Air quality in the Boston area is getting worse, report card says. See the grades for Massachusetts.
Air quality in the metro area that includes Boston, Worcester and Providence has gotten worse, a new report by the American Lung Association says. The "State of the Air Report" says wildfire smoke from Canada that was widespread in the New England region in 2023 is a big factor in the decline.
The report looked at daily and long-term levels of particle pollution, as well as daily measures of ozone "smog" between 2021 and 2023. Worcester County saw higher daily particle pollution levels, causing its prior "B" grade to fall to a "C," the report explained. Worcester had an average number of 1.7 unhealthy air quality days per year, and the report notes that even a short-term spike in particle pollution "can be extremely dangerous and even deadly."
"Although year-round particle pollution levels showed slight improvement, the metro area remains the second worst in the Northeast for this pollutant," the report says.
The Boston area was ranked 61st worst in America for ozone pollution. Washington County in Rhode Island dropped to an "F" grade for ozone, with an average of 4.5 unhealthy days per year due to the smog.
"Unfortunately, too many people in the Boston metro area are living with unhealthy levels of ozone and particle pollution," David Fitzgerald with the American Lung Association said in a statement. "This air pollution is causing kids to have asthma attacks, making people who work outdoors sick and unable to work, and leading to low birth weight in babies."
Air quality grades in Massachusetts
Below are the grades received by Massachusetts counties that reported ozone and particle pollution data. The report said zero Massachusetts counties earned "A" grades.
Particle pollution grades
Berkshire: D
Bristol: C
Essex: C
Franklin: D
Hampden: D
Hampshire: C
Middlesex: B
Norfolk: B
Plymouth: C
Suffolk: B
Worcester: C
Ozone grades
Barnstable: C
Berkshire: B
Bristol: D
Dukes: C
Essex: C
Franklin: B
Hampden: C
Hampshire: B
Middlesex: B
Norfolk: D
Plymouth: C
Suffolk: C
Worcester: B
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
18 hours ago
- CNBC
Berkshire has been selling a top healthcare holding it's owned for over a decade. Here's why
Berkshire Hathaway resumed selling shares of DaVita , a provider of kidney dialysis services, after the holding more than quadrupled in price. A new regulatory filing this week revealed that Berkshire sold another 200,010 shares of DaVita through multiple transactions between May 22-27. Berkshire remains DaVita's biggest institutional investor with a 42.3% stake, according to FactSet. The stock, which Berkshire first bought in 2011, is still the conglomerate's 10th biggest holding. This is just the latest sale by Warren Buffett's sprawling, Omaha-based empire has trimmed its stake in DaVita. In late February, Berkshire sold another 750,000 shares for $116 million over several days. Neither the filing for that sale nor the latest one mentioned an agreement reached in April 2023 under which DavIta agreed to buy back shares each quarter to reduce Berkshire's stake to 45%, and neither sale was of that plan. Rising costs Berkshire's latest round of selling came as DaVita suffered from rising patient care and operating costs. The Denver, Colorado-based company recently experienced disruptions from hurricanes as well as a ransomware attack, and the industry is also grappling with more onerous reimbursement and regulatory restrictions. The stock is down about 9% this year after surging 40% in each of the past two years. DaVita has quadrupled since Berkshire first bought the stock in 2011, closing Friday at $136.26 versus $34.74 at the end of 2010. DVA 5Y mountain DaVita over the past five years Berkshire's DVA stake is believed to be the work of portfolio manager Ted Weschler since his hedge fund had invested in the stock before he joined Berkshire in 2011. In 2014 , Weschler told CNBC that he bought the stock because DaVita delivers "better quality of care," high return on capital with predictable growth and a shareholder-friendly management. He also liked that the company's efficiency helped it to "deliver a net savings to the health care system." DaVita, founded in 1994, provides kidney dialysis services through at-home dialysis and a network of outpatient clinics across the United States.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Planning for my disabled son after I die keeps me awake at night'
Suzanne Robinson's 15-year-old son, Zac, is severely autistic and non-verbal. 'If he's in the garden, he'll pick up leaves, he's eaten a snail before, he'll drink from a puddle,' says Robinson. 'He has no concept of personal safety, so you can't leave him alone for a second, because anything could happen.' Zac needs one-to-one care around the clock and lives full-time in a specialist school in Thatcham, Berkshire, called Prior's Court, funded by his local authority. While his care is paid for, having a disabled child is hugely expensive for Robinson and Matt, Zac's father. On average, parents spend an extra £322 a month on their child's condition, such as higher energy bills and food costs, according to disability charity Contact. 'Everything he needs is expensive. We've spent a lot on private therapies. We still spend loads on supplements and things, which may or may not help, but you do everything you can,' adds Robinson. 'We've spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, probably, over 15 years, trying to help him as much as we can, really with pretty little result, if I am honest.' But the big concern for the couple is about what will happen to Zac – and their daughters – when they die. In England, a council will generally help to pay for care costs if a person has savings of less than £23,250. An inheritance could change the picture, especially if a home is inherited, as councils can require that homes be sold to help pay for care. Having a live-in carer costs between £800 and £1,600 a week, according to the NHS, while rooms in a residential or nursing home can cost as much as £850 a week. 'The worry is for the future. You're trying to protect your child as much as possible and provide for them without it affecting their entitlement to social care, because this stuff is ruinously expensive,' Robinson says. 'You don't want to leave it all to the girls, because that's not fair, but also we don't want our entire estate to be taken for his care so that they have nothing.' She adds: 'It keeps me awake at night. What's going to happen when we're not around? I don't want the burden of it to fall on my daughters.' The Robinsons are far from the only family to have to deal with this dilemma. Rhiannon Gogh, 47, also has a 15-year-old son, Tristan. Like Zac, he has severe autism, although he lives at home. The family realised something wasn't right when Tristan didn't hit the same milestones as his older brother, Henry. She says: 'We could never put him down. He cried a lot. He wanted to be rocked constantly, even when he was asleep. 'He never, ever looked at me. He never answered to his name. He never pointed at anything. He never responded to me talking to him. He seemed to be locked into a separate world. He used to run away from me at nursery when I would go to pick him up.' Like the Robinsons, Gogh has had to think about what will happen to Tristan when she and her husband die. Handing down estates to those without mental capacity is much harder than she expected. Not only does she need to think about making sure he can still access funded care, but levelling a large sum on a person without full mental capacity could make them a magnet for scammers. 'I quickly realised that all of the traditional financial planning that I'd put in place was completely wrong,' she says. 'It was going to cause him harm. He wouldn't be able to access his inheritance, he would be very, very vulnerable in receipt of it, and he would lose his access to care, support and benefits if I were to suddenly just land a chunk of money on him.' Parents of disabled children often have to give up work – which only exacerbates money worries. Robinson, 50, previously an actor and events organiser, is now a therapist. But when Zac was small, she stopped working to look after him, leaving her husband Matt, 49, who works as a business coach, as the sole breadwinner. 'Because of Zac's needs, no nursery would take him, we couldn't get him looked after, so the reality is that my career went completely on the back burner while my husband's took off.' She claimed carers' allowance, which worked out at £66.15 a week by 2019. It is now £83.30 a week. By the time Zac was nine – and with two younger daughters to care for – Robinson says she was 'on her knees'. Things got easier once Zac began attending residential school. But when he turns 16, his case will be passed to adult social care. The family faced a three-year battle to get him into residential care originally, and will face a similar process once again, including hiring lawyers to argue Zac's case. 'We'll have to go through the whole process again of proving his level of need and trying to get them to pay for it.' If the family fails to get his care extended into adulthood, their world could be upended again. Zac would have to move home, and Suzanne is particularly worried about how she will look after a fully-grown man as she ages. She asks: 'When he's 35, I'll be 70. Am I going to have to change a 35-year-old man's nappy at 70?' Gogh also gave up her corporate job 10 years ago to look after Tristan after he ran away from school. She now works as a financial adviser, specialising in helping families with severely disabled children. She has written a book, Planning with Love, on the subject. 'It's incredibly draining on finances,' Gogh says. 'He breaks things, he falls into things, he drops things, he bites clothing. He loves to see things dismantled and broken. 'He took an iPad once and smashed it on the corner of the table to see what happened. He's thrown a television out of a window.' A £400 car seatbelt was used just once before being thrown aside, because Tristan 'hated it'. She and her husband are planning a 'retirement for three', as he will be unable to support himself. Setting up your estate to ensure the future of your disabled child can be complex and often requires expert help, which is another cost. To ensure that the disabled person is eligible for care, while also receiving an inheritance, money can be left in trust. A disabled person's trust – which can be set up for someone eligible for disability living allowance or personal independence payments (PIP) – is specially designed for those without capacity. A discretionary trust can also be used, although it may attract higher tax bills. Trustees will need to be appointed to make decisions about what happens to the money. Those who cannot look after their own money may also need a deputy, who is appointed by the courts to make decisions for them, or might have their benefits managed directly by the Department for Work and Pensions. Choosing trustees is a minefield of its own. Gogh says: 'Who would a natural trustee be? You might think the natural choice would be a sibling, but then you think: 'Is it really fair to put that pressure on them by making them a trustee?'' Her eldest son, Henry, is just 17. He is very aware that, at some point in the future, he will become responsible for his younger brother. It's a heavy burden for a teenager. Gogh says: 'My poor other son has no choice, and he plays second fiddle, which is heartbreaking. 'I remember him saying to me in the car about a year ago: 'What if I go on holiday to Japan, in the future, when you're not here. Do you think someone will know how to get hold of me if something happens to Tristan?' 'He's already thought about that. He was only 15 at the time.' Planning for the future also raises the question of fairness between siblings. Robinson says that she doesn't want to leave all the money to her daughters, cutting Zac out entirely. But on the other hand, leaving everything in trust for Zac would feel equally unfair. 'You don't want to leave it all to the girls, but we don't want our entire estate to be taken for his care so they have nothing. That's just not fair. It's something families don't have to think about until you're in that position. 'You assume that you'll be able to split the estate between your children and they will all be able to look after that money themselves, and have the capacity to manage money. And of course, none of that applies in this case,' she says. Planning with Love: A Guide to Wills and Trusts for Parents of Children with Special Needs by Rhiannon Gogh (£15.99) Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
A Closer Look At Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's (NYSE:BMY) Impressive ROE
Many investors are still learning about the various metrics that can be useful when analysing a stock. This article is for those who would like to learn about Return On Equity (ROE). To keep the lesson grounded in practicality, we'll use ROE to better understand Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE:BMY). Return on equity or ROE is an important factor to be considered by a shareholder because it tells them how effectively their capital is being reinvested. Simply put, it is used to assess the profitability of a company in relation to its equity capital. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Bristol-Myers Squibb is: 31% = US$5.4b ÷ US$17b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the amount earned after tax over the last twelve months. So, this means that for every $1 of its shareholder's investments, the company generates a profit of $0.31. Check out our latest analysis for Bristol-Myers Squibb Arguably the easiest way to assess company's ROE is to compare it with the average in its industry. The limitation of this approach is that some companies are quite different from others, even within the same industry classification. As you can see in the graphic below, Bristol-Myers Squibb has a higher ROE than the average (19%) in the Pharmaceuticals industry. That's what we like to see. However, bear in mind that a high ROE doesn't necessarily indicate efficient profit generation. A higher proportion of debt in a company's capital structure may also result in a high ROE, where the high debt levels could be a huge risk . You can see the 3 risks we have identified for Bristol-Myers Squibb by visiting our risks dashboard for free on our platform here. Companies usually need to invest money to grow their profits. The cash for investment can come from prior year profits (retained earnings), issuing new shares, or borrowing. In the case of the first and second options, the ROE will reflect this use of cash, for growth. In the latter case, the debt used for growth will improve returns, but won't affect the total equity. In this manner the use of debt will boost ROE, even though the core economics of the business stay the same. Bristol-Myers Squibb clearly uses a high amount of debt to boost returns, as it has a debt to equity ratio of 2.85. While no doubt that its ROE is impressive, we would have been even more impressed had the company achieved this with lower debt. Debt does bring extra risk, so it's only really worthwhile when a company generates some decent returns from it. Return on equity is a useful indicator of the ability of a business to generate profits and return them to shareholders. A company that can achieve a high return on equity without debt could be considered a high quality business. All else being equal, a higher ROE is better. But ROE is just one piece of a bigger puzzle, since high quality businesses often trade on high multiples of earnings. It is important to consider other factors, such as future profit growth -- and how much investment is required going forward. So I think it may be worth checking this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. But note: Bristol-Myers Squibb may not be the best stock to buy. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies with high ROE and low debt. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
