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
    Energy

    Span Is Building a New Kind of Electric Utility

    The maker of smart panels is tapping into unused grid capacity to help power the AI boom.

    A SPAN device.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, SPAN

    The race for artificial intelligence is a race for electricity. Data centers are scrambling to find enough power to run their servers, and when they do, they often face long waits while utilities upgrade the grid to accommodate the added demand.

    In the eyes of Arch Rao, the CEO and founder of the smart electrical panel company Span, however, there is a glut of electricity waiting to be exploited. That’s because the electric grid is already oversized, designed to satisfy spikes in demand that occur for just a few hours each year. By shifting when and where different users consume power, it’s possible to squeeze far more juice out of the existing system, faster, and for a lot less money, than it takes to make it bigger.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Yellow
    Electric Vehicles

    How Toyota Became an EV Winner

    After years of dithering, the world’s biggest automaker is finally in the game.

    Toyota EVs.
    Heatmap Illustration/Toyota, Getty Images

    The hottest contest in the electric car industry right now may be the race for third place.

    Thanks to Tesla’s longtime supremacy (at least in this country), its two mainstays — the Model Y and Model 3 — sit comfortably atop the monthly list of best-selling EVs. Movement in the No. 3 spot, then, has become a signal for success from the automakers attempting to go electric. The original Chevy Bolt once occupied this position thanks to its band of diehard fans. Last year, the brand’s affordable Equinox EV grabbed third. And then, earlier this year, an unexpected car took over that spot on the leaderboard: the Toyota bZ.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Blue
    AM Briefing

    EV Fee

    On forever chemicals, Indian and Swedish nuclear, and Ford’s battery business

    EV charging.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    Current conditions: A raging brushfire in the suburbs north of Los Angeles has forced more than 23,000 Californians to evacuate • The Guayanese capital of Georgetown, newly awash in offshore oil money, is also set to be drenched by thunderstorms through next week • Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are nearing triple digits today.


    THE TOP FIVE

    1. Congress proposes a $130 per year fee on electric vehicles

    A bipartisan budget deal to fund roads, railways, and bridges for the next five years would also slap a $130 per year fee on drivers registering electric vehicles, with a $35 fee for plug-in hybrids. Late Sunday, lawmakers on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the text of the 1,000-page bill. Roughly a sixth of the way through the legislation is a measure directing the Federal Highway Administration to impose the annual fees on battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles — and to withhold federal funding from any state that fails to comply with the rule. If passed, the fees would take effect at the end of September 2027. The fees — which increase to $150 and $50, respectively, after a decade — are designed to reinforce the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally been financed through gasoline taxes. In a statement, Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican and the committee’s chairman, said the legislation “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.” But Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, called the proposal “simply a punitive tax that would disproportionately impact adopters of electric vehicles, with no meaningful impact on” maintaining the fund. “Drivers of gas-powered vehicles pay approximately $73 to $89 in federal gas tax each year,” Gore said. “The proposed fee would charge an unfair premium on EV drivers, at a time when all Americans are looking for ways to save money.”

    Keep reading...Show less
    Green