Pollution Responsible For a Quarter of Deaths of Young Children, Says WHO (theguardian.com) 87
More than 1 in 4 deaths of children under 5 years of age are attributable to unhealthy environments. Every year, environmental risks -- such as indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene -- take the lives of 1.7 million children under 5 years, say two new WHO reports. The Guardian adds: "A polluted environment is a deadly one -- particularly for young children," says Dr Margaret Chan, director-general of the WHO. "Their developing organs and immune systems -- and smaller bodies and airways -- make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." The harm from air pollution can begin in the womb and increase the risk of premature birth. After birth, air pollution raises the risk of pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives, and of lifelong lung conditions such as asthma. It may also increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer in later life.
Re:Feedback cycle? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm beginning to think conservatives like pollution because it causes enough brain damage to make one vote Republican, expanding their voter base.
I know this claim will anger a lot of conservatives, but it's the best explanation I can find for their irrational behavior and conspiracy nuttiness.
Heh, your theory is flawed. I believe it's fairly common knowledge that people in areas with lots of pollution (big cities) tend to be far more democrat leaning that people who live around clean air (the country.)
Perhaps you were subjected to too much pollution as a child to realize that fairly obvious conclusion to your line of thought.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe my brain has been poisoned by pollution.
By the way, one doesn't have to stay in one place. They could be poisoned in cities and move to the country to fit in with others like them. Maybe poison in the cities could mean more low-IQ migrants to rural areas.
Re: (Score:1)
Projection. Your counter-theory bad two unproven assumptions.
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: "had", not "bad". Mondays.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes. Because the countryside is free of pollution [yale.edu]
Perhaps you were subjected to too much manure as a child to be able to tell when someone is feeding you more of it.
Re: (Score:1)
It goes through cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon created the EPA to short-circuit the leftist environmental movement that was emerging as the Vietnam war wound down. They needed something new to protest about when the war was gone.
Long term, the strategy backfired, as could have been predicted. Leftists took over the EPA and advanced their anti-industrial agenda.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And democrats are any better? Did you see the last candidate they put forward for POTUS? That bitch be whack yo.
Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.
Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservati
Re: (Score:1)
If the labeling standards/metrics are poor, people want them improved. Just because the metrics are poor now doesn't mean people want to keep them that way. Many also believe that poor labeling standards are better than no standards
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is a difference between label standards (which we have), poor label standards (the gmo project), and outright denial of science and facts of labels like Food Babe and using fear and ignorance to sale homeopathy. There is nothing to label for something that has no problems found in any study.
I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.
Yes, both sides have problems with science and use it to push their political goals. Glad we both can agree that each party err "side" is bad for science for different reasons.
But Democrats are making everythin
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You appear to be meandering now. Homeopathy wasn't mentioned before. Are you claiming homeopathy is a progressive thing?
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a network of information that you could use to find out what I am talking about instead of acting like a disingenuous partisan fool. You can search Food Babe and the gmo project. Although, it is easier to act like a disingenuous partisan fool than to have your bubble popped by reality.
Good luck. I think you are going to need it.
Re: (Score:1)
Vague fool.
Re: (Score:2)
lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?
Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.
I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.
Labels never killed anybody [Re:Feedback cycle?] (Score:2)
It never killed anybody to put a GMO indicator on the package label. If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product. Most progressives are NOT for outright banning GMO's, just a label. Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.
Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).
Most progressives
You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progres
Re: (Score:1)
I assure you I have no sinister intent. More precision would have made the writing verbose, and most people prefer short over precise in my experience.
Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects. I don't wish to delve there today. Maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects.
I have had my fair share of time dedicated to this topic. And as I have said it is primarily based on pseudo-science that as a voting demographic tend toward the D.
I think the phrase, 'don't throw rocks in a glass house' comes to mind. Each party denies science they just disagree which science they dislike. Except vaccines. Some reason that has bipartisan denial.
...and inadequate hygiene (Score:4, Interesting)
indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene
This last one doesn't seem like it really fits in with the others too well. Certainly impoverished people may not necessarily be able to afford the chemicals needed for good hygiene, or they might lack the education to know why hygiene is important, but impoverished people in countries with good anti-pollution policies and with otherwise strong economies may also have problems with hygiene and possibly for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
45% of all child deaths are simply down to malnutrition [who.int].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Hygiene" may not just be about bathing and washing, but also defective equipment, like refrigerators with inconsistent temperature, washing machines with mold in them because they don't drain properly, toilets that only half flush, and corroding pipes that deliver tainted water.
Re:...and inadequate hygiene (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so they can include natural dirty water, Malaria and other parasite deaths in the number and make a nice inflammatory headline.
Re: (Score:2)
This last one doesn't seem like it really fits in with the others too well.
Hygiene and sanitation have overlapping definitions with a slightly different basis. Sanitation is about provision of services and hygiene is about using them.
e.g:
Sanitation: Not having a functioning sewer / waste water system.
Hygiene: Shitting on your own lawn regardless of any provision for sewer / waste water.
Hygiene isn't just about washing your hands, but it's general cleanliness practices. You can have either without the other. E.g. if you have no waste water system, then the hygienic approach would b
Re:There are enough people in the world already (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Your family goes first.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like fake news (Score:1)
Especially considering they are lumping poor hygiene and lack of sanitation (aka "being poor") with air pollution
Good news! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When we get to that point, we'll have a world filled with helicopter parents.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bit disingenuous ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, pollution is bad for your health. In no way is that a false statement.
At the same time, living in a pre-industrial society is also very bad for your health [nationalarchives.gov.uk]. As it living in a poorer society [blogspot.com] for a number of important reasons.
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.
Of course, by the same vein that not all polluting activities are harmful on the margin, not all are beneficial on the margin either. Clearcutting rainforest to make room for banana groves is almost certainly a net harm. Burning natural gas to electrify rural areas that didn't previously have power is almost certainly a net gain. In between there's a whole realm of less obvious answers.
There's a future where all our power comes from nuclear and renewable and all our food is grown or synthesized on a small amount of land. We aren't there yet, and so we have to pick and chose.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not possible to live without polluting.
A reasonable goal is to minimize the problems caused by pollution while maximizing the benefits of processes that inescapably produce pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
While the article doesn't make clear, but I suspect most of these deaths are in 3rd world countries that aren't industrialized where unchlorinated water and indoor wood fires are common and are much worse then pollution caused by industry.
Re: (Score:2)
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.
Well it would be ludicrous, if that's what anyone was saying ... excuse me, somehow implying. This is what is known as a straw man argument.
You advocate making a trade-off between pollution and its benefits. I agree. But if you want to make a rational trade-off, it's necessary to quantify the costs empircially. Which is not to say this study is correct in its conclusions; it almost certainly gets some things wrong, because studies like this are never perfect.
But undertaking a study like this does not so
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yes it does because if you listen to any liberal talk about these article the first thing out of their mouth is how XYZ ought to stop polluting so much because the pollution is bad and it kills people. I have NEVER heard a person in the media cover a story like this and come to the conclusion that while the pollution does kill people, the number of people saved by the pollution causing activities is much higher and therefore further analysis is required. NEVER EVER EVER has that happened. The "real world
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution IS bad. It DOES kill people. And no people are "saved" by pollution. People are saved by the economic products, the by product of which is pollution.
Pollution is simply not desirable, as you seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading failure. The GP wrote "people saved by the pollution causing activities", not just 'people are "saved" by pollution' as you claimed.
The problem you both are complaining about is context dropping.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your main point, I think these types of articles are important for people to realize the costs of pollution. The reality is that the balance between the people and the corporations is heavily stacked in favor of the corporations.
In more detail, companies have no incentive to control their pollution, so the government has to step in. It's a classic tragedy of the commons. As we can see, the corporations just buy off the politicians and the people do not know to fight. Ironically, in
Re: (Score:2)
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths
Not at all, it's absolutely correct. I take your point, but actually there is a huge gap between the kind of industrial revolution that the West had and what we can do relatively cleanly now. It is simply not necessary to go through as much pain as we did, with the benefit of modern technology and hindsight.
More political FUD from the new world order (Score:2)
A recent New Zealand study [nih.gov] found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.
So unless you want to start banning cars and going out in the sun, STFU about casual second hand smoke. Walking through that cloud on your way into the restaurant isn't as dangerous as driving to get there. I'm not suggestion people should take steps on their own to avoid it or not expose their children to it, but enough is enough from the nanny state governments
Re:More political FUD from the new world order (Score:5, Informative)
"A recent New Zealand study found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.
"
Interesting that you picked the NZ study and not one from somewhere else because here Melanoma and car accidents are both big killers due to us having far stronger sun, very low levels of ozone meaning we have the highest incidence of melanoma in the world: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa... [stuff.co.nz]
Also, the driving standards here are terrible as are the roads, and there's a lot of old cars still in use with the average age of cars being 14+ years meaning they lack a lot of the modern safety features and given that's an average, there are plenty of cars that are 30+ years old still running around. We have a very high accident rate and many deaths on the roads as a result of poor driving and old vehicles.
Put those together and then consider that smoking sits in between them and then think, how safe is smoking? It is already illegal to smoke in a car with children and there's a push for the country to be completely smoke free by 2025 because that's at least something that can be done to improve health as we can't fix the ozone layer, turn off the sun, or train drivers to not be crap behind the wheel apparently.
As for pollution, NZ is 85% renewable energy so that's nice, but transport makes up a lot of our pollution and the air in cities like Auckland is very poor at some times of the year due to traffic fumes along with a large amount of wood burners. There's very little support to move to EVs (I have one) or to encourage no-polluting heating (I have heatpumps) and there are even efforts to penalise those who generate their own electricity (I have solar) so it is pretty poor in the face of the whole clean green New Zealand image.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the driving standards here are terrible as are the roads, and there's a lot of old cars still in use with the average age of cars being 14+ years meaning they lack a lot of the modern safety features and given that's an average, there are plenty of cars that are 30+ years old still running around. We have a very high accident rate and many deaths on the roads as a result of poor driving and old vehicles.
While visiting the South Island a few years back, I heard from a cop that a big problem with driving down there is tourists. Specifically, people who fly in from mainland China on cheap flights that arrive late at night. They then get into a car with no sleep and drive several more hours to their hotel, often forgetting what side of the road they are supposed to be on. Bad Things often ensue.
Re: (Score:2)
"I heard from a cop that a big problem with driving down there is tourists."
There's a degree of that to be certain, but also local driving standards are pitiful as well. The tourist crashes get noticed but there's a pretty constant rate of locals losing control on corners, or running into the back of other cars due to insufficient following distances. This has nothing to do with driving on the wrong side of the road, and everything to do with people being too bunched up and speeding. Local drivers frequentl
Re:More political FUD from the new world order (Score:4, Insightful)
Second-hand smoke, air pollution, etc., are unavoidable in some areas (and "move to the middle of an uninhabited swath of land" isn't really a viable option for some people). It's the difference between getting bit by your own dog and getting bit by someone else's.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh (Score:5, Funny)
Strangely, 3/4 of all childhood deaths are due to pristine lands without any industry or modernity.
Indoor air pollution (Score:2)
WHO says that 3.3 million deaths linked to indoor air pollution.
WHO Assistant Director-General Family, Women and Children's Health says "Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves."
Providing electricity or gas mechanisms for cooking could solve those 3.3 million deaths. But that simply requires some level of economic development.
If only activists were not so fixated on CO2 (Score:2)
there might be some effort to work on these other big problems.
But that might make more CO2, so forget about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chevrolet Volt second generation gets some 50+ miles of electric range per charge, with a 4-hour charge time at 240V, 3.3kW (most electric vehicles charge at 6kW). 90% of all miles driven in Chevrolet Volt first-generation vehicles (38 mile electric range) are electric. PHEVs with 50-100 miles of range, even with only a 3.3kW continuous-load charger (capable of taking 40kW or so from regen for maybe 30 seconds, but not 6.6kW from wall for several minutes), will eliminate most of the outdoor air pollu
breackdown between air and water (Score:1)
I would love to see the breakdown. Lack of access to clean water is probably the #1 cause of infant in 3rd world shitholes. How convenient to lump "make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." together to fit the agenda
Re: (Score:2)
A breakdown would be useful. But I'll bet that most of the air pollution mortality is due to open cooking fires inside huts. Also a third world problem.