Two Lancet studies measure the dangers of pollution. The risk of lung cancer is increased, even with sub-standard particle levels. And spikes in pollution cause deaths from heart failure.
“It’s the dose that makes the poison.” This old toxicological principle has gotten the hang of it. One of the largest studies ever conducted on the link between air pollution and lung cancer has indeed questioned this idea. According to this Lancet publication, long-term exposure to fine particles (PM10 and PM 2.5) increases the risk of developing lung cancer, even if pollution levels are below current European standards. In fact, “there is no threshold below which there is no risk,” say the authors of this study.
Is it necessary, suddenly, to lower the authorized pollution thresholds? Researchers who gathered no less than 17 European studies on the subject, or 313,000 people, followed for 13 years on average, were able to measure that an increase in fine particle pollution (PM2.5) of 5 micrograms per m3 increases the risk of lung cancer by 18%. And the findings are the same for PM10 particles: an increase of 10 micrograms per m3 results in a 22% increase in the risk of lung cancer. In addition, this pollution resulting from automobile traffic, but also from district heating or even agriculture seems mainly associated with a form of lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, which develops particularly in non-smokers.
“At this point, we may have to add air pollution, even at current concentrations, to the list of causes of lung cancer and recognize that air pollution has significant effects on public health,” warns Takashi Yorifuji from Hiroshima University in Japan in a commentary related to this study. And these “significant public health effects” don’t just affect our lungs. Another study also appeared in the Lancet reveals that air pollution increases the risk of hospitalization and death from heart failure by 2-3%. Until now, the link between pollution and myocardial infarction had been demonstrated. “Here what is completely new is that researchers are showing that there is a link between pollution peaks and the number of hospitalizations and deaths for heart failure”, declares Prof. Yves Cottin, head of the department. of cardiology at Dijon University Hospital. But, it should be noted that these hospitalizations and these deaths occur in people already suffering from heart failure. A higher concentration of micro-particles will cause a sudden worsening of the disease.
Listen to Prof. Yves Cottin, head of the cardiology department at Dijon CHU: “Chronic exposure leads to the development of the disease and peaks in pollution destabilize the disease. This is true for infarction but also for heart failure. ”
Should we advise people with heart failure to stay at home during pollution peaks?
“Avoiding physical activity on those days is common sense that should actually apply to chronically insufficient as well as to those with respiratory failure. But, this will not prevent the long-term consequences of chronic exposure, warns Professor Yves Cottin. These prevention tips are all the more important since today, “we have no therapeutic approach to offer them. “
But, the solution undoubtedly passes more by a collective approach of public health. The authors of this study estimate that reducing the emission of microparticles would limit 8,000 hospitalizations for cardiac decompensation.
Listen to Prof. Yves Cottin : “During pollution peaks, public health messages must be conveyed on the fact that by reducing speed, we avoid deaths from heart disease. “
The French Institute for Public Health Surveillance is also in favor of stepping up our efforts to reduce air pollution, and relies on the Aphekom study carried out in 25 European agglomerations, including 9 in France, to show that this would have a real impact. Six months of life expectancy for those over 30 and nearly 1,000 hospitalizations avoided each year could be gained if World Health Organization (WHO) standards for air pollution were actually met.
.
