ProPublica’s map shows areas with a higher risk of cancer caused by air pollution, many of which are located in Texas.

Author: Michael Marks November 8, 2021 at 7:08 am Energy and Environment, Texas Standard Original Louis Vest/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) A factory along the Houston Waterway. People living near air pollution sources have a higher risk of cancer than data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows. This is based on a new report from ProPublica that uses EPA data to map areas with a higher risk of cancer due to air pollution. Lylla Younes, a news app developer for the ProPublica Local Reporting Network, spoke with Texas Standard about creating the map and how it affects regulators. Listen to the interview with Younes in the audio player above or read the transcript below to learn more about why the EPA may underestimate the potential risks and the measures it is taking. For clarity, this interview has been slightly edited. Texas Standard: This project requires analysis of a large amount of air pollution data from the EPA. What information can you capture through this analysis that someone cannot obtain by just looking at the EPA's own data? Lylla Younes: We can get the cumulative estimated cancer risk from all the different types of facilities in a region. When the EPA assesses cancer risk, they only look at specific types of facilities and equipment in isolation. So all we did was put them together and show our readers what it really is when you consider all the industrial activities in a region. This map shows the cancer risk in an area because the area is close to a facility that discharges toxic chemicals, correct? It shows the estimated cancer risk, because again, the data comes from the model, not from the actual air sample. Did you know that the EPA may have underestimated this risk through its own indicators? It depends a bit on where you look. In Pascagoula [, Mississippi] or parts of the Texas Gulf Coast, you have many different types of facilities and types of equipment. Therefore, yes, when the agency considers only one specific type of industrial facility or equipment, it may greatly underestimate the data by two, three, or five times. You and your colleagues have discovered some hot spots across the country that seem to be particularly polluted. Many of these hot pots are in Texas. Can you say more about why this is happening? I think this is twofold. As a result, states along the Gulf of Mexico, such as Texas, have specific advantages such as proximity to oil fields and deep-water ports, so it will be cheaper to operate there. Moreover, Texas has provided huge tax incentives for its industry and expressed its willingness to put the interests of the industry before the health of its residents. What do EPA officials think about these findings? The EPA has acknowledged that these hot spots exist, and it will take many years to untie the policy knot that brought us to today. But they also said that progress depends to a certain extent on the support of local partners such as the Texas Environmental Quality Council. Therefore, many different parties must truly work together to ensure that Texans and all Americans can breathe cleaner air. How did Texas officials respond to your findings? Texas officials have reiterated their policies and the way they monitor these polluters, but they have nothing to do with the real, new collaborative efforts proposed by the EPA. Is it too late to help people who are already living in these hot spots? It's not too late. The policy can be changed in some ways to force facilities to add different control measures, and to implement more stringent controls on their facilities to limit the amount of pollution that leaks. The EPA also told us that it will consider re-examining its acceptable cancer risk threshold. If it tightens this threshold, more polluters across the country will technically violate federal standards, so this may also lead to reduced pollution. But of course, you also need to start working hard in the permitting process, saying, did you know that this area has been overburdened by pollution, and we will never see it again here. At the same time, there are many people who might want them to know that they are moving into an area that you have identified as a hot spot. Are there any possible changes in the way EPA reports these situations? EPA is really hesitant to identify hot spots in our existing way. They told us that they don't want to be alarmist, and when hot spots are identified, it can send them into various rabbit holes to ensure that it is actually as bad as the model shows. Therefore, we believe that the US Environmental Protection Agency must actually start to take this seriously and identify these hot spots in our existing way, and then share this information with the public. Then follow up and make sure that the hot spot is indeed as bad as it looks in the data, or even worse. If you find the above report valuable, please consider donating here to support it. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thank you for your donation today. Share this story with friends: Facebook Twitter email

Louis Vest / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Plants along the Houston Waterway.

People living near air pollution sources have a higher risk of cancer than data from the Environmental Protection Agency shows.

This is based on a new report from ProPublica that uses EPA data to map areas with a higher risk of cancer due to air pollution.

Lylla Younes, a news app developer for the ProPublica Local Reporting Network, spoke with Texas Standard about creating the map and how it affects regulators. Listen to the interview with Younes in the audio player above or read the transcript below to learn more about why the EPA may underestimate the potential risks and the measures it is taking.

For clarity, this interview has been slightly edited.

Texas Standard: This project requires analysis of a large amount of air pollution data from the EPA. What information can you capture through this analysis that someone cannot obtain by just looking at the EPA's own data?

Lylla Younes: We can get the cumulative estimated cancer risk from all the different types of facilities in a region. When the EPA assesses cancer risk, they only look at specific types of facilities and equipment in isolation. So all we did was put them together and show our readers what it really is when you consider all the industrial activities in a region.

This map shows the cancer risk in an area because the area is close to a facility that discharges toxic chemicals, correct?

It shows the estimated cancer risk, because again, the data comes from the model, not from the actual air sample.

Did you know that the EPA may have underestimated this risk through its own indicators?

It depends a bit on where you look. In Pascagoula [, Mississippi] or parts of the Texas Gulf Coast, you have many different types of facilities and types of equipment. Therefore, yes, when the agency considers only one specific type of industrial facility or equipment, it may greatly underestimate the data by two, three, or five times.

You and your colleagues have discovered some hot spots across the country that seem to be particularly polluted. Many of these hot pots are in Texas. Can you say more about why this is happening?

I think this is twofold. As a result, states along the Gulf of Mexico, such as Texas, have specific advantages such as proximity to oil fields and deep-water ports, so it will be cheaper to operate there. Moreover, Texas has provided huge tax incentives for its industry and expressed its willingness to put the interests of the industry before the health of its residents.

What do EPA officials think about these findings?

The EPA has acknowledged that these hot spots exist, and it will take many years to untie the policy knot that brought us to today. But they also said that progress depends to a certain extent on the support of local partners such as the Texas Environmental Quality Council. Therefore, many different parties must truly work together to ensure that Texans and all Americans can breathe cleaner air.

How did Texas officials respond to your findings?

Texas officials have reiterated their policies and the way they monitor these polluters, but they have nothing to do with the real, new collaborative efforts proposed by the EPA.

Is it too late to help people who are already living in these hot spots?

It's not too late. The policy can be changed in some ways to force facilities to add different control measures, and to implement more stringent controls on their facilities to limit the amount of pollution that leaks. The EPA also told us that it will consider re-examining its acceptable cancer risk threshold. If it tightens this threshold, more polluters across the country will technically violate federal standards, so this may also lead to reduced pollution. But of course, you still need to start working hard in the permitting process, saying, did you know that this area has been flooded with pollution, and we will never see it again here.

At the same time, there are many people who might want them to know that they are moving into an area that you have identified as a hot spot. Are there any possible changes in the way EPA reports these situations?

EPA is really hesitant to identify hot spots in our existing way. They told us that they don't want to be alarmist, and when hot spots are identified, it can send them into various rabbit holes to ensure that it is actually as bad as the model shows. Therefore, we believe that the US Environmental Protection Agency must actually start to take this seriously and identify these hot spots in our existing way, and then share this information with the public. Then follow up and make sure that the hot spot is indeed as bad as it looks in the data, or even worse.

If you find the above report valuable, please consider donating here to support it. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thank you for your donation today.

©2021 Texas Standard. A service of the Moody's School of Communication at the University of Texas at Austin | Contact Us