night before or early in the morning and don't cook again. Part of our problem is that we are such an indoor people - both for acclimation and comfort, we need to recognize that life can be moved outside, to the porch, the yard, etc... when time requires.

What if the power comes on? For most people, air conditioning is a mixed blessing - as you become accustomed to heat, your body begins to adapt to it, to sweat more and handle the heat better. Air conditioning can provide a blessed relief, but too much time spent in air conditioning can also prevent your body from actually adapting to hot conditions, making you feel it more. And this gets people into the vicious circle of needing their a/c more and more - and then gets the whole of society into the vicious circle of brownouts, blackouts and more air pollution from the coal plants and dirty diesel backup generators. I realize there are places where this is not viable, but I encourage people who do not physically have to use air conditioning to avoid it whenever possible, and to air condition as small a space as they can tolerate.

If you have a serious health problem that means that the air quality and temperatures in your area are intolerable to you during routine summer temperatures, you may have to think about relocation. The statement that no one needs to die from cold is not quite true for heat - that is, as long as we pollute air as heavily as we do, there are going to be people who suffer from that. If your life depends on adequate heat or cooling or air cleaning being provided by grid systems, I really don't like saying this, but you would be smart to seriously consider living in a place where you are not endangered - or less often endangered. Because fossil fuels may not be available, even if your life depends on it.

In the meantime, take it slow, keep cool, and enjoy the ripe things that love this weather!

Sharon

sastyk Mon, 07/05/2010 - 04:43

Tags

Earth Shelter! :-)

Seriously; every new building we need here is earth sheltered. Yes, duh, it costs more upfront. But it's one of the best investments you can possibly make.

We actually go INTO our greenhouse on sweltering days in July and August; because it's cooler in there. Not kidding.

I used to bring a bag of ice with me on long car trips. My car was ungodly hot and AC was not an option because I didn't have much money. It sat on my lap, which I later learned contains some enormous veins and arteries (from hospital work). It worked pretty well.

There are times when the ICU tries to induce hypothermia in patients, and they pack ice in the groin and armpit areas. They turn on fans and do wet wash cloths, too. Cooling the whole room wouldn't accomplish that efficiently.

I've been making lots of popsicles this summer. I've discovered that, inconveniently for someone living in Massachusetts, I don't really like applesauce. But pour it into popsicle molds and freeze it, and it is suddenly like unto manna from the freezer. I got gourmet yesterday and made coconut-lime popsicles with the coconut milk I discovered in the back of the pantry (this is especially useful since I tend to lose my appetite in the heat and getting fat into me prevents me suddenly feeling all wobbly around 3pm), but even just frozen water on a stick is very soothing. And if you don't intend to eat it, frozen water on a stick makes a lovely ice pack, with or without the cover still on it. Get the molds with the built-in stick so that you don't have to buy wooden ones.

As a resident of the South keeping cool is forefront on my mind for 4 months of the year. We are currently in the process of implementing some home improvements to reduce or eliminate our need for much beyond fans. Now I know that means a little electricity, but that's what solar back-up is for! We don't cook inside except for a few stove top things, and swim in the evening, keep blinds closed all the time, ice water all day.

We have a company applying a Super Therm white coating to the roof and planting 2 large red maples to the west side of the house. Tomorrow the attic and slopes are going to be well-insulated. I've also found window film for the south and west facing windows to reduce the absorption of heat. Our windows are failure new, but they don not have the low e coating that is helpful. I'm estimating that after some of these are in place that we will go down to little or no A/C for much of these 4 months. We are also lucky enough to have a basement that we have updated enough to be a comfortable hangout on the very hottest days. My goal is that next month, August, we will try to go without any A/C.

Sarah's popsicle comment is a good one. I usually pour the leftover morning smoothie into a popsicle mold and the kids (or I) eat it later. (Smoothies, at least the ones made with yogurt have the advantage of not being particularly drippy in the heat.)

But our big cooling advantage is the house. It's a little Cape Cod built in the 50's, but built old-school -- which meant a basement constructed out of granite blocks. Not only does it offer refuge on the hottest days, but by opening the basement door we get a cooling breeze coming up into the house. Proof once again that some of the classic and regional-specific building practices need to be brought back into the mix. Most current houses are built only with cheap and plentiful energy in mind.

Here in the Chicago area it has been quite warm though not over 90 yet. However the humidity has been very oppressive on many days. We used to use our AC quite a bit but now we open the windows at night and close them as soon as the temp starts to rise (and shades). The house stays quite comfortable. The only exceptions have been on 3 extremely humid days we closed up in the morning and turned on the AC for 1/2 to 1 hour to lower the humidity. It's been working quite well so far and overall we are just getting used to being warm.

There was an article by Jared Diamond in Natural History magazine some years ago. One thing was that the number of functional sweat glands you have is affected by the temperature regimen of your first three years of life. Most people these days are growing up in air conditioned comfort. I wonder what effect this has had on our military serving in hot desert areas. I was raised in a clapboard house in the Texas Hill Country without even a fan. So long as I am in the shade, or well covered, and have plenty of water to drink, I don't much care how hot it is. Dry heat is, of course, more comfortable.

Another vote for planting deciduous trees on the south side of the house, and for construction with lots of thermal mass.

Our farmhouse is 300 years old. Only a few walls and the attic are insulated. Most windows are at least 200 years old, and we cover them with thermal plastic in winter only. Of course, there's no a/c. We do have two large maple trees on the south side of the house, and a whole row of smaller maples, locusts and a few conifers on the East and West sides. Basement is just an old root cellar, made of dry-laid granite, house is timber-framed and plastered with some tile/stone floors for added thermal mass, + two masonry chimneys.

Outdoor high temperature today: 96F in the shade, on the north side of the house.
Indoor high temperature: 79F in the foyer on the south side of the house.

Bonus: Free maple syrup every March.

This has been on my mind a lot lately, as we've had a very hot summer here in Virginia. Regarding what you said about storing water, I've seen conflicting advice on this. One food storage book I read said that you can just store your water and forget about it, and that disease organisms die off over time, making older water safer, while others say to re-fill every 6 months, every 3 months, and you say 2 months. No one ever quotes any basis for their recommendations. I have all this water stored and honestly I think I'd be afraid to drink it.

We are in the process of going A/C free. Our friends think we are crazy, but I love how my body has adjusted to the heat. I woke up the other day to a 68 degree house and felt like I was freezing. Amazing!

Keep a number of wet wash cloths in the refrigerator and periodically apply them to the wrists (where blood vessels are close to the surface) this will cool the circulating blood and lower the body temperature. The cold cloths can also be applied to the kidney area.

If you own a piece of land behind your house, you may consider building an underground air cooling/heating tunnel - dig a trench four feet deep, at least 50 feet long, place C-shaped concrete prefab elements (ideally, but you can use other things that don't rot in the ground) to form a labirynth, cover with thick plastic foil (such as used in gardening), then concrete slabs, then two feet of earth. Leave a hole on one end to allow air in and on the other to connect to a air pump that will blow into your house air at a constant 10C (50F) - that's the temperature two feet underground regardless of the season.

Sadly, the recommendations in the Globe and Mail (Toronto paper) are about the exact opposite! Go to an air conditioned building, and go inside if you are feeling faint. Nothing about fans, nothing about acclimatization. Says to drink water you need to replace, but as you said, they could have pointed out that you should drink water regularly. Nothing in a pro-active sense. Arrgh!

A great, refreshing, and inexpensive hot weather drink is the old-fashioned "haymakers switchel," made with water, cider vinegar, brown sugar and ginger. History and several recipes at:
http://www.hungrybrowser.com/phaedrus/m093002.htm#1

A variant that my grandmother used to make used fresh mint, crushed with the sugar, instead of the ginger.

hat_eater:

"connect to a air pump that will blow into your house air at a constant 10C (50F) - that's the temperature two feet underground regardless of the season."

That's one of the things we built into our cool greenhouse, mentioned above. BUT - a) our base temperature is 45Â°F; and ground temp varies quite a bit with latitude and other local situations. And, b) the temp of the air coming into the house varies also; depending on outside ambient temp, and the speed of the airflow. Our air flow is passive, and if we're not paying attention, on a -15Â°F windy day in February, the air temp coming into the greenhouse can get down to 25Â°F or so. In midsummer on windy days, it might reach 65Â°F.

So it does need a little active management- but it sure as heck WORKS.

Love your name, incidentally. :-)

I live in a 90-year-old Boston three-decker, ordinary workers' housing from the 1920s. Almost every room has two doors, and generous windows. In hot weather, you can open everything and get air movement throughout the apartment just with fans. If it's really hot, you can sleep on either front or back porch. In cold weather, you close all the doors to reduce drafts between rooms. Unfortunately, former owners removed all the interior doors, including beautiful 15-light glass ones, in my place, and I've never had the cash to replace them.

Greenpa:
Thank you, it's great to see this wonderfully simple idea put to practical use. Where I live the ground is a bit on the wet side and the climate is temperate so I obviously should have added "YMMV" or some such disclaimer, but then what would I need my name for? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go munch on my hat a bit.

Hi,

We rarely need air-conditioning here in the Appalachians in northern Pennsylvania. But we do need it occasionally - I have medical problems which are hell in really hot weather (painful, inflamed joints - HOT! RED! joints - caused by lupus). Also, I'm taking a medication which messes up my body's ability to handle heat. (But it is truly necessary). So we do use the A/C (two small window units) when it's brutally hot - thankfully rare here.

Anyway, our power is flaky so I bought two little battery-operated fans (from Amazon) last year. They are great, I was very pleasantly surprised at the amount of air they move. They are a good emergency measure.

We also bought so-called 'solar curtains' - shiny silver stuff - they are thin and won't last long but they are cheap - for our windows this year. They do a fantastic job at keeping out the sun and heat. Each one was only $3.99. Not bad. I got them at Harriet Carter Gifts but a lot of the online 'catalog' sellers have them.

I like a Chillow too. No, I don't like, but *love* the Chillow. It really works! Nice cool pillow for hours and hours! After many months, they start to leak and then you need another one. But in my experience they have been great for months and months. Amazon has them, Drugstore.com has them, and lots of other places do as well.

Most of our house is shaded by a large oak tree, and this is a big help. We also beefed up the insulation in the attic which presumably helps too, and we would like to put a solar operated exhaust fan in the attic someday (if/when we can afford it).

And we have lots of windows and cross ventilation, which helps most of the time (house built in the early 1960s). Nothing but A/C helps today, it's going to hit 95 today or higher. But usually our summer weather is pleasant, and we use a 20" box fan plus a window fan in the bedroom and that's all we need to be comfortable.

Cheers,
Pat

*first* heat wave of the year? What did you call the week of 90s in early May, a warm spell?

-curiousalexa
grumpy to find Maine so warm. pesky climate change.

I think that URL is http://rehydrate.org/

I live in inland Australia and we reguarly get weeks on end of 40+ C (not sure what that equates to in Farenheit, but more than 100). I've never had an airconditioner, and don't really want one so I've developed a fair few techniques for keeping cool. I keep the house closed up during the day, with curtains on the windows, but once the sun has stopped hitting the windows I open them up to catch the breeze. If water's not a problem (and it usually is here) you can hose flyscreens *before* you open the windows and that will act like an evaporative cooler if there's any breeze. Wetting a tea-towel and hanging it over a covered fan is pretty effective in the same way. A cold shower before you go to bed helps you to sleep, and if it's really hot, take the shower in your nightgown/t-shirt whatever, and don't dry off. A fan trained on your body helps even more. I've also spent afternoons lying on the tiles on my bathroom floor reading - usually accompanied by the cat, who is no slouch when it comes to finding the coolest/warmest spot in the house depending on the prevailing climate.

haha cats are fun right, and they happen to know whats up. i spent all day today working outside in 110 plus degree weather and came home to an a/ced house. im affraid to go to sleep cuz someone told me id die. is it possible i could just from coming in from the heat and going to bed?

oh and incidentally, i quit my job today due to the heat lol.