Deadly emissions? [1% contribution of aviation emissions to harmful air pollution]

[Asylumkid]

I recently found this link on a prominent Virginia Beach chemtrail activists Facebook page. This appears to be a genuine study by a scientist by the name of Steven Barrett (http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/people/barrett.html). I find it a bit similar to chemtrail claims in that it somehow manages to attribute human death to pollution being produced by a specific mode of transport. Unfortunately it seems you have to pay to see the actual study but if anyone knows more about this perhaps you could verify the accuracy of the original article.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/

 

[solrey]

Full text of the study is available here:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101325r

Basically they included estimates of emissions at cruise altitude with estimates of emissions during landing and takeoff combined with a computer model of high altitude particulate distribution to come up with an estimate of aviation's portion of mortality attributed to pollution, specifically PM2.5 pollution...

Epidemiological studies indicate that long-term population exposure to fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5) is associated with increased risk of health impacts including premature mortality.

The World Health Organization estimates that globally 0.8 million premature mortalities per year are due to anthropogenic air pollution (26). Our estimates for aviation-attributable mortalities represent less than 1% of this figure.

In their estimate, aviation contributes less than 1% of the total estimated mortality from all sources of pollution. Of course as estimates and computer models go, under 1% could be much less than the margin of error.

 

[JDubyah]

So in other words, we have a lot of info about vehicle pollution as it relates to ground-based transport like cars, trucks, buses, trains, and so on, and the effects of those emissions on health and mortality, but less info on air-based transportation.. so this guy did a study to see how much airplane pollution contributes to the whole thing.

I brought this up in talking to some chemtrailers recently. That, in disagreeing with the chemtrail conspiracy I'm *not* saying that the contrails can't be considered 'air pollution', either because it's just ugly to some people's eyes (like 'noise pollution' is to the ears), because it creates some cloud cover, or obviously because it's engine exhaust, and that's going to pollute just as car engine's exhaust pollute.. but planes (as far as I know) burn cleaner than cars. Each holds more fuel, but there are less of them, and so on.

 

[David Fraser]

The latest WHO estimates for premature deaths attributed to air pollution in general are in the region of 7 million.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

While still a source aircraft emmissions represent a drop in the ocean, however they have been identified for stricter regulation. There is an interesting report by EASA discussing the removing of sulphur and it touches on health and mortality benefits.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA_SULPHUR_Project_11-01-2010.pdf

 

[Mick West]

I brought this up in talking to some chemtrailers recently. That, in disagreeing with the chemtrail conspiracy I'm *not* saying that the contrails can't be considered 'air pollution', either because it's just ugly to some people's eyes (like 'noise pollution' is to the ears), because it creates some cloud cover, or obviously because it's engine exhaust, and that's going to pollute just as car engine's exhaust pollute

It's important to note that the air pollution from a plane is exactly the same, regardless of if there is a contrail or not.

 

[JRBids]

The pollution angle is just a morphing of the chemtrail hoax.

 

[Mick West]

The pollution angle is just a morphing of the chemtrail hoax.

I'd be happy if it morphed into something more real. "plane exhaust kills" is a real thing, just with a skewed perspective.

Debunking works best if there's something to replace what you are debunking. People don't like holes in their belief structure.

 

[KAT]

Actually they don't seem to have had any very accurate figures for ANY of the factors they looked at, so they modeled numerous theoretical combinations. Then they say

Although associations between other pollutants and premature mortality have been found, a relatively strong evidence base exists for PM2.5 as the exposure metric that is most consistently and independently associated with premature mortality and other health effects. No exposure threshold is likely to exist for PM2.5

which their quoted reference (which deals entirely with lead pollution) does not say at all.
It seems unlikely that there is "no exposure threshold", considering the dose makes the poison.

I dispute that PM2.5 has ever been independently associated with anything, as it is a measure of particle SIZE, and those particles may be something different each time. I am backed up in this assessment by an easy to read submission from a Texas environment organization
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/publicati...-be-set-lower-than-scientifically-justifiable

For instance, most of the available studies assume the relationship between PM2.5 levels in air (the dose) and observed health effects is linear—with no threshold. In other words, the researchers assumed that there was no dose below which health effects would not be expected to occur, and that doubling the level of exposure to PM2.5 would double the risk. That is, there is no safe level of exposure to PM2.5. However, in clinical studies exposing human volunteers to PM2.5, much higher doses than are encountered in ambient air in real-world conditions are required to achieve even very subtle effects, such as changes in heart rate, much less more severe effects like respiratory distress, heart attacks, or death. This finding implies that there is in fact a threshold below which exposure to PM2.5 is not expected to cause health effects.

I call this whole study total bunk. Nice work if you can get it.

EDIT: I am sure aircraft exhausts contribute something, on top of all the other burnt fossil fuel emissions, but I don't believe it can be quantified by their methods. The total number in any case is smaller than 0.1% of their rounding error, so..... b u n k

 

[TWCobra]

Anyone who spends any time in places like China or South East Asia during the burn off months can readily see where the premature deaths are coming from.

It has nothing to do with aircraft emissions at 35,000 feet.

If the methodology here is simply dividing deaths by fuel used( I haven't read it yet), then I too suspect the conclusions.

10 years ago I spent a month in Hong Kong doing a series of simulator rides for my A330 conversion. I was staying at an airport hotel with a view down the runways. Not once in the entire month could I see the far end of those runways, and it wasn't aircraft emissions doing the damage.

 

[WeedWhacker]

10 years ago I spent a month in Hong Kong doing a series of simulator rides for my A330 conversion. I was staying at an airport hotel with a view down the runways. Not once in the entire month could I see the far end of those runways, and it wasn't aircraft emissions doing the damage.

Ten years ago, in Hong Kong? (So, circa 2004...). OK, last time I visited Hong Kong was as a tourist (vacation, using my travel benefits) in 1995!

What this conveys is staggering....ground-based pollution, (which can contribute to respiratory problems, to include death) likely due to the withdrawal of 'British governance' in the territory of Hong Kong, and the hand-over to Chinese domination.

(EDIT): There are countless media reports of severe examples of air pollution in many other cities in China. Rather easy to "Google" and find them......AND of course, these examples (in China) are NOT related to aviation.....

 

[KAT]

If the methodology here is simply dividing deaths by fuel used( I haven't read it yet), then I too suspect the conclusions.

Lot more complicated than that. The got figures for fuel usage (mixed sulfur contents) and air traffic routes (varying amounts of traffic of course) calculated various burn rates, did simulations of numerous combinations of these (sort of guesstimated) factors, plotted them against prevailing wind maps (not sure if the used FL35 or ground level ones or if they know there's a difference) to calculate where more of the articles would land. Then they somehow worked that up against WHO and other figures for deaths from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease (recorded by at least 50 different criteria in various countries), then somehow came up with a global number of 8000 -- which as I said is 0.1% or less of a ROUNDING error on numbers of this scale.

For this they got PAID.

There are countless media reports of severe examples of air pollution in many other cities in China.

Yes well, they also don't seem to have mapped any known other major sources of pollution like the annual burns or China's proliferation of coal fired power stations, eve though these are in some of the areas they calculated more of the aircraft pollution falls on.

On the basis of this "science" the recommend removing sulfur from aircraft fuel, which they guess would be "only 5 cents a gallon" or some such. As this would cost the aviation industry between $1 and $4 BILLION a year, I can see ways that kind of money could be used to save more than a few 1000 deaths a year. More details and quotes from the guy who did the study
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar