As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Let's Move to Wyoming] EPA Identifies 600 Areas With Highly Carcinogenic Air
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Original Huffington Post Article
The EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Page
Of the 181 air toxics included in the 2002 national-scale assessment, the risk characterization considers the risk of both cancer and noncancer effects from inhalation of 124 of these air toxics -- the subset of pollutants with health data based on chronic exposure. The purpose of this national-scale assessment is to understand these cancer risks and noncancer health effects in order to help the EPA and others to identify pollutants and source categories of greatest potential concern, and to set priorities for the collection of additional information to improve future assessments. The assessment represents a "snapshot" in time for characterizing risks from exposure to air toxics. The national-scale assessment is not designed to characterize risks sufficiently for regulatory action.
The 2002 national-scale risk assessment is based on a 2002 inventory of air toxics emissions (the most complete and up-to-date available). It then assumes individuals spend their entire lifetimes exposed to these air toxics. Therefore, it does not account for the reductions in emissions that have occurred since 2002 or those that will happen in the near future due to regulations for mobile and industrial sources (see further details in the Air Toxics Reduction section of the Web site). This risk assessment represents an update and enhancement to EPA's 1999 national-scale assessment. The next assessment will focus on emissions for the year 2005. It will be released in late 2009 or early 2010.
This at least is comforting:
Huffington Post wrote:The average cancer risk across the country is 36 in 1 million. That's a decline from the 41.5 in 1 million cancer risk the EPA found when it released the last analysis in 2006. That data covered 1999 emissions.
I'll be interested to see how the figures change for the assessment based on 2005.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Posts
Edit - Though hey, not long enough to run a risk! <.<
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Move to Wyoming.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I just noticed that. Good question.
EDIT: I just looked up a map of Mississippi on Google, and that triangular area seems to correspond to Tippah County. The only thing I could find is that Tippah County seems to have several mining towns, with one source mentioning that they mine "non-metallic minerals".
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I wonder how difficult it would be to create projected rates of emission reduction and use their predictions to speculate lifetime risk?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The automobile industry doesn't really pollute much. I mean, the worst thing they do is basically just spot welding, and that's all by robot anymore so workers are probably not even exposed to any fumes. The worst they have to worry about are forklifts and golf carts.
Overall the worst are most likely resource extraction (mining) and smelting plants/mills for steel, aluminium, &c.
For exceptionally generous definitions of "living," I suppose. :P
Korean kids amassing gold are the worst polluters?
All the Code Red and Funyuns result in a high methane output.