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.

Airport and Aircraft Noise Can Hurt Your Heart

News Feed
Wednesday, January 8, 2025

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Jan. 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Folks who live near airports are used to the regular roar of jet airliners taking off and landing.But they likely don’t know that all this ruckus could be harming their heart health, a new study says.People exposed to high aircraft noise levels could be at greater risk of poor heart function, increasing their risk of heart attack, stroke and irregular heartbeat, researchers report.Residents living near noisy airports had 10% to 20% worse heart structure and function, compared to people who moved to get away from the aircraft noise, according to results published Jan. 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.Specifically, their heart muscle had grown stiffer and thicker over time, making the organ less efficient at pumping blood, researchers said.These sort of changes to the heart can quadruple a person’s risk of heart attack or stroke, researchers estimated.“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence that aircraft noise can adversely affect heart health and our health more generally,” senior researcher Dr. Gaby Captur, a senior clinical lecturer at the University College London Institute of Cardiovascular Science, said in a news release from the school.For the study, researchers analyzed data from the long-term UK Biobank health research project, involving more than 3,600 people who lived near Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham or Manchester airports.The team compared MRI scans taken of the participants’ hearts with aircraft noise estimates produced by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.High aircraft noise was defined as more than 50 decibels on average during daylight hours and 45 decibels at night, researchers said. That’s higher than the 45 daytime decibels and 40 nighttime decibels recommended by the World Health Organization.Risk of hearing loss starts around 70 decibels, according to the National Council on Aging. A normal conversation registers around 60 decibels, a “quiet” dishwasher at 50 decibels, and average room noise at 40 decibels.Researchers suspected that the constant din from a nearby airport might have a cumulative effect on the health of nearby residents.They found that people exposed to loud aircraft noise had 7% increased heart mass and 4% greater heart thickness, as well as impaired heart function.The team then compared these observations to a larger sample of nearly 21,400 MRI heart scans, to see how structural changes related to aircraft noise might affect heart health.Overall, a person with the sort of heart structure changes associated with airplane noise has a fourfold greater risk of heart attack, stroke, or irregular heart rhythm, researchers concluded.“We are concerned that the type of abnormalities we saw with night-time aircraft noise might result in increased risk of heart problems and stroke,” researcher Anna Hansell, director of the Center for Environmental Health and Sustainability at the University of Leicester (UCL), said in a news release. “Aircraft noise at night has been shown to affect sleep quality and this may be an important factor affecting health,” Hansell added.Environmental noise also can trigger over-activation of people’s “fight-or-flight” stress response, causing blood pressure to rise and digestion to slow, researchers said. Release of the stress hormone cortisol can increase appetite and cause weight gain.“This innovative study reveals the potential invisible impact for those living close to some of our biggest travel hubs,” James Leiper, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said in the UCL news release.“While observational studies like this can’t prove cause and effect, these findings add to previous research showing the damaging impact of noise pollution on our heart health,” added Leiper, whose foundation funded the research but who was not directly involved in the study. “Further research will be needed to investigate the longer-term effects of aircraft noise on the health of those with the highest exposure.”SOURCE: University College London, news release, Jan. 8, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Jan. 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Folks who live near airports are used to the regular roar of jet...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 8, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Folks who live near airports are used to the regular roar of jet airliners taking off and landing.

But they likely don’t know that all this ruckus could be harming their heart health, a new study says.

People exposed to high aircraft noise levels could be at greater risk of poor heart function, increasing their risk of heart attack, stroke and irregular heartbeat, researchers report.

Residents living near noisy airports had 10% to 20% worse heart structure and function, compared to people who moved to get away from the aircraft noise, according to results published Jan. 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, their heart muscle had grown stiffer and thicker over time, making the organ less efficient at pumping blood, researchers said.

These sort of changes to the heart can quadruple a person’s risk of heart attack or stroke, researchers estimated.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence that aircraft noise can adversely affect heart health and our health more generally,” senior researcher Dr. Gaby Captur, a senior clinical lecturer at the University College London Institute of Cardiovascular Science, said in a news release from the school.

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the long-term UK Biobank health research project, involving more than 3,600 people who lived near Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham or Manchester airports.

The team compared MRI scans taken of the participants’ hearts with aircraft noise estimates produced by the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

High aircraft noise was defined as more than 50 decibels on average during daylight hours and 45 decibels at night, researchers said. That’s higher than the 45 daytime decibels and 40 nighttime decibels recommended by the World Health Organization.

Risk of hearing loss starts around 70 decibels, according to the National Council on Aging. A normal conversation registers around 60 decibels, a “quiet” dishwasher at 50 decibels, and average room noise at 40 decibels.

Researchers suspected that the constant din from a nearby airport might have a cumulative effect on the health of nearby residents.

They found that people exposed to loud aircraft noise had 7% increased heart mass and 4% greater heart thickness, as well as impaired heart function.

The team then compared these observations to a larger sample of nearly 21,400 MRI heart scans, to see how structural changes related to aircraft noise might affect heart health.

Overall, a person with the sort of heart structure changes associated with airplane noise has a fourfold greater risk of heart attack, stroke, or irregular heart rhythm, researchers concluded.

“We are concerned that the type of abnormalities we saw with night-time aircraft noise might result in increased risk of heart problems and stroke,” researcher Anna Hansell, director of the Center for Environmental Health and Sustainability at the University of Leicester (UCL), said in a news release. 

“Aircraft noise at night has been shown to affect sleep quality and this may be an important factor affecting health,” Hansell added.

Environmental noise also can trigger over-activation of people’s “fight-or-flight” stress response, causing blood pressure to rise and digestion to slow, researchers said. Release of the stress hormone cortisol can increase appetite and cause weight gain.

“This innovative study reveals the potential invisible impact for those living close to some of our biggest travel hubs,” James Leiper, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said in the UCL news release.

“While observational studies like this can’t prove cause and effect, these findings add to previous research showing the damaging impact of noise pollution on our heart health,” added Leiper, whose foundation funded the research but who was not directly involved in the study. “Further research will be needed to investigate the longer-term effects of aircraft noise on the health of those with the highest exposure.”

SOURCE: University College London, news release, Jan. 8, 2025

Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Nearly Half of Americans Breathe Unhealthy Air, New Report Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting...

FRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting your health at risk.A new American Lung Association report shows that 156 million people live in areas with unhealthy air.The group’s annual "State of the Air" report found that smog and soot pollution are getting worse, not better. The report looked at air quality data from 2021 to 2023. It found that 25 million more people than in the group's last report were breathing "unhealthy levels of air pollution." That's more than in any other "State of the Air" report in the last decade, the association said.Since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, air pollution has gone down overall, said Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the lung association, told CBS News."The challenge is that over the last few years, we're starting to see it tick back up again and that's because of climate change, in part," she said. "Climate change is making some of those conditions for wildfires and extreme heat that drive ozone pollution worse for a lot of the country."The city with the worst year-round and short-term particle pollution? Bakersfield, California, for the sixth year in a row.What's more, it was ranked third worst for high ozone days. In contrast, Casper, Wyoming, was listed as the cleanest city for year-round particle pollution, CBS News said.Here are the top 10 cities with the worst year-round particle pollution, according to the association:Bakersfield-Delano, Calif. Visalia, Calif. Fresno-Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. Eugene-Springfield, Ore. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, Mich. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Houston-Pasadena, Texas Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio Fairbanks-College, Ark. The report warned that pollution isn't just an issue in the west. Extreme heat and wildfires are spreading pollution across the country.In fact, smoke from Canada's wildfires in 2023 caused unhealthy air quality even in the eastern parts of the U.S., the report pointed out.Some of the findings came as a surprise, according to Kevin Stewart, the association’s environmental health director."I think we knew that the wildfire smoke would have an impact on air quality in the United States," he told CBS News. "I think we were surprised at the Lung Association by how strong the effect was, especially in the northeastern quadrant of the continental United States." Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will roll back 31 environmental rules, including ones pertaining to vehicle emissions, CBS News reported.Bender said that puts decades of progress at risk."Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk," she said. "The EPA is at risk — the agency that is protecting our health — through staff cuts, funding cuts. The regulations that have cleaned up our air over time are at risk of being cut. If we see all those cuts become reality, it's gonna have a real impact on people's health by making the air they breathe dirtier."Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, argued that, instead, the deregulation will drive "a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more," according to CBS News."This air pollution is causing kids to have asthma attacks, making people who work outdoors sick and unable to work, and leading to low birth weight in babies," Kezia Ofosu Atta, the Lung Association’s advocacy director, told CBS News.The report also found that Black Americans are more likely to suffer serious health problems from air pollution.SOURCE: CBS News, April 23, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Umbilical Cord Could Contain Clues For Child's Future Health

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health outlook, by analyzing their umbilical cord blood, a new study says.Genetic clues found in cord blood can offer early insight into which infants are at higher risk for health problems like diabetes, stroke and liver disease later in life, researchers will report at the upcoming Digestive Disease Week meeting in San Diego.“We’re seeing kids develop metabolic problems earlier and earlier, which puts them at higher risk for serious complications as adults,” lead researcher Dr. Ashley Jowell, a resident physician in internal medicine at Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., said in a news release. “If we can identify that risk at birth, we may be able to prevent it.”For the study, researchers performed genetic analysis on the umbilical cord blood of 38 children enrolled in a long-term study based in North Carolina.The analysis looked for chemical patterns in infants’ DNA that switch genes on or off. When these switches occur in critical parts of DNA, their health effects can persist through fetal development and into later life.The research team compared these DNA changes to the kids’ health at ages 7 to 12, and identified multiple areas where genes in cord blood predicted health problems in childhood.For example, changes in a gene called TNS3 were linked to fatty liver, liver inflammation or damage, and excess belly fat as measured by waist-to-hip ratio, results show.Changes in other genes were connected to blood pressure, waist-to-hip ratio, and liver inflammation or damage, researchers said.“These epigenetic signals are laid down during embryonic development, potentially influenced by environmental factors such as nutrition or maternal health during pregnancy,” co-researcher Dr. Cynthia Moylan, an associate professor in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University Health System, said in a news release.Researchers noted that the sample size was small, but the links so powerful that these findings warrant further investigation. A larger follow-up study funded by the National Institutes of Health is underway.“If validated in larger studies, this could open the door to new screening tools and early interventions for at-risk children,” Moylan added.Jowell said disease may be preventable even with these markers."Just because you're born with these markers doesn't mean disease is inevitable," she said. "But knowing your risk earlier in life could help families and clinicians take proactive steps to support a child’s long-term health."Researchers are scheduled to present their findings May 4. Findings presented at medical meetings are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association, news release, April 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Biden let California get creative with Medicaid spending. Trump is signaling that may end

California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs.

In summary California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs. In 2022, California made sweeping changes to its Medi-Cal program that reimagined what health care could look like for some of the state’s poorest and sickest residents by covering services from housing to healthy food. But the future of that program, known as CalAIM, could be at risk under the Trump administration.  In recent weeks, federal officials have signaled that support for creative uses of Medi-Cal funding is waning, particularly uses that California has invested in such as rent assistance and medically tailored meals. Medi-Cal is California’s name for Medicaid. The moves align with a narrower vision of Medicaid espoused by newly confirmed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Dr. Mehmet Oz, who said during his swearing-in ceremony that Medicaid spending was crowding out spending on education and other services in states with the federal government “paying most of the bill.” “This one really bothers me. There are states who are using Medicaid — Medicaid dollars for people who are vulnerable — for services that are not medical,” Oz said. It also fits with broader GOP calls to slim down the federal government. Medicaid is under scrutiny as part of a GOP-led budget process in the House of Representatives that calls for $880 billion in cuts over 10 years to programs including Medicaid. “The messaging that we want to go back to the basics of Medicaid puts all of these waiver programs in jeopardy,” said John Baackes, former chief executive of L.A. Care, the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurer. CalAIM is authorized under a federal waiver that allows states to experiment with their Medicaid programs to try to save money and improve health outcomes. Under the waiver, California added extra benefits for high-cost users to help with food insecurity, housing instability,  substance use and behavioral health challenges. Roughly half of all Medi-Cal spending can be attributed to 5% of high-cost users, according to state documents. But in March, the federal government rescinded guidelines supporting Medi-Cal spending for social services. It also sent states a letter in April indicating that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would no longer approve a funding mechanism that helps support CalAIM, although that money will continue until 2026. Together, these moves should worry states that operate programs like CalAIM, said Kathy Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “Under the Biden administration states were encouraged to experiment with things like that: To prescribe people prescriptions to get healthy food, to refer people to community-based services,” Hempstead said. “This administration is not receptive at all to … that vision of the Medicaid program.” In a press release, CMS said it is putting an end to spending that isn’t “directly tied to health care services.” “Mounting expenditures, such as covering housekeeping for individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid or high-speed internet for rural healthcare providers, distracts from the core mission of Medicaid, and in some instances, serves as an overly-creative financing mechanism to skirt state budget responsibilities,” the press release states. These signals from the federal government apply to future applications for Medicaid changes, and do not change California’s current programs or funding. The state’s CalAIM waiver expires at the end of 2026, and another similar waiver that supports California’s efforts to improve behavioral health care expires in 2029. According to a statement from the Department of Health Care Services, the agency that oversees Medi-Cal, all programs “remain federally approved and operational.” “We appreciate our Medi-Cal providers and community partners, and together we will push full steam ahead to transform our health system and improve health outcomes,” the department said. Physician assistant Brett Feldman checks his patient, Carla Bolen’s, blood pressure while in her encampment at the Figueroa St. Viaduct above Highway 110 in Elysian Valley Park in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2022. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Paul Shafer, co-director of the Boston University Medicaid Policy Lab, said decades of public health research show that people have worse health outcomes that require more expensive treatment when their social needs aren’t met. “We’ve spent the last few decades in public health and health policy, arguing that so much of health and medical costs is driven by environmental factors — people’s living conditions, income, etc.” Shafer said. But, Shafer said, programs like CalAIM are relatively recent and the research hasn’t had enough time to show whether paying for non-traditional services saves money. For example, California’s street medicine doctors who take care of people who are homeless say that their patients often cycle in and out of the emergency room — the most expensive point of service in the health care system. They have no place to recover from medical procedures, no address to deliver medications, and the constant exposure to the elements takes years off of their lives, doctors say.  CalAIM gives them options to help their clients find housing.  The federal government’s decision not to fund programs like this in the future is a “step backward,” Shafer said.  “I think we can all read the tea leaves and say that that means they’re sort of unlikely to be renewed,” he said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more. more on california health care They live in California’s Republican districts. They feel betrayed by looming health care cuts March 11, 2025March 12, 2025 California has big plans for improving mental health. Medicaid cuts could upend them April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Chattanooga Just Became North America's First National Park City. Here's What That Means

The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: "greener, healthier and wilder"

Chattanooga Just Became North America’s First National Park City. Here’s What That Means The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: “greener, healthier and wilder” Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent April 23, 2025 4:20 p.m. Chattanooga was once one of the most polluted cities in the country. Now, it's North America's first National Park City. larrybraunphotography.com via Getty Images Chattanooga has been named North America’s first National Park City, a designation that acknowledges the city’s abundant green spaces and commitment to environmental stewardship. The city in southeast Tennessee, home to roughly 190,000 residents, is now the third National Park City in the world, following behind London and Adelaide, Australia. The title comes from the National Park City Foundation, a London-based charity that envisions a better future by thinking of cities more like national parks. The movement is not connected to the National Park Service, the federal agency that manages America’s national parks, monuments, historic sites and other protected lands. “[National parks] are special places where we have a better relationship with nature, culture and heritage and can enjoy and develop ourselves,” according to the foundation. “Combining the long-term and large-scale vision of national parks with cities has the potential to shift our collective understanding of what and who a city is for.” In Chattanooga, city leaders have used the initiative to encourage residents to “think about Chattanooga as a city in a park, rather than a city with some parks in it,” says Tim Kelly, the mayor of Chattanooga, in a video announcing the designation. “The outdoors is our competitive advantage,” he adds. “It’s at the heart of our story of revitalization, and it’s at the core of our identity as Chattanoogans. We’ve always known how special Chattanooga’s connection to the outdoors is, and now it’s going to be recognized around the world.” Chattanooga has been working toward the designation for nearly two years, per a statement from the city. In late 2023, officials collected more than 5,600 signatures of support and created a National Park City charter. Then, they filed an application describing how Chattanooga met the nonprofit’s criteria—such as being “a place, vision and community that aims to be greener, healthier and wilder.” Last month, delegates from the foundation visited Chattanooga to experience it first-hand. They toured an urban farm, explored several parks and met with various community leaders, per NOOGAtoday’s Haley Bartlett. The foundation’s experts were impressed by Chattanooga’s “culture of outdoor activity,” its “unrivaled access to nature,” its commitment to “inclusive and sustainable development” and its food and agriculture scene, among other factors. “We saw first-hand the extraordinary breadth and depth of engagement with the Chattanooga National Park City vision informed by outstanding experts in design, ecology, culture and arts,” says Alison Barnes, a trustee of the foundation, in a statement. “National Park City status introduces a new chapter for a city with a long history of revitalization and renewal through connecting its unique landscape and the history of its people.” Chattanooga has come a long way since 1969, when the federal government declared it the worst city in the nation for particulate air pollution. Hazy skies were the norm back then, as factories and railroads spewed unregulated emissions into the air, according to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau. Air pollution was so bad that residents sometimes had to drive with their headlights on in the middle of the day. But the pollution was more than just an eyesore. It was also causing the city’s residents to become sick—and sometimes die—from diseases like tuberculosis. Eventually, voters approved aggressive new rules to reduce emissions. By 1989, Chattanooga’s air quality had improved so much that it met all federal health standards. Today, it’s a vibrant, outdoorsy city with more than 100 parks and more than 35 miles of trails—plus many more within a short drive. The once-neglected riverfront downtown has been revitalized, and Chattanooga has experienced steady population growth in recent years. What does the National Park City designation mean for the city’s future? That remains to be seen. But officials hope it will help guide policy decisions and “help city government and community partners prioritize connecting more people to the outdoors that have long defined our identity,” according to a statement from the Chattanooga Area Chamber. It will also encourage citizens and leaders to embrace “all aspects of outdoor life,” from forests and lakes to native plants, according to the chamber. Mark McKnight, who serves as the president and CEO of Chattanooga’s Reflection Riding Arboretum and Nature Center, hopes that the new status will “yield some really cool stuff that we can’t even imagine today.” “Hopefully, we’re having this conversation in ten years, and it’s like, ‘Oh, wow, we never knew we would get to there,’” he tells the Chattanooga Times Free Press’ Sam Still. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Despite progress, Los Angeles is nation's smoggiest city for 25th time in 26 years

An annual report from the American Lung Assn. showed that Los Angeles has improved its air quality but still deserves its reputation for unhealthy air.

Despite decades of progress in reducing air pollution, Los Angeles is still the nation’s smoggiest city, according to a report released Wednesday by the American Lung Assn.The association’s annual “State of the Air” report noted that Los Angeles held on to the infamous title for the 25th time even though the number of unhealthy ozone days has dropped nearly 40% since 2000. Particle pollution metrics told a similar story, where Los Angeles saw improvement but still had the dubious honor of being the nation’s seventh-most polluted city by that measure.California is home to five of the country’s 10 smoggiest places, as defined by levels of ozone pollution, and also to five of the worst 10 cities by particle pollution, according to the report. Los Angeles, Visalia, Bakersfield, Fresno and San Diego were among the list of cities most polluted by ozone. Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Los Angeles and Sacramento were in the top 10 for worst particle pollution. The report comes roughly a month after the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Trump administration, announced its plan to loosen or eliminate a wide swath of environmental regulations that many experts worry could negatively effect air quality, reversing decades of progress in California.“Nobody wants to go back to the kinds of skies that triggered our clean air laws in the first place,” Mary D. Nichols, a UCLA law professor and former chair of the California Air Resources Board, said during a news conference Tuesday.At the EPA, the Trump administration seeks to “roll back existing rules that have been effective in protecting public health” she said, as well as eliminating staff positions and removing science and research functions. If the EPA is dismantled, “we’ll have more sick kids. We’ll have more people going to the hospital with asthma attacks,” Nichols said. “We’ll see people dying sooner than they should have just because of the poison in the air.”The “State of the Air” report tracks two main types of air pollution: ozone pollution, largely a factor of tailpipe emissions and heat, and particle pollution, driven primarily by drought and wildfires. The report found that more than 34.3 million Californians live in a community with at least one failing air quality grade and 22.9 million live in a community with three failing air quality grades.Southern California has been choked by smog since the mass adoption of the automobile. Millions of cars and trucks in the region release a vast amount of vehicle exhaust, which forms smog when it’s cooked in the perennially sunny climate. The mountain ranges restrict airflow and prevent pollution from dispersing.State and local regulators have adopted a number of nation-leading rules to reduce emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities, including Senate Bill 32 in 2014 and Assembly Bill 398 in 2017, which enacted strict greenhouse gas emission limits and a cap-and-trade system.While electric vehicles and cleaner car engines have significantly reduced pollution, transportation remains the largest source in California’s major cities. Heavy-duty trucks, cargo ships and trains are some of the biggest contributors to regional pollution.Despite the lackluster results, a dozen California cities including Los Angeles posted their best-ever reports on either ozone or particle pollution, said Mariela Ruacho, a senior clean air advocacy manager at the American Lung Assn. Fresno improved across the board, registering its lowest ever number of ozone days and particle days and its lowest annual particle levels since tracking began in 2000.Meanwhile, Bakersfield earned the title of the city in America with the least healthy air. The San Joaquin Valley town ranked as the most particle-polluted city in the nation, both for short-term and annual levels, according to the report.“Phasing out agricultural burning, maintaining state investments in cleaning up heavy-duty trucks, and off-road agricultural equipment incentives are critical to ongoing local progress,” the American Lung Assn. wrote in a news release.Though California’s air quality has improved significantly since the first “State of the Air” report in 2000, concerns over climate change and new legislation abound. California Senate Bill 712, which would fully exempt collector cars at least 35 model years old from smog check requirements, would “set our progress back decades,” Ruacho said.“Unhealthy air is inequitable and unaffordable,” Ruacho said. “To protect against these costly health emergencies, California must double down on investments to reduce wildfire risk, spur zero-emission transportation and energy sources, and align transportation funding with pollution reduction needs.”Times staff writer Tony Briscoe contributed to this report.

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.