A Valley's Smog Toll Tallied
Smog in the San Joaquin Valley is responsible for $3.2 billion annually in health costs, according to findings released Wednesday by a Cal State Fullerton team.
The lion's share of those costs -- an estimated $3 billion -- is tied to 460 smog-related deaths each year. Other major factors are school and work absences, hospital admissions and treatment for bronchitis and other illnesses.
The team concluded that the valley -- with air quality that ranks among the worst in the nation, along with Los Angeles and Houston -- would save more than $3 billion if it came into compliance with federal and state ozone and particulate standards.
"The results are important because it gives people a concrete sense of what price people pay for dirty air, and the flip side of that is the economic benefits of moving more quickly to achieve
Savings would come from 188,000 fewer school absences, an equal number of reduced-activity days for adults, 23,000 fewer asthma attacks, and reductions in hospital admissions, acute bronchitis and other health problems.
The study found that although the entire valley suffered from bad air throughout the year because of its unique topography and weather, poor communities in Kern and Fresno counties were hit hardest by pollution and its costs.
Major sources of the air pollution include agricultural equipment as well as truck and car traffic along the 99 and 5 freeways.
The research team did similar studies on the economic benefits of reducing air pollution in the Los Angeles Basin 18 years ago, and in Houston and San Francisco since then.
The bulk of the savings comes from preventing premature deaths from cancer, heart attack and other ailments from chronic exposure to particulates, according to study coauthor Victor Brajer, an economics professor at Cal State Fullerton.
Brajer said longtime workplace studies show that wages are higher where there is a greater risk of death. He also said other studies indicate that people spend more on consumer safety products where mortality risks are greater. Such costs are averaged together to arrive at an overall per-capita figure.
Similar estimates are now also used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others in research on costs and benefits of reducing air pollution.
Air regulators said the studies have been widely used to counteract claims by businesses that controlling air pollution costs too much and would lead to catastrophic economic losses.
