by Michael Smith
Already relatively low levels of particle pollution can have a significant impact on function of a lung, a study of city cyclists has revealed.
The study followed eight cycle couriers working in London for six weeks, regularly testing how effectively their lungs were delivering oxygen to the body.
The levels of particulate pollution (PM) were, at the time, below the World Health Organisation's recommended safe maximum of 50mg per cubic metre but were, nevertheless, shown to significantly impair lung function. This, hence, means that the safe maximum is, in fact, not safe at all.
The calculated 'pollution load' delivered to the couriers' lungs varied over the six-week testing period, but the study found that when the load was low, lung function improved by almost five percent.
When the load was high, lung performance dropped by a similar per cent, suggesting acute inflammation of the lungs.
"Previously, these sort of changes in lung function have only been observed in people with asthma, or at much higher levels of particulate air pollution", said Prof Alison McConnell from the Centre for Sports Medicine & Human Performance at Brunel University.
"Unfortunately the lungs are a very good conduit, a very good route for getting all sorts of materials into the body, It takes less than 10 seconds for the 'hit' from a cigarette to reach the brain, which provides a very good illustration of how rapidly material can pass from the lungs and into the body."
Professor McConnell added that cyclists are especially vulnerable to the effects of particulate matter in pollution, not only because they are much closer to the source of the pollution, but also that their higher rate of breathing increases the amount of pollution they inhale.
"The problem for the urban cyclist is that exercise magnifies the amount of pollution that they inhale," she said.
"The deposition of some particles can be as much as 16 times higher during exercise. This means a 30-minute cycle ride can equate to eight hours of sitting by the roadside." Cheers pal!
This does, however, also have, as other studies have revealed as well, that even such low level of pollution, and modern pollution in general, is bad for the lungs. Many respiratory ailments that are common all of a sudden all around the UK (and more than likely also elsewhere) can, it would appear, be laid at the door of the pollution, and even low level pollution. It could even, though I am not aware of any studies on that level as yet, that the recurrence of the incidents of tuberculosis (TB) may be due to pollutants, especially of the particulate kind. While, as I said, there does not seem to have been a study conducted as regards TB and pollution as yet, as far as I am aware, the fact that TB has reared its ugly head again after such a long time of remission, especially in the West, must make us think, and this also in the light of another article on this matter published here recently.
Time that we did some serious cleaning up and, while smoking of cigarettes and other tobacco products certainly is harmful to the user and those in the immediate environment of him or her on can but wonder as to whether the impact of pollution is not a far greater contributing factor to the ailments suffered by smokers and non-smokers alike that all are assumed to have come from smoking. Just food for thought, this latter thought, though.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
Even low levels of pollution impairs lungs according to study
