Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Air Pollution Could Be Changing Children's Brains

News Feed
Thursday, October 3, 2024

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 3, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Even air pollution levels considered safe by U.S. standards appear to cause differences in the brains of growing children, a new review suggests."We're seeing differences in brain outcomes between children with higher levels of pollution exposure versus lower levels of pollution exposure," said corresponding author Camelia Hostinar, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.In all, she and her colleagues reviewed 40 studies. Most linked outdoor air pollution with differences in children's brains, including the amount of the brain's "white matter."These differences affect thinking skills and may even be early markers for Alzheimer's. Because their brains are still developing, air pollution poses a special risk to kids and teens. Relative to their weight, they absorb more contaminants than adults, researchers explained.As such, the authors called on parents and policymakers to add air filters to homes and schools near freeways to protect children from outdoor air pollutants. They urged other researchers to incorporate air quality measures into studies related to brain health and other health outcomes.The new review looked at research from the United States, Mexico, Europe, Asia and Australia that compared pollution levels with brain outcomes at various ages, from newborns to age 18.  Some relied on brain imaging. Some looked at chemical changes in the body that affect brain function. Others looked for tumors in the brain and central nervous system.Each study linked air quality measures to children's neighborhood or address, and brain differences were seen in highly polluted areas as well as those that met local air-quality standards.Research from Mexico City found striking differences in brain structure in a comparison of kids from low- and high-pollution areas."A lot of these studies include children in places with air pollutant levels that are well below limits set by U.S. or European regulations," said co-study author Anna Parenteau, a doctoral student in psychology.Pollution came from wildfires, coal-fired plants and many other sources."We can't necessarily apply the findings from adults and assume that it's going to be the same for children," said study co-author Johnna Swartz, an associate professor of human ecology. "We also have to look at more developmental windows because that might be really important in terms of how air pollution might impact these brain outcomes."Anthony Wexler, director of the Air Quality Research Center at UC Davis, said many researchers have discounted environmental contributors to such brain-related issues as autism and Alzheimer's."They argued that it's genetic or some other factor other than exposure to air pollution," he said. "That's changed a lot recently because of all this research literature."SOURCE: University of California, Davis, news release, Oct. 1, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 3, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Even air pollution levels considered safe by U.S. standards...

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Oct. 3, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Even air pollution levels considered safe by U.S. standards appear to cause differences in the brains of growing children, a new review suggests.

"We're seeing differences in brain outcomes between children with higher levels of pollution exposure versus lower levels of pollution exposure," said corresponding author Camelia Hostinar, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

In all, she and her colleagues reviewed 40 studies. Most linked outdoor air pollution with differences in children's brains, including the amount of the brain's "white matter."

These differences affect thinking skills and may even be early markers for Alzheimer's. 

Because their brains are still developing, air pollution poses a special risk to kids and teens. Relative to their weight, they absorb more contaminants than adults, researchers explained.

As such, the authors called on parents and policymakers to add air filters to homes and schools near freeways to protect children from outdoor air pollutants. They urged other researchers to incorporate air quality measures into studies related to brain health and other health outcomes.

The new review looked at research from the United States, Mexico, Europe, Asia and Australia that compared pollution levels with brain outcomes at various ages, from newborns to age 18.  Some relied on brain imaging. Some looked at chemical changes in the body that affect brain function. Others looked for tumors in the brain and central nervous system.

Each study linked air quality measures to children's neighborhood or address, and brain differences were seen in highly polluted areas as well as those that met local air-quality standards.

Research from Mexico City found striking differences in brain structure in a comparison of kids from low- and high-pollution areas.

"A lot of these studies include children in places with air pollutant levels that are well below limits set by U.S. or European regulations," said co-study author Anna Parenteau, a doctoral student in psychology.

Pollution came from wildfires, coal-fired plants and many other sources.

"We can't necessarily apply the findings from adults and assume that it's going to be the same for children," said study co-author Johnna Swartz, an associate professor of human ecology. "We also have to look at more developmental windows because that might be really important in terms of how air pollution might impact these brain outcomes."

Anthony Wexler, director of the Air Quality Research Center at UC Davis, said many researchers have discounted environmental contributors to such brain-related issues as autism and Alzheimer's.

"They argued that it's genetic or some other factor other than exposure to air pollution," he said. "That's changed a lot recently because of all this research literature."

SOURCE: University of California, Davis, news release, Oct. 1, 2024

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

With Carbon Capture Boom, a Wariness in Historic Louisiana Black Community Over More Pollution

Residents of the historic Black community of Elkinsville in southeastern Louisiana have elevated their fight against an ammonia plant proposed nearby

ELKINSVILLE, La. (AP) — A dispute over a planned ammonia plant near a historic Black town in southeastern Louisiana ratcheted up a notch Friday with a challenge to the state's approval process. The battle over the plant is occurring despite the fact that part of the impetus to build it is a provision in a key climate law signed by President Joe Biden. The company claims it will store underground almost all of the climate-damaging carbon dioxide emitted in the production of ammonia, commonly used for fertilizers. Environmental groups warn this is an unrealistic expectation.The Tulane University Environmental Law Clinic is asking the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to recuse itself from deciding on a permit for St. Charles Clean Fuels' ammonia plant next to the Elkinsville community. The agency appears to have already decided to grant the permit, the clinic said, before weighing all public comment, which would be illegal under Louisiana law.The motion comes after a public hearing in September in St. Charles Parish was shut down when more than 150 people tried to fit into a room in a public library the state had reserved. The agency characterized that turnout as “an organized attempt to hinder economic growth and prosperity for the state and local communities.” The department said it plans to reschedule the public hearing for late December and will carefully consider public comments.Elkinsville resident Kimbrelle Kyereh said she is not confident Louisiana environmental regulators are doing enough to protect her community, however. She has made many complaints about fumes coming from a large existing chemical tank storage complex next door, but "no one seems to truly care,” she said.If the state agency were to recuse itself, it would fall to Gov. Jeff Landry to appoint another entity to review the permit application. Landry strongly supports Louisiana's petrochemical industry. Residents live with a long legacy of pollution Like many other communities in the region of the proposed plant, Elkinsville was established by and for free Black people on the periphery of a former Mississippi River plantation. About a century ago, some plantation land was sold off for an oil export terminal. Today, International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMIT) operates a large tank farm storing diesel, ethanol and other chemicals waiting to be loaded onto river vessels. Only a chain-link fence separates it from the homes of Elkinsville.In interviews and public hearings, residents said the new ammonia plant would add to what they already experience: smells so foul they wake up short of breath at night and need to clamp down their windows. Rose Wilright, 80, loves her community, the four streets where she grew up surrounded by relatives whose memories are held in a small cemetery in the center of the town.Wilright said she believes IMTT and the many other nearby industrial facilities are why she has spent nights watching her grandson struggling to breathe with asthma. Now she too relies on an albuterol inhaler and has contracted bronchitis. “It’s just devastating that they trying to bring more chemicals on us,” she said. Company defends its environmental record The new ammonia plant would store its ammonia in IMTT's tanks. IMTT CEO Carlin Conner said he takes residents' complaints seriously. “This is their home,” he said. “We try our best to understand what they’re feeling and saying and then try to fix it.”The bad smells are “obviously a pain for people” but “we definitely do not believe it’s impacting health,” he said. IMTT has invested in tank venting equipment to limit odors, Conner said. He pointed out that the company partners with local charities and supports a welding training program for youth. Even Elkinsville residents who criticize IMTT — many of whom have relatives working there — acknowledge the company has brought economic benefits.St. Charles Clean Fuels, majority-owned by Danish investment firm Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, said in an emailed statement that its ammonia facility was “essential to fighting climate change” and would generate 200 permanent jobs.It reports the facility will produce 8,000 metric tons of ammonia daily and release about 118,700 pounds of ammonia annually. Ammonia buildout propelled by money for carbon capture The new ammonia project is buoyed by federal subsidies intended to make chemical production less damaging for the climate. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act promises companies up to $85 in tax credits for every ton of carbon dioxide they capture and store.Ammonia is widely used in fertilizers but also heralded by industry groups as a potential transport fuel. It is usually made from natural gas, in a process that contributes to climate change. St. Charles Clean Fuels said it will clean up that process, storing its greenhouse gases deep underground. There are dozens of carbon capture and storage facilities proposed across Louisiana.The company said its facility will prevent 5 million tons of carbon dioxide from being released annually. Environmental groups have generally cautioned against carbon capture and storage as a climate solution and urged a transition away from natural gas-based production. They note that carbon capture and storage has been around for decades and has fallen far short of the 99% capture rate promised by St. Charles Clean Fuels. The company did not provide evidence for this figure but said it will employ innovative technology based on auto-thermal reforming, in which oxygen and steam convert natural gas at extremely high temperatures into a byproduct used for ammonia production. The process is marketed by industry groups as improving energy efficiency.Michael Levien, a Johns Hopkins University sociologist who is working on a book about the Elkinsville community, said he believes the Inflation Reduction Act is deepening environmental and racial injustices by encouraging more industrial expansion in heavily polluted areas through its subsidies for carbon capture and storage. Clean air concerns near chemical tank complex The conflict over the federally supported new ammonia plant comes as the Biden administration has wrestled with the state of Louisiana over air quality and environmental health issues it says disproportionately affect Black people.In July, the Environmental Protection Agency fined IMTT over insufficient safeguards and said the company did not conduct appropriate hazard assessments. IMTT said it has since improved its protocols.The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality said the air quality around Elkinsville tracked by its air monitor was “deemed safe” based on data measured between 2018 and 2023, leading the agency to remove its air monitor.Kim Terrell, environmental scientist with the Tulane law clinic, said the department only monitored continuously for a small number of pollutants. IMTT’s modeling for air near its facility shows high levels of n-hexane, which can trigger respiratory problems, and naphthalene, which the EPA considers a possible carcinogen. Terrell criticized Louisiana’s regulation for these chemicals because they are based on the assumption people will be exposed for no more than an eight-hour workday rather than day and night as residents may be.Louisiana allows for “vastly higher” exposure to these chemicals than recommended by the EPA's health guidelines based on safe levels of long-term exposure, Terrell said.The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality said the EPA guidelines shouldn't be compared with Louisiana's rules, which are focused on short-term exposure.IMTT said in September it is working with a local environmental group to install several air monitors so nearby residents will know more about their air quality.Terrell said the monitoring system the company plans to install will not meet EPA standards.Meanwhile, Wilright, the lifelong Elkinsville resident whose home is up against the IMTT fence, said that if she could, she would “leave tonight,” despite her family's generations of memories there.She would go “wherever they don’t have chemical plants,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Brook on the social platform X: @jack_brook96Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Environmental Justice? Not if Project 2025 Has a Say.

There’s one line in the sprawling, 900-hundred page document known as Project 2025 that sketches out a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions dollars of federal money meant to help protect some of the most disadvantaged people in the country from pollution and the effects of global warming.  Project 2025, crafted by the conservative-think tank the […]

There’s one line in the sprawling, 900-hundred page document known as Project 2025 that sketches out a plan to eliminate hundreds of millions dollars of federal money meant to help protect some of the most disadvantaged people in the country from pollution and the effects of global warming.  Project 2025, crafted by the conservative-think tank the Heritage Foundation, is widely-acknowledged to be a blueprint for a potential Trump presidency—despite his efforts to distance himself from it. The line proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups” and reviewing “which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.” This almost certainly targets initiatives passed under President Joe Biden that seek to serve communities disproportionately affected by climate change or legacy pollution, also known as environmental justice communities. Project 2025 proposes halting “all grants to advocacy groups.” The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated an estimated 1.2 trillion in federal dollars to fund a variety of programs, most of of which were focused on climate change. It represents the biggest investment in climate action taken by the United States to date. On top of this, Biden’s Justice 40 initiative aims to ensure that 40 percent of federal climate-related funding goes towards marginalized communities. A portion of existing funds from the IRA are administered through the Environmental Protection Agency and are meant for advocacy groups, which often partner with state and local governments to help get money to the country’s neediest people. A subset of advocacy groups that receive federal funding are environmental justice groups, which advocate for climate change mitigation and increased access to a pollution-free environment for residents in low-income and BIPOC communities, which are often disproportionately located near sources of pollution. If it followed Project 2025’s proposal, a Trump EPA would almost certainly put an end to such programs. The Heritage Foundation has previously targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public and private institutions, as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this year. (Though it’s worth noting that race is not a factor that the Justice 40 initiative considers when deciding what constitutes a disadvantaged community.) Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief of staff under the Trump administration who worked for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the late Republican Senator James Inhofe, penned the chapter on environmental policy for Project 2025. She says that targeting grant programs to advocacy groups was part of a plan to reassess how the agency spends its dollars. “It’s part of a recommendation to review any pending grants to ensure they go to tangible environmental improvements and not political purposes,” she says. When I asked how would they make the distinction between grants that go to political purposes and grants that support environmental purposes, she didn’t answer. She’s previously accused environmental grantees of being secret Democratic party supporters. In 2023, she told RealClear Investigations, “These groups are political front groups that are simply created to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to Democrat campaigns under the guise of doing something good.”  An EPA spokesperson says that, on the contrary, the agency reviews applicants based on their ability to tackle climate change, environmental justice issues, and bring benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities. “We’re meeting the needs of all Americans,” says Zealan Hoover, senior advisor to the EPA administrator and director of implementation. “Regardless of political, socio-economic, or geographical boundaries.” Access to solar power can be a matter of life or death. Alexia Leclercq, policy director for PODER, an environmental justice organization based in East Austin, TX, saw that with her own eyes a few years ago. “During the winter storm,” she says, referring to 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, which killed 246 people, “the lack of not having power led to people dying.”  Residents across the state were surprised by the cold snap, which plunged the normally balmy temperatures down into the single digits in Austin. The surprise storm overwhelmed the state’s utility companies, who hadn’t planned for this eventuality. As a result, 69 percent of Texans lost power at some point during the week of the storm. People with solar power wouldn’t have needed to rely on the grid to warm their homes. “The lack of not having power led to people dying.”  Unfortunately, solar is still really expensive and inaccessible,” says Leclercq. Her organization was the beneficiary of the IRA’s Solar for All Program to try and help community members in the predominantly Latino East Austin install and use solar power.  Like other smaller environmental justice organizations, PODER didn’t always apply for federal grants because they didn’t have the capacity to deal with federal reporting requirements, says Leclercq. But a new stream of hired contractors from the EPA meant to assist community groups and increase applicants’ knowledge of the granting process was a huge help. “Last year was actually the first time we ever were part of applying for federal funding,” she says.  Leclerq says that while the Biden Administration has tried to rectify past oversight of environmental justice communities by ensuring that they get the funding and grant-assistance they need, the IRA’s grants have been an imperfect fix. She thinks the administration could be doing more to make the details of the program clearer.  “It’s really confusing, to be honest,” Leclercq says. “A lot of people, they’re like, ‘Where do I find the grant? How do I know it’s aligned with my program? How do I know the deadlines?’” She also notes that there’s often “insider info” not widely available about real-life deadlines compared to the publicly listed ones.  Mijin Cha, a professor of environmental studies at University of California, Santa Cruz, also says that the current grant structure is too onerous and inefficient, often routing money through different groups to provide those benefits to underserved people. “The federal government gives money to a third party, and then that third party distributes the money,” says Cha. “Is it not more efficient to just have that be a direct investment?” Despite its flaws, many grantees feel that the Biden administration’s attempt to account for the historic discrimination that saddled communities of color with legacy pollution or made them more vulnerable to climate change is a step in the right direction. The EPA has already funneled $234 million to environmental justice groups to help remedy these issues. Many other groups like PODER are benefiting from the $27 billion dollars allocated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is the umbrella program for Solar for All. As for the allegation that grantees might be political front groups? “It’s unethical and harmful that people are outwardly spreading misinformation and lies regarding Justice40,” Leclercq says. “If they don’t want to fund climate solutions they should just own it.” Even if Trump were to win the election and carry out Project 2025’s plan to eliminate these federal grants, the funding stream wouldn’t stop any time soon. There are many safeguards in the federal granting system, says Hoover. “Our grant agreements are legally binding agreements between the federal government and a grantee with robust legal protections,” he says. Hoover told me that most of the IRA’s funding has already been committed, meaning the federal government is legally obligated to pay it out. But awarded money doesn’t last forever; in the case of most of these programs, it lasts from 3 to 5 years. A Trump president could possibly cut those programs as soon as funding runs out. For the time being, Hoover says that the EPA is focused on making sure to document the IRA’s environmental justice benefits. “We’re confident that the strongest defense for these programs is going to be the tangible impact in these communities and the people who are healthier and safer today than they were four years ago,” he says. 

Los Angeles County sues PepsiCo, Coca-Cola over role in plastic pollution 'crisis'

Los Angeles County announced a lawsuit against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo this week, arguing the soda giants misled the public on the recyclability of the plastics used for its products. In the Wednesday complaint, the county alleged that the companies promoted their bottles as recyclable but knew most of them would end up in landfills and...

Los Angeles County announced a lawsuit against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo this week, arguing the soda giants misled the public on the recyclability of the plastics used for its products. In the Wednesday complaint, the county alleged that the companies promoted their bottles as recyclable but knew most of them would end up in landfills and that they cannot be meaningfully recycled without environmental harms. It specifically points to what it says are false claims by Pepsi that it has created a “circular economy” for the plastics it uses as well as pledges by both companies to eliminate the use of virgin plastic, or newly manufactured material that has not been previously processed. Plastic comprises the biggest source of terrestrial litter in the state of California, accounting for seven of the 10 most common products left on beaches, according to the lawsuit. In 2021, 600 billion plastic water bottles were manufactured, which created 25 million tons of waste, most of which was landfilled. “Los Angeles County is committed to reducing the use of plastic and protecting the environment,” Los Angeles County Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath said in a statement. “Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems your products are causing. Los Angeles County will continue to address the serious environmental impacts caused by companies engaging in misleading and unfair business practices.” The organization Break Free From Plastic ranks the two companies as among the biggest worldwide plastic polluters, with Coca-Cola generating 3.2 million metric tons of plastic a year and PepsiCo 2.5 million metric tons. The lawsuit comes on the heels of February research suggesting plastics cannot be meaningfully recycled in the sense of being made into fully new products and that the concept of “recyclable plastics” is largely a successful public relations campaign by the plastics industry. That research further found that even when collected for recycling, many cities and municipalities dispose of most of the plastics collected by burning or landfill. The Hill has reached out to PepsiCo and Coca-Cola for comment.

Five smart policies can turbocharge clean US manufacturing

After decades of stagnation, the U.S. is beginning to see new growth in domestic manufacturing, driven by investments in breakthrough industrial technologies in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These two ambitious pieces of legislation — aiming to help companies cut their pollution,…

After decades of stagnation, the U.S. is beginning to see new growth in domestic manufacturing, driven by investments in breakthrough industrial technologies in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These two ambitious pieces of legislation — aiming to help companies cut their pollution, boost their competitiveness, and create jobs — are already paying dividends. But these investments are only a small down payment on the economic, security, and environmental benefits the U.S. could achieve by accelerating the transition to clean and competitive industry. Industrial firms produce all the products and materials we rely on daily — the vehicles we drive, the concrete and steel that hold up our bridges and buildings, and even the food we eat. In doing so, they emit one out of every four tons of the climate pollution fueling storms, wildfires, and other dangerous effects of climate change. At the same time, global demand for industrial products is increasing, even as we seek to secure domestic supply chains for critical materials and shore up our energy infrastructure. To overcome these interconnected challenges, the U.S needs to pursue five smart policies to drive investments in industrial innovation: First, Congress should enact a tax credit to reward the production of clean industrial heat. Eighty-five percent of the fossil fuels burned by industry produce heat for processes such as melting metals, molding plastics, and cooking food. A clean heat production tax credit would give a tax break to manufacturers that switch to non-polluting energy sources. This would mirror existing tax credits for clean electricity and clean hydrogen, filling a major gap in federal support for industrial innovation while accelerating the commercialization and scale-up of technologies like high-temperature heat pumps and electric boilers. Second, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state public utility commissions should reform electricity markets to value highly flexible energy-storage technologies. As industries replace fossil fuels with clean alternatives, they will demand more electricity. Fortunately, much of that electricity can be supplied by making better use of the spare capacity of existing power plants and transmission lines. As the grid adds more renewable energy to meet the U.S.’s clean electricity targets, there will be regular windy and sunny periods with an oversupply of electricity, which can be put to productive use powering the local economy. For instance, a factory with thermal batteries can purchase electricity when it is abundant and inexpensive, convert that electricity to heat, and store the heat until it is needed. Strategic use of low-cost electricity could save money for industry and help electric utilities balance the grid while lowering costs for all customers.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.