Tony Garcia

ENG204

Mrs. Hozey

12/2/2020

Should We Be Worried About Pollution?

Pollution has been a big part of our society for several decades now. Our always

increasing industrialization has proven to work when it comes to improving efficiency

and propelling humanity ahead. Some people argue that these benefits outweigh the

cons of pollution, and they even go as far as saying pollution is not something we

should be worried about. They say that pollution is not that serious, and we do not need

to do anything to slow it down. They constantly push for more industrialization, more

factories, and more emission into the air. They also push for more trash to be tossed

into the sea to give them even more room to expand their property. Also, they ignore the

health problems that pollution causes for humanity. They breeze over the difficulty

breathing, the increased cases of asthma attacks, and the harmful chemicals in our

water. This is wrong. We need to turn our lives around right now. This problem has

already reached past the point of danger and has begun to turn irreversible. We need to

change our lifestyles right now to reverse these horrible effects. We are already at the

point where some impacts cannot be reversed, like the animals that have died because

their habitats have been destroyed from pollution. Pollution has several negative

impacts on various parts of our world: human health, oceans, and the atmosphere.
 One man who argues his point (that pollution is not a big deal, and we do not

need to worry about it) is John Walke. He wrote an article titled “Utilities and Joe Barton:

‘Ignore the science: Pollution isn’t bad for you!’” where he explains that the facts that are

posed to make pollution seem like a bad thing are not founded in anything concrete. To

support this argument, he quotes representative Joe Barton, "EPA [Environmental

Protection Agency] findings that reducing such pollution will avoid thousands of

premature deaths every year 'are pulled out of thin air.' Barton went so far as to dispute

any 'medical negatives' from air pollution such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and

particulate matter."1 So, he is arguing that these facts are not founded in anything, and

there are no "medical negatives" that result from air pollution. To refute this, doctors

from health organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung

Association, and the American Public Health Association responded with several

examples of the results of exposure to air pollution, "death from respiratory and

cardiovascular causes, including strokes; increased risk of cardiovascular harm,

including acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks) and congestive heart failure,

especially among the elderly and in people with cardiovascular disease; inflammation of

lung tissue in young, healthy adults; increased hospitalization for cardiovascular

disease, including strokes; hospitalization for asthma among children; and aggravated

asthma attacks in children."2 This response also included a list of 30 peer-reviewed

studies that clearly link air pollution to a range of different negative health effects on

1
John Walke, “Utilities and Joe Barton: ‘Ignore the science: Pollution isn’t bad for
you!’”, Natural Resources Defense Council, June 15, 2011,
https://grist.org/pollution/2011-06-14-utilities-joe-barton-ignore-science-pollution-isnt-
bad-for-you/.
2
Walke.
humans. These doctors very clearly dispute his argument that there is no evidence to

prove him wrong. There are millions of cases of patients with these symptoms and

diseases, and they are due to pollution in the air.

There is plenty of evidence to support my argument that we need to change our

lifestyles to prevent pollution from getting any worse. For example, in an article by D.W.

Dockery and C.A. Pope III called “Acute respiratory effects of particulate air pollution,”

they discuss the adverse effects of air pollution on people. Specifically, they focus on

people who are more prone to breathing problems, like people with asthma. “Among

potentially responsive subjects such as asthma patients, we expect to observe

increased symptoms [difficulty breathing], lower lung function, increased medication

use, and, ultimately, higher use of hospital services.” 3 These are prime examples of how

air pollution negatively impacts human health. Difficulty breathing, lower lung function,

and a higher number of trips to the hospital are all things that would not be so severe if

air pollution were not as intense as it currently is. If we get pollution under control, then

these people will have an easier time breathing and will not have to go to the hospital as

much. It is as simple as that.

There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that air pollution is bad for human

health. It simply makes it harder to breathe. And when we can get a breath in, it is filled

with toxins and particles that should not be in our lungs and bodies. Marilena Kampa

and Elias Castanas wrote an article titled “Human health effects of air pollution,” where

3
D.W. Dockery, and C.A. Pope III, “Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air
Pollution,” Environmental Epidemiology Program, Harvard School of Public Health,
(1994) Boston, Massachusetts,
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pu.15.050194.000543.
they elaborate on the fact that a constant finding is that air pollutants contribute to

increased mortality and hospital admissions.4 This is in direct agreement with D.W.

Dockery and C.A. Pope III that air pollution negatively impacts human health. If we

decrease pollution, then the quality of our lives will improve. It will be easier to breathe,

we will not need to go to the hospital as often, and our planet will be healthier. These all

translate very far down the road, too. More hospital visits translate to more medical bills

and a higher health insurance rate. This negatively impacts our finances, then increases

our stress levels, and so many other things.

We have been talking about pollution being a problem for a very long time now.

We are past the point of it being an “up and coming” problem, it is now an epidemic.

Virtually every piece of plastic that was ever made still exists in some form. Some of the

compounds found in plastic have been found to alter hormones or have other potential

human health effects. This is said in Vikas M. and G.S. Dwarakish’s article, “Coastal

Pollution: A Review.”5 Altering hormones is unnatural and unhealthy. It is a direct effect

of pollution, and it is harmful to human health around the world. If we stop polluting so

much and start to take actions to reverse the pollution that has already occurred, then

overall human health will improve.

4
Marilena Kampa, and Elias Castanas, “Human Health Effects of Air Pollution,”
Laboratory of Experimental Endocrinology, University of Crete, School of Medicine,
(2008), https://climatenexus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/HumanHealthEffectsofAirPollutionKampaandCastanas.pdf.
5
Vikas M. and G.S. Dwarakish, Coastal Pollution: A Review, National Institute of
Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Srinivas Nagar,Mangalore , India,
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/287250/1-s2.0-S2214241X15X00022/1-s2.0-
S2214241X15000528/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token.
 Pollution affects us both directly and indirectly. In an article titled “Trace Metal

Pollution in the Environment,” by Robert E. Lee Jr. & Darryl J. von Lehmden, they

explain this indirect effect happening. "Fallout or washout of airborne trace metals can

initiate a host of ecological effects in water and soil. Plant and animal life can absorb

metal components which will eventually be transmitted to man through the food chain." 6

There are metal pollutants that are being pushed into our air. This then turns into rainfall

and pollutes our water. When we drink this water, or eat the animals that drink this

water, it further impacts our own health. This is one way pollution can impact many

different groups all at the same time. It is also an example of an indirect negative effect

that pollution can have on us. There are many ways that we are being harmed in day to

day life, and it is mostly thanks to pollution. If we decrease our pollution, then these

effects can be stopped.

To expand on this point that pollution can have an indirect negative impact on

human health, there is ample evidence that pollution is harmful to our oceans. We need

our oceans for food, water, and many other functions. Not to mention, harming our

oceans is harmful to our planet. In Vikas M. and G.S. Dwarakish’s article, “Coastal

Pollution: A Review,” they talk a lot about plastic. They harp on the fact that plastic is a

major pollutant, and how its use must be restricted, and recycling must be entertained.

The death of marine species by ingestion of plastic is a great loss to nature and the

species are becoming extinct because of this.7 These marine species are important to

the balance of life on this planet. They provide food for us, protection for other animals,
6
Robert E. Lee Jr. & Darryl J. von Lehmden, “Trace Metal Pollution in the
Environment,” Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1973,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1973.10469854.
7
Vikas M. and G.S. Dwarakish.
food for other animals, and they can even help to keep our oceans clean. Without them,

our ecosystem would fall apart very quickly.

These pollutants also have various negative impacts on our ocean life. This idea

is explained in an article by E.I. Elenwo andJ.A. Akankali titled “The Effects of Marina

Pollution on Nigerian Coastal Resources.” In most cases apart from direct impact on the

living resources, marine pollutants tend to adversely alter or degrade the environment to

extreme conditions that are beyond the toleration or adaptation limits of the living

resources therein.8 So, not only are we killing these animals by strangling them with our

plastic trash, but we are also destroying their habitats past the point of no return. We

are taking away their homes, and they rely on these places to survive. Again, we need

these animals for the health of our planet. We need to stop pollution and give these

creatures a safe place to exist.

In an article titled “Pollution Isn’t THAT Serious,” in the New York Times

Newspaper, it is argued that pollution is not a big deal. "The warning that air pollution

has brought dangerous changes in the composition of the earth's atmosphere must be

weighed against the evidence of a recent U.S. Bureau of Standards study which

concludes that the oxygen content of the earth's atmosphere has remained virtually

unchanged for the last sixty years."9 This is saying that pollution has, virtually, not gotten

any worse or any better in the last 60 years. Although, this conclusion cannot be drawn
8
E.I. Elenwo and J.A. Akankali, “The Effects of Marina Pollution on Nigerian
Coastal Resources,” Journal of Sustainable Developmental Studies, 2015, The Effects
of Marine Pollution on Nigerian Coastal Resources | Elenwo | Journal of Sustainable
Development Studies (infinitypress.info).
9
Matthew A. Crenson, “Pollution Isn’t THAT Serious,” The New York Times
Newspaper, 1971, https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/20/archives/pollution-isnt-that-
serious.html.
from the simple fact that there is still oxygen in the air. It is not about the amount of

oxygen in the air, it is about the percentage of oxygen, when compared to the

percentage of pollutants that are mixed in. We are breathing in more than just oxygen,

which is why it has been proven time and time again that pollution is, in fact, bad for

you. Also, pollution is a very slow burn, especially when it comes to the atmosphere.

Just because results cannot be measured over 60 years does not mean they cannot be

measured over 100 years. Pollution is getting worse, and it has been getting worse for a

very long time now, much longer than just 60 years.

Our atmosphere protects us from the sun’s harmful rays, it gives us the literal air

we breathe, and it is necessary for all living creatures to survive. Pollution is killing our

atmosphere slowly. It has been killing our atmosphere for a long time now. In D.W.

Dockery and C.A. Pope III’s article they talk about the history of air pollution studies.

“Many epidemiologic studies of air pollution in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States

used TSP [total suspended particles] measurements as the indicator of particle

exposures. The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] determined that the PMw-to-

TSP ratio was generally between 50% and 60% for US sampling sites.” 10 They use this

ratio to measure particle concentration to define exposure. The higher the percentage,

the more pollutants there are in the air. This percentage has been rising for the last

several decades. There are more pollutants that should not be in their air we breathe

now than there ever have been before. With this ratio constantly rising, we need to act

now to stop pollution.

10
Dockery and Pope III.
 To expand on this point, there are many kinds of pollutants in our air. In Marilena

Kampa and Elias Castanas’s article, they explain this. “Variant air pollutants have been

reported, differing in their chemical composition, reaction properties, emission,

persistence in the environment, ability to be transported in long or short distances and

their eventual impacts on human and/or animal health.” 11 These are some of the

variables that have been shown when it comes to different kinds of pollutants. Some

can travel far, and some cannot, some are made of different kinds of chemicals, some

react more so with others, some are more concentrated than others, and some are

produced more abundantly than others. At the end of the day, all these different kinds of

pollutants are not meant to be breathed into our lungs as humans. They are bad for our

health, and they impact everyone, worldwide. The only way to get rid of this problem is

to stop our major pollution, and to clean up the air with plants and time.

At the end of the day, there is simply too much evidence for us to not take action

right now. It is our responsibility to take care of this planet, and that includes reversing

our past mistakes for a healthier future.

11
Kampa and Castanas.
 WORKS CITED

Crenson, Matthew A. “Pollution Isn't THAT Serious.” The New York Times Newspaper,
1971. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/20/archives/pollution-isnt-that-
serious.html.
Dockery, D.W., and Pope III, C.A. “Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air
Pollution”. Environmental Epidemiology Program, Harvard School of Public
Health, 1994. Boston,
Massachusetts. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.pu.15.0
50194.000543. 

Elenwo, E.I., and Akankali, J.A. “The Effects of Marina Pollution on Nigerian Coastal
Resources”. Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty
of Social Science, University of Port Harcourt, Choba, Nigeria, accessed October
17, 2020. https://www.infinitypress.info/index.php/jsds/article/view/1099. 
 
Kampa, Marilena, and Castanas, Elias. “Human Health Effects of Air
Pollution”. Laboratory of Experimental Endocrinology, University of Crete, School
of Medicine, 2008. https://climatenexus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/HumanHealthEffectsofAirPollutionKampaandCastanas.
pdf. 

Lee, Robert E. and von Lehmden, Darryl J. “Trace Metal Pollution in the Environment.”
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1973.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00022470.1973.10469854.

M., Vikas, and Dwarakish, G.S. “Coastal Pollution: A Review”. National Institute of

Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Srinivas Nagar,Mangalore , India, accessed
October 17, 2020. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/287250/1-s2.0-
S2214241X15X00022/1-s2.0-S2214241X15000528/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-
Token. 

Walke, John. “Utilities and Joe Barton: 'Ignore the science: Pollution isn't bad for you!'”
Natural Resources Defense Council, June 15, 2011.
https://grist.org/pollution/2011-06-14-utilities-joe-barton-ignore-science-pollution-
isnt-bad-for-you/.