07:08 AM PST on Thursday, March 23, 2006

By kgw.com and AP Staff

Oregon has the third worst air in the nation, ranking behind New York and California, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency.

KGW photo

Smokestacks at a factory spew pollution.

The news made Oregonians gasp.

"I'm stunned, because there are so many more cities that are full of smog and everything else," said Oregonian Betty Woods.

So can it be true?

The report caught Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality by surprise, although recent local air quality warnings have raised concerns about woodstove and vehicle emissions.

Yet the ranking raises many questions, including how accurate it is, because the study was not based on testing how toxic air in each state is. Instead, it was based on estimates from each state.

Oregon may simply report more accurate numbers than do other states, officials said Wednesday.

"Their [Oregon's] emissions inventories are very good, and that may be part of the problem -- that they have all their emissions well documented which means they may be higher than other states," said Peter Murchie with the EPA.

Motor vehicle exhaust was named the chief culprit, though in Oregon’s case smoke from forest fires, woodstoves and fireplaces also were significant factors.

New Yorkers and Californians breathe in the dirtiest air in the United States and face higher cancer risks than the rest of the country, according to the latest EPA data.

New York is followed by California, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey for the dubious distinction of having the worst air, according to the EPA's data. The best air was in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana.

The EPA's findings are based on emissions of 177 chemicals in 1999, the last year for which data was available. The agency is currently conducting a similar study based on 2002 emissions, which it expects to have ready next year.

George Thurston, a professor of environmental medicine at New York University, said the figures are further evidence that living in a heavily polluted city like New York is roughly equal to living with a smoker.

"People living in polluted cities are at a higher lung cancer risk, and more people are noticing more cases of lung cancer in people who haven't been smokers, so the effects of environmental exposures are becoming more apparent," said Thurston.

The state-by-state rankings were first reported in Wednesday's editions of the Los Angeles Times, based on an EPA table published in February. The EPA issued a statement Wednesday saying the data "is not a method for comparing one area of the country to another."

EPA spokesman John Millett said states and cities should not be compared because some states provide more data about emissions than others.

"That's ridiculous," said Frank O'Donnell of the environmental group Clean Air Watch.

"It may not be a perfect tool, but EPA is being duplicitous in trying to disavow and downplay its own statistics," said O'Donnell.

New Yorkers' risk of developing cancer from air toxins is estimated to be 68 residents per million. In California, slightly fewer than 66 residents per million are at risk of developing cancer due to the air they breathe.

The national average is 41.5 per million, according to the figures.

The numbers for New York City are particularly grim when compared to the rest of the country.

Manhattan has the worst air, with the risk of developing cancer from air toxins estimated to be 136 residents per million. In the Bronx, it is 106 per million; in Brooklyn, 95 per million, and Queens 93 per million.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation spokeswoman Maureen Wren denied the state was among the worst in air pollution, echoing the EPA's argument that state numbers should not be compared because states gather data differently.

The EPA assessment evaluated toxins including heavy metals, such as lead; volatile chemicals, such as benzene; combustion byproducts, such as acrolein; and solvents, including perchloroethylene and methylene chloride.

Benzene alone contributed a quarter of the individual cancer risk identified in this assessment, the primary source of it being vehicles, according to the study.

The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is a screening tool that the EPA used to estimate cancer and other health risks from exposure to air toxins. It provides a snapshot of air quality and the risks if 1999 emissions levels remained unchanged. It does not reflect reductions in air toxins that may have occurred since 1999.