UPDATE: Yes, sadly, I had to look. There’s the fireworks and global warming question being bandied about related to the 2012 Olympics. See below the read more line. – Anthony
From the Journal of Obvious Science department: Smoke from fireworks is harmful to health. In related news, excessive smoke inhalation can cause death, and fireworks can explode in your hand, (warning, graphic) causing loss of fingers . All the more reason to have “strict controls on fireworks imports so that those with the potentially most dangerous chemical composition can be avoided”. Up next month in the Journal of Obvious Science; pot smoke at concerts causes mass mellow.
The metallic particles in the smoke emitted by fireworks pose a health risk, particularly to people who suffer from asthma. This is the conclusion of a study led by researchers from the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), published this week in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.
“The toxicological research has shown that many of the metallic particles in the smoke from fireworks are bio-reactive and can affect human health”, Teresa Moreno, a researcher from the IDAEA (CSIC) and lead author of a study that has been published this week in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, tells SINC.
The different colours and effects produced in these displays are achieved by adding metals to the gunpowder. When a pyrotechnic display takes place it releases a lot of smoke, liberating minute metallic particles (of a few microns in size, or even less), which are small enough to be inhaled deeply into the lungs.
“This poses a risk to health, and the effects are probably more acute in people with a background of asthma or cardiovascular problems”, Moreno explains. “The effects in healthy people are still unknown, but common sense tells us it cannot be good to inhale the high levels of metallic particles in this smoke, even if this only happens a few times a year”.
The study focused on the San Juan fiestas (the night of 23 June through to 24 June, 2008) in the Spanish city of Girona. The researchers analysed the levels of more than 30 chemical elements and compounds in May and June in order to confirm that the levels of lead, copper, strontium, potassium and magnesium skyrocketed after the fireworks were launched.
The team found the results were similar in other towns too. During the Mascletà (18 March), for example, in the Las Fallas fiestas in Valencia, levels of these elements rose once again, as well as others such as aluminium, titanium, barium and antimony, and also concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).
Other studies have confirmed that the smoke from fireworks increases the presence of metallic particles in the skies over L’Alcora and Borriana (Castellón), Barcelona and even London (United Kingdom) during the Guy Fawkes’ Night celebrations.
“People who live in cities already inhale significant amounts of contaminant particles stemming from traffic emissions, chimneys and cigarettes, and the dense smoke caused by fireworks only worsens this situation”, points out Moreno.
Possible solutions
The researcher compares the problem with that of tobacco. “The less you expose yourself to the smoke, the fewer negative effects it will have on your health, and so the best solution is to avoid inhaling it”.
According to the scientists, in the absence of a ban on fireworks, spectators should stay well back in a place not affected by the smoke and pay attention to the wind direction. They also recommend that fireworks displays should be sited in a place that ensures the plume of smoke will blow away from densely populated areas.
An added problem is the chemical mixtures in the different kinds of fireworks, since some contain extremely toxic metals such as lead. “There should be strict controls on fireworks imports so that those with the potentially most dangerous chemical composition can be avoided”, concludes Moreno.
References: Teresa Moreno, Xavier Querol, Andrés Alastuey, Fulvio Amato, Jorge Pey, Marco Pandolfi, Nino Kuenzli, Laura Bouso, Marcela Rivera y Wes Gibbons. “Effect of fireworks events on urban background trace metal aerosol concentrations: Is the cocktail worth the show?” Journal of Hazardous Materials 183 (1-3): 945-949, 15 de noviembre de 2010. Doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.082.
UPDATE: Yes, it gets worse. From this Ask.com question:
It stems from this story:
Olypmic sized stupidity, I’d say.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK, that’s it. Cut funding from these people already!
Huh. I always wondered why big fireworks shows were done outside.
Uhmm, that’s, well, ok, yes, inhaling metallic filled smoke is probably a bad idea. Thanks for that. We’d probably never come to that conclusion without that insightful study.
The study focused on the San Juan fiestas (the night of 23 June through to 24 June, 2008) in the Spanish city of Girona.
Did we just pay for an all expense paid vacation? Where can I get a gig like that?
The scientists’ job is to assess the risks of various actions. It is up to us to decide what risks we wish to take. There is no point in demonizing the messenger. If you have an asthmatic child you might not want to sit too close to where the fireworks are launched. If you run fireworks displays for a living you may want to wear a mask.
OK. The greatest danger to human beings is in exhaled breath, containing potentially lethal viruses and fungi, that are way, way more toxic than fireworks.
Solution? Let’s work that out…Possibly a sociologist can write the grant proposal.
You can have my Sparkler when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.
These people must live in abject terror that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
I’m self-snipping a lot. Next thing you know, they’ll be telling me I’m going to go blind.
This is just sad… How much money was wasted on this study, how much money is wasted every year for duh? This reminds me of studies done by the FDA. The headline reads: Drinking beer causes death in lab rats. Then if anyone bothers to follow up on the study it turns out that drinking the equivalent of 16 kegs a day causes lab rats to explode, researchers are baffled.
Wow – who would have thought that smoke from fireworks was dangerous? – hey maybe they could do a study on smoke from welding, cars, bonfires, coal fires, barbeques, camp fires , house fires, industrial incident fires, marijuana, crack, etc, etc…….wait a minute, I think I’ve just spotted a pattern here – yes, that’s it – anything that burns produces smoke! and… because we need clean air, anything that produces smoke must be bad for you – I think this could be pretty well accepted as a new universal ‘law’ for air breathing life forms -don’t you?
I find it incredible that anyone would actually need to study this – surely it is common sense?
I am sure this is taught very early in that famous university foundation course ‘The Bleedin’ Obvious for Dummies’
/sarc off
The greenies will never be satisfied until the rest of us are all sitting in the dark and cold with nothing to eat.
I note that this week the Sunday Times advised us not to throw sticks for dogs as they might bruise their diddle mouths.
They no doubt will be warning us off gargling with broken glass and wearing barbed wire next to the skin
If that is true, then how did China manage to grow 1.4 billion people. Jeez. What a Duh! moment. If you stick a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, it’s a good bet that you will lose your mind also. Why does it take millions of (taxpayer )$$ to make obvious pronouncements on stuff like this? Obviousman syndrome is rampant.
And the only ‘reason’ given for this alarmist tripe is “common sense tells us it cannot be good to inhale the high levels of metallic particles in this smoke, even if this only happens a few times a year”
Got any sort of proof? You know, that “evidence” stuff, stuff that really does convince sentient beings?
FAIL.
I have a funding proposal for groundbreaking research.
“Sitting on a bonfire can burn your butt” or
“Badly standing fireworks can be killer projectiles” or
“Inhaling gunpowder MAY cause lung problems”
Climate Researchers know they are in the money. Any old crap research linking climate to anything pays. :O)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17657-global-warming-could-change-earths-tilt.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/the-real-roots-of-darfur/5701/
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5014&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Grass%20Grows%20in%20Warming%20Antarctica&Cache=False
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1779067.htm
Lead? What’s that good for in fireworks?
http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=4104 says in part
As for the rest (and calcium), see http://chemistry.about.com/od/fireworkspyrotechnics/a/fireworkcolors.htm
That reminds me, I need to check on an old can of calcium carbide that’s been left to rust in the often-damp basement.
Never did get around to testing out that old miner’s lamp…
If fireworks are a hazard, then just imagine WAR. Ban war, celebrate with fireworks. much healthier.
I think we need to consider: What’s the health hazards of constantly catching whiffs of bullshot?
It’s only common sense that although the effects on healthy people is unknown, it can’t be good for them.
I think we should ban bullshot. But in the absence of a ban, we should impose mandatory rules on Journals who expose us to this kind of bullshot. A metric should be devised, and Journals will be forced to classify their material by the amount of bullshot contained within.
If bullshot is in the air – then air should be banned. In the absence of a ban on air, we should ban something. Something. Anything. Something has to be banned.
These people have no life, everything that is fun will be abolished by them if they have their way, the climaban at its best.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
(8000 pieces of fireworks in just over a minute, turn up te volume 🙂
This study takes all the fun out of dueling with roman candles.
The British, circa 1775, embarked on a similar crusade in the vicinity of Concord and Lexington.
“This poses a risk to health, and the effects are probably more acute in people with a background of asthma or cardiovascular problems”.
“The effects in healthy people are still unknown…”
So people who already suffer from pulmonary disabilities should avoid smoke and healthy people don’t need to worry about it.
Whoda thunk it?
Somehow there are valid issues related to public health there. And it’s good the authors did not connect it to climate and human carbon emission.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing fireworks!
DUH!
In the next life I want to be a scientific researcher!
Almost Unbelievable!