A study that seemed buried or lost showed up on the Internet and confirmed what people have thought for a long time -South Seattle had an air pollution problem.

After commiserating with her neighbors in August about the smells coming from different industrial sites and the excessive dust in the air, Georgetown resident Kathy Nyland called the non-profit group People for Puget Sound.

Nyland was informed that years earlier residents of South Park and Georgetown had similar concerns and questioned the health impacts of local air pollution. The residents experienced headaches, respiratory problems, miscarriages, nausea, blurry vision, fatigue and cancer, and requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to take a close look at the air emissions in South Seattle. In response the Washington State Department of Health hired an independent consultant from California to identify air pollutants, key air pollution sources, and the health impacts of these.

But since the assessment was completed years ago Heather Trim, project coordinator at People for Puget Sound, had been unable to obtain the results from the Department of Health.

On a whim Nyland searched for a few key terms on Google and was surprised to find the study that so many had been waiting to have released.

"It confirmed what people always hear about South Seattle's poor air quality," Nyland said. "It provided some answers but it also provided indications of what we need to focus on. It was a good starting point."

The assessment found that diesel smoke from different modes of transportation and wood burning smoke to be the main pollution contributors in South Seattle. The area's industrial activities were also found to contribute significantly to air pollution.

The study also determined that there is a low to moderate health risk in the region due to air quality. Near Boeing Field there is one excess incident of cancer per 1000 people. Near Capital Industries the excess is five per 10,000. Nonetheless, lung cancer rates in South Seattle were not found to be significantly different from levels across Washington State.

The air toxins believed to contribute to cancer are diesel, chromium compounds, benzene, butadiene, acrolein and formaldehyde.

With all air pollution the health risks vary. The people most sensitive to air pollution are infants and children, adults age 65 and older, and those who suffer from health conditions such as respiratory infections, heart and lung disease or who have a history of stroke or diabetes.

Since the study was released, community meetings have been held to explain the findings as well as measures that the Department of Health is taking to improve air quality in the Duwamish Valley.

Since 2001, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has operated a Diesel Solutions program aiming to reduce diesel emissions by installing equipment on diesel vehicles. The agency also attempts to control harmful emissions from industrial sites through permitting.

"The (Department of Health) report really confirmed that we were being aggressive on the right topics," said Kathy Himes, a team lead at the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

But since the study was released the Department of Health has planned to conduct follow up studies.

The department also aims to better inform residents on ways that they can help improve the air quality such as limiting their driving, using electric yard equipment, paying attention to burn bans and either using clean burning techniques with wood stoves or switching to a gas or electric stove.

People for Puget Sound would like to see new studies include information they feel was missing from the first assessment.

Heather Trim of People for Puget Sound said that because it was not yet available at the time, the study did not include a recent emissions inventory completed by the Port of Seattle. The organization would also like to see the Department of Health require an emissions inventory from all industrial facilities in the valley.

"The model didn't tell the complete story and to do better would require better information to be put into the model," said Gary Palcisko, who worked on the study while he was with the Department of Health.

When the assessments model was compared to actual contaminant measures some were very off. The measure of arsenic, for example, was more than 517 times what the model had predicted. Meanwhile the measure of benzene was insignificantly less than the model's estimate.

"It's a tool, just an estimate to identify where our concerns are," Palcisko said. "It doesn't necessarily give us everything we need to know but it helps us recognize that certain sources may need further attention."

Rose Egge may be reached at 932.0300 or rosee@robinsonnews.com