ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Big Ag's "Celery Calculator" Lowballs Pesticide Risk
Your New Phone: Extra Radiation or Extra Features?
California Green Chemistry rules should be withdrawn
Don't Let Toxic Toys Grinch Your Holiday!
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Guess That Acreage: How much corn will be planted in 2007 ? | Main | The dangers of dried grasshoppers »
The rising cost of breathing
Consumer Affairs reports the new availability of environmentally sensitive asthma medication, prompting an FDA mandate to discontinue the production of traditional Albuterol inhalers by 2008. Up until now, these inhalers used ozone-depleting CFCs as a propellant, but avoided prohibition under the Montreal Protocol due to medical necessity. The new inhalers use a more benign propellant known as hydroflouroalkane (HFA), but are expected to cost an average of $26 more per prescription and have a significantly reduced shelf life. As one of the most common drugs prescribed in the United States, Americans are expected to spend an additional $1.2 billion per year on the new inhalers.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that asthma rates increase with exposure to environmental pollutants, such as ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead, and particulate matter. In the United States, much of this outdoor pollution comes from automotive emissions, coal-fired power plants, and other forms of carbon combustion.
According to a report by the Asthma Regional Council, asthma rates have increased in the past decade, costing an estimated $16 billion per year in medical costs and lost productivity. New England states fare worst in the nation; 14% of New England children have been diagnosed with asthma at some point during their lives.
I happen to fall within that 14 percent. While growing up in the state of Maine, I too developed mild asthma at the age of eleven. While there is no conclusive research on the cause of Maine’s mysteriously high asthma rate, some sources suggest it may be influenced by prevailing winds that blow coal plant pollutants from Mid-western states over to the eastern border.
It’s enough to make me wonder whether or not my personal health has been compromised for the sake of energy profits. If so, should I really have to foot the bill for more costly inhalers to cut down on atmospheric pollution? Or should we make the real polluters pay for the health damage caused by their own eco-neglect?
« Guess That Acreage: How much corn will be planted in 2007 ? |
I think this decision will be at many asthmatic death. I personally thing they could use their more on companies that are polluting thigs not on poor people who can not breath. If we can not breath NOTHING else matter. I am very concerned and disappointed in their decision.