Air Pollution 'Triggers Hundreds More Heart Attacks and Strokes,' Study Finds (bbc.com) 58
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Higher air pollution in the UK trigger hundreds more heart attacks, strokes and acute asthma attacks each year, research suggests. A team at King's College London looked at data from London, Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford and Southampton. They calculated days with above average pollution levels would see an extra 124 cardiac arrests over the year. On days with high pollution levels, across the nine cities in total, they calculated that there would be a total of 231 additional hospital admissions for stroke, with an extra 193 children and adults taken to hospital for asthma treatment. Dr Heather Walton, of King's College London's Environmental Research Group, said air pollution reduction policies concentrated in the main on effects connected to life expectancy.
In London, high-pollution days would see an extra 87 cardiac arrests per year, an extra 144 strokes, and 74 children and 33 adults ending up in hospital with asthma-related issues. In Birmingham the figure would be 12 more out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 27 additional admissions for stroke and 26 more for asthma. Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford and Southampton would see between two and six more out-of-hospital heart attacks and up to 14 extra hospital admissions for both stroke and asthma. Only in Derby would there be no apparent increase. The research suggests cutting air pollution by a fifth would decrease incidents of lung cancer by between 5% and 7% across the nine cities surveyed.
In London, high-pollution days would see an extra 87 cardiac arrests per year, an extra 144 strokes, and 74 children and 33 adults ending up in hospital with asthma-related issues. In Birmingham the figure would be 12 more out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 27 additional admissions for stroke and 26 more for asthma. Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford and Southampton would see between two and six more out-of-hospital heart attacks and up to 14 extra hospital admissions for both stroke and asthma. Only in Derby would there be no apparent increase. The research suggests cutting air pollution by a fifth would decrease incidents of lung cancer by between 5% and 7% across the nine cities surveyed.
Green news for nerds? (Score:1)
Different health problems https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
More low IQ people https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Big gov on air quality https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
A study every few weeks to get that quota of SJW green news between the weeks Russia news?
Re:Green news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have objections to these research papers, you could point out problems in their methodology. Or perhaps you could cite other research papers that conflict with their results.
Instead you just resort to name-calling. Calling scientific researchers "SJWs" doesn't even make sense. Read this [wikipedia.org] for a better understanding of what the term means.
Re:Green news for nerds? (Score:4, Funny)
He doesn't need to. He knows who is right based on what side he thinks they're on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they also showed some link between lead levels in water and crime/behavioral issues in Flint Michigan.
Re: (Score:3)
The air pollution study looked at differences between high and low pollution days *in the same places*. So all the factors you mention are controlled for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad you aren't being modded up for that. Every day we are finding out how bogus all our studies have turned to be. And we're still not doing anything to correct it.
We are riding on the coattails of 50s, 60s technology [yeah, the solar stuff and computers too], we're still burning kerosene, even our nukes only power primitive steam engines. We have nothing new to show for ourselves. From space we look like flies swarming around a pile of poop. Really we are doing just that, and we crap in our nest. It's
Harmful? "More likely to be struck by lightning" (Score:2)
Nobody WANTS more pollution, of course. However, this particular study somewhat suggests that we should have more pollution. I realize that's a strange thing to say. I'll explain.
You know how people say "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to win Mega Millions", or whatever EXTREMELY improbable thing. If it happens to almost nobody, it's compared to "getting struck by lightning".
The study claims hundreds of people are affected by pollution. Which isn't quite "you're more likely to be struc
Re: (Score:1)
No, it says high pollution days cause hundreds more heart attacks, strokes, and acute asthma attacks per year than would occur without the high pollution days. Delta pollution results in delta health emergencies.
No, this isn't across all of England, it's only across nine cities.
Let's all work on our reading comprehension, ok?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, or course, a further reduction in pollution caused a further reduction in morbidity and mortality.
The question is HOW MUCH reduction (Score:2)
Of course any reduction will have some effect.
This study attempted to *measure* the effects of air pollution.
It found the current level of pollution correlates with hundreds of people having significant a significant health event. So we can reasonably estimate that a single-digit reduction (or increase) is air pollution would increase these by perhaps a single-digit number of people, maybe even two dozen people.
In public policy we of course make choices between option A and option B. We don't just snap ou
A better example (Score:3)
Perhaps a better example is in order.
The paper claimed a link between air pollution and a hundred heart attacks. Let's say we want to reduce heart attacks and strokes. That's a worthwhile goal. Suppose that reducing air pollution by 10% would cost a billion dollars. Based on the study, that might mean ten fewer heart attacks. So we decide to spend a billion dollars in effort to reduce heart attacks and strokes. That will save ten people if we the billion on air quality.
We can also reduce heart attacks a
Re: (Score:2)
Consider though, while people injured in traffic accidents (other than pedestrians) are willing participants in that risk and have shared the benefits of automotive transportation, the people suffering heart attacks, strokes, and asthma attacks are NOT willing participants in the "pollution lottery" and are not necessarily somehow benefiting from the additional pollution.
This suggests in most systems of ethics that those who suffer the consequences are entitled to compensation from the people who produced t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming the risk is small doesn't make the costs and compensation go away. It doesn't alleviate the ethical can of worms you open if you attempt to argue that more pollution is economically beneficial. You may not have seen the implications, but effectively you are arguing that we should socialize the costs while we privatize the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Ray,
(sigh) You're not thinking this through. The study suggests that bad pollution days *trigger* some number of heart attacks, strokes, etc.
You suggest we can build a cost-benefit analysis based on that, but you can't. For any numbers you come up with to be valid, you would have to assume that the events that got triggered by the pollution *would not ever happen, forever, without that trigger*. And that's just not reasonable. Those 10 heart attacks we could "
Re: (Score:2)
That's a valid point that I hinted at in my original post.
It's offset in many cases by the fact that the alternative ALSO triggers / increases the likelihood of / quickens the bad result. So for some comparisons that fact roughly balances out because it applies roughly equally to both alternatives.
In some instances it's a huge factor. Most of the predicted "deaths caused by Chernobyl" haven't happened yet. Chernobyl was 1986. They are talking about people dying 40 years after the event. So the Chernobyl
You mad, bro? (Score:2)
You seem to be rather upset to have discovered that "thousands of people" is more than "hundreds of people", so wise policy is to protect thousands of people, even when that's bad for hundreds of people.
Is this news to you, that thousands is more than hundreds? Did you miss that day in second grade when they talked about tens place, hundreds place, thousands place?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but wonder if there is any other correlation besides the level of pollution. Is pollution worse on hot or cold days so could outside temps be the real correlation? Is it worse on work days so that the stress of work days drives the numbers? There might be others, just two off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a meta-study (gathered data from previous studies for re-analysis), and unfortunately, TFA didn't bother to ask the obvious questions readers would want to know the answers to. If the scientists involved are worth their salt, however, heat index is probably well controlled for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
As an alternative to Shanghai Bill's suggestion, you are also free to just kindly fuck off if you object to news about scientific studies surrounding the most important challenge of modern times on a tech/science site.
Science and tech will never be dominated by the far/hard right talking heads you're so desperately doting for because science and tech people are too educated for that drivel, so it basically sounds like you just took a wrong turn on the internet given that's what you're always after.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like you don't like the articles which are posted or discussed here. Well... *points to door*.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, at least this time they provided a trigger alert in the summary.
Easy solution (Score:3)
Don't go to the UK!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's anything specific about British pollution, it's just as bad elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a joke.
Translation for USians: (Score:2)
Air pollution causes a reduction in profits for the health insurance industry.
Re:Translation for USians: (Score:5, Insightful)
Air pollution causes a reduction in profits for the health insurance industry.
In the UK, healthcare is not run for profit.
In America, health insurance companies have their profit margins restricted to 15%, so higher medical costs would result in higher rates, and thus more profit.
Re: (Score:1)
I probably should've written it as: If you live in the USA, this is how it affects you.
So, if you live in the USA and you're uninsured, you're totally getting out of having to pay for polluted air. Epic win. No wonder we're the greatest country on Earth. /s
Causation? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why there's hundreds of other studies that are also relevant which show the causal link between pollution and morbidity -- studies of the physiology, biochemistry, molecular biology etc etc. This study isn't about the causation: it demonstrates that, as expected, pollution spikes => morbidity spikes. In other words, it's not just about cumulative effects, it's about immediate triggers.
Good news everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Let's get this right: air pollution in the UK has dropped massively, and the paper says it's causing more deaths?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a minor quibble: hundreds more deaths is not necessarily "significantly more deaths". If we're looking at a population of tens of thousands, hundreds is significantly more. On the other hand, if we're talking tens of millions, hundreds is almost lost in the noise. Note that the numbers the study m
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get this right: air pollution in the UK has dropped massively, and the paper says it's causing more deaths?
You got it wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
This reduction in air pollution is in large part because of the increasing use of natural gas instead of coal, at least in the USA.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Wind and solar produce a very small fraction of the world's electricity. Less than 10%, even after years of exponential growth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If we want to keep this trend going then we need to invest in the energy successes in reducing air pollution. Onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, nuclear fission power plants, and (pe
Re: (Score:3)
He's literally linking to studies about London and Delhi, and here you are, going on about the US. There were three factors that drove reductions in air pollution in *London*: the suburbanisation of the population (reduced intensity of coal burning in a concentrated area), the introduction of regulations requiring cleaner coal-burning practices eg the Clean Air Act 1956 following the Great Smog in 1952, and finally the switch to gas for *household* cooking and heating.
The switch from coal to gas and now ren
Re: (Score:2)
He's literally linking to studies about London and Delhi, and here you are, going on about the US.
That's right, because the USA has had similar success in reducing air pollution, and for similar reasons. Like it or not there are many visitors to this site that live in the USA, are US citizens abroad, or otherwise have reasons to be interested in air pollution in the USA.
And while the world as a whole may be at 10% wind & solar, the UK is completely different. As of 11.30am today, the mix is: 0.6% coal, 50% gas, 5% biomass, 17% wind, 8% solar, 1% hydro, 18% nuclear. That's 25% wind and solar, 31% renewables, 49% close-to-zero carbon, and 99% low-to-zero carbon
If you are fine with replacing coal with natural gas then consider this a near complete success. If there is a desire to keep lowering the CO2 and air pollution from fossil fuels then that article I linked to should make it clear that
Re: (Score:3)
1. You said, "This reduction in air pollution is in large part because of the increasing use of natural gas instead of coal, at least in the USA." The reduction you were referring to was the reduction the OP referenced. That reduction took place in the UK. It therefore makes no sense to talk about reductions in the US, not least because you are flat-out wrong to say that the cut in air pollution in the UK over the past 100 years has been driven by switching electricity production from coal to gas. It hasn't
Re: (Score:3)
1. The dataset you're referring to is for London only. In 1700, when the dataset started, about 600k people lived in London -- 7% of the population. At peak pollution, 1891, there were 5.6m people living in London -- 19% of the population. Today, there are about 8.9m people living in London or 13% of the population. So the absolute numbers of Londoners exposed to pollution has substantially increased over time, even though coal pollution has decreased. If you look at the UK as a whole, the percentage of peo
Re: (Score:3)
Article from today:
"U.S. Air Quality Was Improving. Now It's Getting Worse"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
car drivers pollute everybody's air (Score:2)
This article is about cars, although interesting nobody has mentioned those. People love their cars.
Tinkering is the new science game (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh boy, more research concluding the same findings of 10,000 other studies. Who pays for this never-ending research on topics already researched to death?
I disagree with that description of this work, but even if it were true, it'd still be good. Always question, always collect data, on a 'never-ending' quest to expand humans awareness of our universe.
Funny how this argument is the flip-side of the opposing, equally trollish argument of "we don't really know with enough certainty, we need to keep studying for decades before changing our behavior." If a study concludes an 80% chance of death if you try to cross a street, and a 1% cross walk down the road
Re: (Score:2)
Public transport in London (Score:2)
It's interesting that pollution is other people's problem. This article is about cars. What is interesting is London(tfl)has made drastic cuts in public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to London, the Extinction Rebellion activists have been blocking the rail transit systems there. I guess they must want everyone to go back to driving cars.
Re: (Score:2)
in what conceivable way can TfL be described as having made "drastic cuts in public transport"? Has a tube line stopped running? Have bus services been stopped? Is the network carrying fewer people?