4.6 Article

Coal-fired power plant closures and retrofits reduce asthma morbidity in the local population

Journal

NATURE ENERGY
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 365-366

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41560-020-0622-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  2. Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky
  3. Owsley Brown Charitable Foundation
  4. American Lung Association
  5. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [K99/R00 ES027023, K99/R00 ES027511, R01 ES026217]
  6. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [EPA 83587201]
  7. Norton Healthcare Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Retiring, transitioning or installing more stringent emissions controls in coal-fired power plants has the potential to decrease asthma attacks and asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations in nearby communities. These health co-benefits should be considered in policy and decision making about coal-fired power plant retirement or retrofit. Messages for Policy Retiring or converting power plants from coal to natural gas could confer health benefits on people with asthma. In Louisville, Kentucky, coal-fired power plant retirements and SO2 control installations led to reductions in SO2 emissions and air pollution exposure. This reduction in air pollution exposure translated into substantially fewer asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Given that 20.4 million adults, or about 9% of the population, suffer from asthma, the shift in US energy trends away from coal-fired electricity generation may reduce asthma morbidity below otherwise expected levels. Digital health tools, such as wirelessly connected inhalers that track the time and date of medication use, can assist in analysing asthma symptoms outside the hospital and in gauging the impact of air pollution exposure on a community. They may serve as supplemental public health research tools in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available