COPD thesis

I mentioned the rise of COPD deaths in a blog a couple weeks ago, along with the meager research investments.  Driving with a friend recently, we were struck by a major backlit inversion layer nearby.  That led to discussion of the components in the "Air We Breathe" and the possible correlation to COPD deaths.

The thesis I have become enamored with is as follows:

Most air pollution efforts measure gaseous concentrations (ozone, CO2, NOx, SOx) and particle weight and concentration.  They don't generally measure particle count or particle size concentrations.  Most agencies respond to 'dirty air' which for complaining citizens is dusty, dark, smoky, gritty, and visible emissions.  But the mantra for air pollution control groups has long been "clear air is not necessarily clean air" and the corollary is "dirty air is not necessarily killer air".

The human filter system is actually pretty efficient.  The nose and throat (think sneezing and coughing) trap almost all particles between one and five microns.  Sub-micron particles are the only particles easily able to get into the lung, and if they are inert and carry an adhering gas molecule of NOx or SOx, they carry an effective little acidic etching agent into the lung.  Particles larger than one-tenth micron tend to lodge in the lung for awhile, rather than expel with the next exhaling -- great!

Sub-micron inert particulates (between one-tenth and one micron) are a common byproduct of 'fired' processes -- coal-burning power plants, all sorts of manufacture (talc, cement, plastics), and some automotive exhaust products -- increasing elements across America (coal fired power plants are 600% more than forty years ago, for example).   And while scrubbers and other technologies have been used for power plant plumes, they tend to be more effective at particles larger than three microns.  So we're putting lots of energy and expense into cleaning the air of particles that look bad, but don't kill.

For the Colorado Air Pollution Commission in 1970/71, I did a study which implicated the above casual agents, finding that high mountain valleys with specific pollution sources had emphysema death rates well in excess of any urban environment.  Warren Muir, now Executive Director of the Division on Earth and Life Studies for the National Academies (an enormously influential job!), did a similar study in 1974.  Both were effectively ignored by the AMA, which to this day blame smoking almost exclusively.  Studies in New England in the mid-1990's focused on 2.5 micron concentrations vs. 10 micron in six eastern cities, and found analogous results.  In this country since then, very few studies have been conducted, but northern Europe has picked up on this research thread, publishing several major studies in recent years that appear to validate the thesis.

This is a topic that I worked on a very long time ago, driven by an early diagnosis of emphysema, and after a few years, my career took a different turn.  I met Muir in 2010 at a Stanford conference on Data Visualization, and we compared notes after a serendipitous conversation uncovered our mutual history.  He asked why I was interested in the Data Visualization topic, and I described my early air pollution work, saying somewhat glibly that I'd found one of the root causes.  His retort: "You did not!"  Challenged, I rose to the bait.  As did he.  It turned out that he'd discovered virtually the same causal indicators in roughly the same time frame, working independently.  My question -- what happened to your findings?  His reply was that he was ignored, just as I had found.  Voila!

Three weeks ago, in Washington DC, I spent some time at the Library of Congress, and found a paper I presented to the Senate hearings on the Four Corners power plant complex.  That jogged some recent investigation on my part, which fueled this blog entry.

My question of all of you is -- "What if this is correct?"  First of all, is it worth pursuit of trying to find out if it has validity?  Second, to whom do we direct the appeal in investigate?  NIH seems a plausible place to start, especially given the 350x disparity between deaths and research dollars between AIDS and COPD.  Somehow, the idea that COPD is now the third leading killer of Americans, and we don't spend any money investigating the causes, is remarkable.  And worth trying to correct.

Your thoughts?