Poisoned Poor Killed in Millions by Pollution

The Global Alliance on Health and Pollution calls for a war against pollution to save the lives of more than eight million people annually. David Biello reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What kills more people than HIV, malaria and tuberculosis every year? Air pollution. Tack on fouled water and poisoning by toxic waste and pollution killed 8.4 million people in 2012—or nearly three times as many people as those three diseases. Combined.
 
That's according to a new analysis by the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution based on data collected by the World Health Organization.
 
The problem is people breathing in the fumes of cooking fires in smoky homes or the soot from coal-fired power plants outside. Or there's the suffering caused by raw sewage in the water supply or poisonous heavy metals that get into the soil via industrial waste.
 
That's why the Alliance is calling for a global battle to help the poisoned poor via the Sustainable Development Goals currently being formulated by the United Nations. The proposed goal would be to at minimum cut such pollution-related deaths to less than three million people per year by 2030.  
 
The tools and technologies to cope with such pollution already exist and have been used for years to clean up the air and water in the richest countries, like the U.S. So maybe it's time to transfer that technology where it can save even more lives.
 
—David Biello
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe