Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Climate

How Many People Will This Smoke Kill?

Calculating smoke deaths is tricky but important.

Smoke and tombstones.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

I went for a walk on Wednesday. I intended only to go as far as the first intersection — just to get a quick glimpse of how my New York neighborhood has been transformed by the smoke — but each block revealed itself to be stranger and yellower than the last. Mesermized and horrified, my “just stepping out” stretched into a longer walk as I wandered further and further away from the relative safety of the indoors, where my air purifier was on full blast.

By the time I returned home, the stupidity of my decision had struck me — physically. My throat burned and my voice was hoarse; my head pounded; and my eyes were goopy from the smoke. I’d inhaled something — millions of somethings — that my body was vehemently rejecting. How bad, I wondered in a hypochondriacal panic, was my mistake?

It is almost certain that this smoke will kill people. Many will be elderly or people with pre-existing serious health conditions; some of them may be unborn; some may be people who labor outside. But what we do know is that smoke this bad and that lasts for this long is deadly. One widely cited study by 70 international scientists found that short-term exposure to wildfire smoke causes around 3,193 deaths in the U.S. per year (“short-term” means just three days or less; other studies of short-term wildfire deaths found mortality slightly lower) and this week is already a top-three wildfire pollution event of all time for the nation.

Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

* indicates required

  • Wildfire smoke is particularly scary because it contains teeny tiny particles called PM2.5 that are small enough to enter our lungs and even our bloodstreams. PM2.5 particles are present at some level in every urban environment but wildfire-related PM2.5 is believed to be much more toxic than other normal “ambient” particles because of all the yucky things that burn up in fires.

    The link between elevated PM2.5 particle concentrations and increased mortality can be dramatic. The aforementioned international study on wildfire-related PM2.5 and daily mortality found that “all-cause mortality” — that is, deaths that aren’t accidents — increases by 1.9%, cardiovascular mortality by 1.7%, and respiratory mortality by 1.9% with every bump of 10 micrograms of pollutant per one cubic meter of air. If New York’s PM2.5 concentration averages, say, 75 micrograms over three days this week (the concentration roughly expected for an average AQI of 150), that would mean people of all ages are 12% more likely to die than they otherwise would be.

    To be clear, this doesn’t mean there is a 12% chance you will die this week, but rather that the odds of you dying are 12% higher than they are on an average given day. A young healthy person isn’t likely to die of non-accidental causes on a random normal day, so the danger of wildfire smoke exposure killing you tomorrow is still wildly low. But those numbers go up if you’re elderly or have a heart or respiratory condition to begin with; asthma hospitalizations also, naturally, spike during smoke events.

    Put another way, wildfire smoke is an exacerbating factor of serious health conditions. In one study, the risk of dying of a heart attack in the five days after exposure to significant wildfire smoke was elevated by 6.3%; by another, the risk of having a stroke jumps 22% following smoke exposure. These differences are not insignificant; it means there will be people who die from heart attacks or strokes who might not have if the air had otherwise been clear.

    But of course, these projections are all speculative, which is why figuring out a death toll for the 2023 smoke event will be a tricky and delicate thing to do. No single death can be blamed just on “smoke.” Researchers can use the established link between elevated PM2.5 levels and higher mortality rates to do back-of-the-envelope estimates of short-term deaths — it’s how University of Washington researchers projected about 200 smoke-related deaths immediately after fires in the state in 2020 — but crunching the numbers on excess deaths takes patience and time and remains inexact. A study that identified 133 excess cardiorespiratory-related deaths caused by wildfire-smoke exposure during the 2003 southern California fire season took nearly a decade to make it into print.

    Short-term deaths, of course, are not the whole story either. One of the major concerns about wildfire smoke is what exposure does in the long term — hour after hour, week after week, and season after season. The East Coast had never needed to worry about that sort of prolonged exposure before. But perhaps now it might.

    It may be months yet before we know how bad this smoke event was for the East, and years before we can say with much, if any, certainty. My smoky walk outside probably won’t kill me and, good news, yours probably won’t, either. But “probably” is more than I’d personally like to chance for a few yellowish pictures. Be smart. No poison is always better than “some.”

    Green

    You’re out of free articles.

    Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
    To continue reading
    Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
    or
    Please enter an email address
    By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
    AM Briefing

    Ripened on the Vine

    On a sodium-ion megadeal, the Bangladeshi atom, and space solar

    Offshore wind.
    AM 4/28
    Heatmap Illustration/Vineyard Wind

    Current conditions: More than 200 damaging wind reports from Missouri to Indiana came in so far this week as a series of storms wraps up over the Central United States • South Sudan’s capital of Juba is roasting in temperatures nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit as heavy storms threaten to add to existing floods • Gale warnings are in effect in the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea as a northeasterly monsoon churns up winds of up to 40 knots.

    THE TOP FIVE

    1. Vineyard Wind enters into full service

    And then there were three. Last month, Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind started generating electricity for the mid-Atlantic grid just days after Orsted’s Revolution Wind entered into service off the coast of Rhode Island. Now a third U.S. offshore wind project is fully up and running. On Monday, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey announced that Vineyard Wind had activated its electricity contracts with utilities, setting fixed prices for the 800-megawatt project 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket over the next 20 years. In a press release, Healey said the power purchase agreements will save Massachusetts ratepayers roughly $1.4 billion in electricity costs throughout these next two decades. “Throughout one of the coldest winters in recent history, Vineyard Wind turbines powered our homes and businesses at a low price and now that price goes even lower with the activation of these contracts,” Healey said in a statement. “Especially as President Trump is taking energy sources off the table and increasing prices with his war in Iran, we should be leaning into more American-made wind power.” Vineyard Wind first began selling power to the market in 2024, but at what The New Bedford Light called “fluctuating and at times higher prices.” As of this week and for the next year, the price will be set at $69.50 per megawatt-hour.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Blue
    Energy

    Trump’s Shady Wind Deals Aren’t Over Yet

    There are at least two more developers in a position to trade offshore leases for fossil fuel investment.

    A Trump handout.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    The Trump administration inked two more agreements to cancel offshore wind leases and reimburse the former leaseholders nearly $1 billion on Monday, demonstrating that its previous deals with TotalEnergies was not a one-off legal settlement but rather a new, repeatable strategy to throttle the industry.

    Just like the deal with Total, the Interior Department is painting the agreement as a quid pro quo, where the companies will be reimbursed only after they invest an equivalent amount of money into U.S. oil and gas projects. There are a handful of remaining companies sitting on undeveloped offshore wind leases that could conceivably make similar deals. If they do, the cost to taxpayers could exceed $4 billion.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Ideas

    Democrats Need a Critical Minerals Policy Beyond Anti-Trumpism

    Party orthodoxy is no longer serving the energy transition, the Breakthrough Institute’s Seaver Wang and Peter Cook write.

    A donkey miner.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    President Trump has announced a dizzying array of executive branch led critical mineral policies since taking office again last year. While bombastically branded as new achievements, many elements from critical mineral tariffs to strategic stockpiling to Defense Production Act financing trace back to bipartisan recommendations and programs spanning the past several administrations.

    Many Democrats in Congress, however, are stuck on the defensive. During a recent House Natural Resources hearing, for instance, Washington Representative Yassamin Ansari singled out the SECURE Minerals Act, a bipartisan proposal for a strategic minerals reserve, as “a framework ripe for fraud, corruption, and abuse.” Yet the draft bill actually contains strong safeguards: Senate confirmation of board members, annual independent audits, public tracking and annual reporting to Congress, conflict-of-interest prohibitions, and more.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Blue