From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill one wonders why they have not thrown the PM10 hammer (or ax) at trees to save humans from their terrible effects /sarc.
Researchers pinpoint how trees play role in smog production
After years of scientific uncertainty and speculation, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show exactly how trees help create one of society’s predominant environmental and health concerns: air pollution.
It has long been known that trees produce and emit isoprene, an abundant molecule in the air known to protect leaves from oxygen damage and temperature fluctuations. However, in 2004, researchers, contrary to popular assumptions, revealed that isoprene was likely involved in the production of particulate matter, tiny particles that can get lodged in lungs, lead to lung cancer and asthma, and damage other tissues, not to mention the environment.
But exactly how was anybody’s guess.
Jason Surratt, assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, now reveals one mechanism by which isoprene contributes to the production of these tiny, potentially health-damaging particles.
The study found that isoprene, once it is chemically altered via exposure to the sun, reacts with man-made nitrogen oxides to create particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are pollutants created by cars, trucks, aircrafts, coal plants and other large scale sources.
“The work presents a dramatic new wrinkle in the arguments for reducing man-made pollutants worldwide,” said Surratt, whose work was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Isoprene evolved to protect trees and plants, but because of the presence of nitrogen oxides, it is involved in producing this negative effect on health and the environment.”
“We certainly can’t cut down all the trees,” Surratt adds, “but we can work on reducing these man-made emissions to cut down the production of fine particulate matter.”
With the precise mechanism now revealed, researchers can plug it into air quality models for better predicting episodes of air pollution and potential effects on earth’s climate. The advance would allow researchers and environmental agencies to evaluate and make regulatory decisions that impact public health and climate change.
“We observe nature’s quirks, but we must always consider that our actions do have repercussions,” said Surratt. “It’s the interaction between these natural and man-made emissions that produces this air pollution, smog and fine particulate matter – and now we know one reason for how it happens.”
I remember when Nitrogen Oxides in the atmosphere, at least when created by thunderstorm activity, was considered to be of great benefit, as when it was removed from the atmosphere by rain, it became fertilizer for plants.
I also remember hearing Reagan’s comment on TV. He was simply passing on what had been determined by an actual chemical analysis by a local Navy lab, as to the main source of the haze in the Washington area at the time. The press had a field day calling him an idiot for believing that trees could ever pollute the air. The press was apparently unaware that the nearby Blue Ridge Mountains Reagan was referring to at the time, like the Smokey’s, got their name because of the haze that, at times, originated in the mountains themselves.
Chuck Nolan, one of those involve with the “culling” of 40,000 elephants was Allan Savory. He has since admitted that he was wrong – very, very wrong – and has evidence that the total opposite should have been applied; we need MORE grazers!
See: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html (though he is still fixated on the idea that climate change needs to be “reversed”).
@Theo Goodwin
Isn’t it pollen particles which drive sinuses crazy? If so, they are larger than the fine particles (PM2.5, smaller than 2.5 microns) which are the types of secondary organic particles being produced using isoprenes and oxides of nitrogen. See first paragraph after abstract of Surratt’s article, available free on line for size of such particles. PM2.5 can penetrate into the far corners of lungs, harder for larger particles to do so. But pollen doesn’t have to to that, it only has to get inside your nose, so it can be bigger.
@MattN
Yes, you are correct about the reduction of oxides of nitrogen.. Every few years, EPA tightens the amount of oxides of nitrogens vehicles put out, and as the fleet turns over, annual vehicular emissions get lower. Also, in the last 15 years, EPA has required power plants to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen, so that source is down as well.
I remember in the early 80’s when then President Reagan mentioned to a collection of reporters that ‘trees cause smog’ and ALL of them laughed at him and regarded him like he was the village idiot.
@Bill March and others
When it comes to science and math, the press are pretty helpless. That is why they laughed at Reagan (despite real science that Reagan had been briefed on), and that is why they are slow to understand the overstatement of the climate change alarmists, the games of Michael Mann and company. They also have their memes — Reagan was a dunce, therefore they didn’t even need to check and see if there was any science behind what he said about trees. A sad commentary on the press corps.
Reporters are good with words, not so much with numbers and science, and they’re pretty tribal, once their beliefs have been decided upon. That is why the BBC decided a few years ago to no longer give air time to “skeptics” — because Greenpeace convinced them not to. And then BBC compounded the problem by claiming that they were advised by “scientists” to not do so. It took a while, but eventually somebody found the list of attendees at the meeting at which these decisions were made, and the were almost entirely enviros, perhaps one real scientist, and he was employed by an enviro group. Tribal behaviour, based upon scientific illiteracy, comounded by the kind of lying that they would scream about if others were found to have done so.
Reporters are incapable of making judgements about science, they aren’t trained to do so any more, maybe the way to say it is that newspapers can no longer afford to hire a scientifically trained reporter. So it comes down to who they instinctively trust, and isn’t skeptics.
Chuck Nolan says: “Go easy now. Remember you’re dealing with the type of people who thought it was a good idea to kill 40,000 elephants to save the planet.
One never knows what they will progress to next.”
You stole my thunder, Chuck. The environuts who think these things up have no common sense and consider their every idea, no matter how absurd, to be true because their intentions are noble. They are a greater danger to the planet than Big Oil.
TANSTAAFL says:
April 25, 2013 at 8:49 am, et al.
No, Sec. Interior James Watt under Reagan.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19890513&id=epkzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=3336,1806854
So Reagan was right after all, decades ago.,.
But what did he know? He didn’t have the correct political beliefs. /sarc
Carbon capture, what nut came up with this idea. 1) co2 is not a problem 2) how can a powerplant burn coal.gas or oil without a smokestack to provide air? If it works do we extend our tailpipes back into our cars? Lets get Al gore to test drive.
I always thought trees were plotting something…
RE: dbstealey says:
April 25, 2013 at 10:43 am
There actually is some research that shows dirt is good for kids. It may be why they eat so much of it. It activates the immune system. Kids who grow up on farms are exposed to all sorts of bacteria, while kids who grow up in the better parts of cities are not exposed. For some odd reason, when the immune system isn’t activated, it turns on the body itself, and children in the city have all sorts of allergic reactions, including reactions that manifest as asthma. Therefore, next time you hear pollution blamed for increased rates of asthma in the city, understand the blame might actually go to lack of dirt.
Saliva Causes Stomach Cancer! Only when swallowed in small amounts over long periods of time.
Credit: George Carlin
The wisdom of some comedians. Our own natural environment is causing pollution. How is that possible? I thought things that occur naturally have positive effects on the earth.. At this rate I will be afraid of everything soon….
William Fox says:
April 25, 2013 at 12:32 pm
This is the perfect scapegoat , now that global warming doesnt fly we just put it on pollution , not possible to debunk , I foresee no more carbon trade , I forsee pollution units trade 🙂
===============================
How are we going to tax the trees? i just dont see it…. 🙂
Caleb,
Thanks for that. You said it better than I.
“We certainly can’t cut down all the trees,” Surratt adds
=========
what about fire? surely you can burn them?
Somewhere up there President Reagan just paused in his story telling, smiled and said good-naturedly, “Yes, I tried to tell them that…”
dbstealey, Caleb,
There’s a lot of literature on this for allergies in general. However, hay fever is probably the best example, as it didn’t exist (much) prior to hygienic practices.
The connection between parasitic organisms (and their eradication in various locales – such as Victorian London, for hay fever), is well established, although the prevailing hypothesis at the time was that the London gentry had “finely chiseled noses” that caused the problem.
Similarly with asthma and food allergies, dirt is good.
Well, isoprene and PM10 are all very interesting, but why isn’t anyone talking about the elephant in the room, DHMO (DiHydrogen Monoxide)? More deaths are caused annually by this dangerous substance than isoprene could ever hope for, yet the EPA has still failed to regulate it. They find this stuff in every body of water on the planet, without exception, but where is the call to action?
http://www.gumbopages.com/fridge/dmho.html
😉
Here is a much more descriptive version of the dangers of DHMO:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
This one was done by people almost as talented as The Hockey Team and Greenpeace. It’s really pretty well done. Enjoy 🙂
@ur momisugly Box of Rocks, Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal dis-ease.
Author also forgotten.
@ur momisuglyMicheal D Smith, video of EPA staff, reporters and key environmentally “educated” persons all signing the petition to ban DHMO, would be invaluable for exposing their incompetence.
I’ve never trusted trees. I’m sure they’re up to something.
Well, what about the terpines? And a host of other chemicals know and unknown evolved by plants to poison predators and poison competing plants. Spices fall into this category, as do analogues of many of he herbicides and insecticides we use.
And OMG the smoke! Never mind that our cousins, H. erectus domesticated fire about a million years ago and those phenotypes among us whose progenitors chased the herds retreating from the ice sheets may not be represented today but for burning inside caves, lean to’s, yurts, etc.
Cough!
Not only do plants cause pollution, they also indulge in chemical warfare. Crowberries for example exude chemicals that kill tree seedlings (to avoid being overshadowed by the trees).
A friend of mine told me that the SNV (the Swedish EPA) once considered a generic threshold limit for organic aerosols. Fortunately they did measure the level in a pine forest after a rain before issuing the regulation, and that was the end of that idea. They would have had to put practically the whole country off limits.
Bill H says:
April 25, 2013 at 7:16 pm
How are we going to tax the trees? i just don’t see it…. 🙂
=============================================
You tax their owners.
So all those who own forests …. like Big Al ….
Now, where did I put my chainsaw?
Bill H. says:
> How are we going to tax the trees? i just dont see it…. 🙂
That’s an easy one. The pharaohs of Egypt ruled by pointing at the Sun and pronouncing some scary nonsense. Such is the nature of man that the same trick can be played over and over.
Just point at the trees and tax the suckers for something else, like artificial fertiliser.