Death of Trees Correlated With Human Cardiovascular & Respiratory Disease 152
eldavojohn writes "PBS's NewsHour interviewed Geoffrey Donovan on his recent research published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine that noted a correlation between trees (at least the 22 North American ash varieties) and human health: 'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health. And if that's true, then killing 100 million of them in 10 years should have an effect. So if we take away these 100 million trees, does the health of humans suffer? We found that it does.' The basis of this research is Agrilus planipennis, the emerald ash borer, has systematically destroyed 100 million trees in the eastern half of the United States since 2002. After accounting for all variables, the research found that an additional 15,000 people died from cardiovascular disease and 6,000 more from lower respiratory disease in the 15 states infected with the bug, compared with uninfected areas of the country. While the exact cause and effect remains unknown, this research appears to be reinforcing data for people who regularly enjoy forest bathing as well as providing evidence that the natural environment provides major public health benefits."
For all you M. Night Shamylon haters (Score:4, Funny)
Suck it!
Re:Haha (Score:4, Funny)
Pardon me while I pull something out a my ass.
So I get my gerbil back?
Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Deforestation != Causation (Score:4, Funny)
Deforestation != Causation
Hmm. I first read that as "Deforestation does not equal Caucasian, which seemed strangely racist. Then I thought maybe it was "Defenestration does not equal Caucasian", which kind of made more sense, since being tossed out a window is pretty much an equal opportunity experience. But that seemed to be stating the obvious.
I got it right on the third read.
That course in speed reading may not have helped my reading comprehension, but it has made my world a more interesting place.