The Relationality Between Air Pollution and Health
Introduction:
Air pollution data, in the form of air quality monitor readings and models, is often used as a convenient proxy when institutions are talking about community health. However, air pollution and health are separate yet interacting phenomena which makes pollution data less representative of the health concerns that people have around pollution.
Why this lesson is important:
There are issues from violence to erasure that come with using data that is not as relational to the [health] phenomena in question as it should be. Often, people seeking health justice for their communities and environments are directed towards relying on data that does not represent the impacts of pollution or hold polluters accountable for these impacts. By making this clear distinction, we can then look at how communities form a culture and practice of using data to evidence and advocate for their own health justice.
Story: Most air pollution data comes from air quality monitors measuring substances like particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) and nitrous oxide. These numbers tell us the amount of pollution, but not necessarily its impact. For example, PM2.5 and PM10 refer to particle size, not the composition. So even if you see PM levels go up or down, that doesn't tell you what the particles are made of or how dangerous they are to a given community or individual. If you're not describing the contents of this pollution you can barely make the relation to health.
Basically, air pollution readings aren't health indicators—they're environmental indicators. They don’t account for the human body, individual susceptibility, or ethical concerns. In a conversation on the impacts of pollution, quantified air pollution calculations alone are devoid of accountability by assuming impact on the body is inevitable. It’s a quantified process, which does not leave room for the nuance of ethics, such as whether the right factor is being counted or if a count is the priority.
Even with advocacy tools like community air quality monitors, relying only on pollution data limits how far we can go in demanding justice. It’s important, but not enough. We often talk about the HPA axis and chronic stress link physical and mental health—concepts that also apply here.
PM10 often settles in the lungs, but PM2.5 is small enough to enter the bloodstream and even cross the blood-brain barrier which can cause systemic inflammation. Knowing a pollutant exists isn’t enough when we’re looking at health and how to heal communities.
There are a few concepts that are also worth grasping to understand the difference between focusing on air quality data and focusing on health data and lived experience as impacts of air pollution.
Assimilative capacity is the idea that we can push bodies, whether it's human bodies, a river, or the air, to safe levels of pollution. But this idea ignores consent and dignity. For those you care about, you wouldn't say that if their capacity is 8, they should go to 7.5 just because you feel like you have the right to push them that far. If you do, then you have an unsafe relationship with the people and things around you. Most people would not say they want to be polluted to 90% of their potential limit. They’d rather keep their body cleaner, if at all possible. We (as a lab) don’t conform to the idea of working to assimilative capacity, because justice means not pushing people or ecosystems to their breaking point.
Biological Inequity describes how systemic factors like poverty and racism make people more vulnerable to pollution. It’s not just about behavior—it’s about embedded disadvantages. Someone's already at a disadvantage just by existing in these places, even without considering their behavior. Industrial sites are often placed in poorer neighborhoods. That’s not accidental and leads to real biological outcomes, such as asthma, eczema, blood and weight issues, which are rooted in environmental injustice.
In community gaslighting, institutions often deny the harm communities experience because their monitors show “safe” levels. You come and say, ‘We are sick,’ and they say, ‘You can’t be sick,’ or at least that they don't play a part in your sickness. If you’re polluting an already vulnerable community, even if you're not the original cause of their deprivation and poor health, you’re part of the harm. Using average pollution levels to justify polluting the community shows a lack of care and consent for those who live and navigate the area.
Justice starts by centering community health, knowledge, and advocacy—not just pollutant counts. That means shifting our focus to metrics that matter to people: developing rashes, shortness of breath, avoiding certain streets, children needing care after being outside.
Learning Points:
Particulate matter is used to identify air quality and the condition of the environment but does not directly identify health as it does not account for the variance in susceptibility.
Air quality metrics, by being quantified, give polluters limited accountability on the nuanced health outcomes of the communities that they impact as lived experience is usually also qualitative.
By focusing on environmental factors as a representation of community health, there’s a risk of maintaining an assimilative capacity approach to health and planning where authorities feel they can pollute if their emissions hit certain metrics.
Justice starts with making community health knowledge and advocacy determine goals based on direct health metrics then the environmental proxies that affect health.
Segueing into the next Lesson theme: Our Air is Kin scientific advisors, Prof Ilan Kelman and Dr Julia Pescarini, joined us to look at how science and scientific reporting is used in translation for wider community health and urban planning. As Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are a familiar and current issue for clean air advocates in London, we use a study by Imperial College and the article discussing the impact as a point of reference and analysis.