Air Pollution Likely Cause of Up To 6 Million Premature Births, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 48
Air pollution is likely to have been responsible for up to 6 million premature births and 3 million underweight babies worldwide every year, research shows. From a report: The analysis, which combines the results of multiple scientific studies, is the first to calculate the total global burden of outdoor and indoor air pollution combined. Indoor pollution, mostly from cooking stoves burning solid fuel such as coal or wood, made up almost two-thirds of the total pollution burden on pregnancies in 2019, according to the latest findings. This is especially true in developing areas, such as in some parts of south-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. "At an individual level, indoor air pollution exposure appears to carry a much higher burden compared to outdoor levels," said Rakesh Ghosh, an epidemiologist at University of California, San Francisco and lead researcher on the paper, published in the journal Plos Medicine.
"So, minimising household pollution exposure, to the extent possible, should be part of the message during prenatal care, especially where household pollution is prevalent." Air pollution is usually measured according to exposure to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns: once inhaled, the minuscule size of these particles allows them to be absorbed deep into the bloodstream, potentially causing far-reaching health problems.
"So, minimising household pollution exposure, to the extent possible, should be part of the message during prenatal care, especially where household pollution is prevalent." Air pollution is usually measured according to exposure to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns: once inhaled, the minuscule size of these particles allows them to be absorbed deep into the bloodstream, potentially causing far-reaching health problems.
Not to mention the premature deaths (Score:3)
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know most progressives are OK with kiddie diddlin' so this won't be an issue but for normal people this is an issue.
Hey Anonymous Coward, it's actually the "conservatives" who love the diddlin'.
Matt Gaetz is a poster boy for conservatives despite his dalliances with teen girls.
Roy Moore is a child molester who was embraced by Alabama Republicans.
Trump said he loved going backstage at Miss Teen USA to check out the undressed girls and conservatives cheered.
Trump was also a huge fanboy of Eps
Re:Not to mention the premature deaths (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go: Air pollution killed nearly half a million children last year [qsstudy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This article by an unknown author mentions a study and provides no link. No link anywhere to support any of the many claims. There is no hint of how the 'half a million' number was arrived at. It is poorly written, much like you expect from a freelance writer who gets paid by the word. The site itself seems to be directed toward high school children.
There are lots of people and organizations who like to use numbers to support their cause. It's time that readers look critically at those numbers, where they c
Gas stoves are an issue (Score:2)
And I love my gas stove for cooking more than the elctric coil or glass style I have used (outside an induction stove, those are pretty nice) but there is an issue with open flames of natural gas in ones home, especially in older homes that may not have the best of a dedicated overhead exhaust.
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re:Gas stoves are an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Gas stoves, furnances and boilers
2. Fireplaces
3. Smoking
4. Perfume/Cologne
5. Bathroom Cleaners
6. Mold
7. Dust
8. Pets.
If you wanted to keep all the indoor pollution down:
1. Do not live in the city. Live 30 miles into the forest.
2. To minimize mold and dust. Only wash and dry your clothing inside with separate washer and electric dryers.
3. Bathrooms must be extremely humidity controlled
4. No gas furnace, boiler or appliances. Only Electric. Heating should be heat-pumps when possible.
5. Strictly no smoking (that includes weed, and vaping)
6. When pregnant, no cleaning ANYTHING. Hire someone to do the cleaning and run the fans in those rooms until there's no smell.
Like some of this is a bit overkill, but if you look at family histories prior to 1970, you'll typically find that whenever a family smoked, there would be a history of women miscarriage/premature birth all over the family. Compare that with a family that refrained from smoking and drinking, where there would be zero miscarriages until someone dated someone who smoked.
But I can't prove this, it's very circumstantial evidence from analyzing family trees.
The best thing you can do to ensure your babies survive until they are at least 5, is to not smoke, anywhere, at any time. After that point they can get booster shots and will survive travel outside your house when they come in contact with other children. Until that point you are risking their life by weakening their immune systems by smoking or overusing cleaning agents, or having pets.
Re: Gas stoves are an issue (Score:1)
If you shield yourself from too much dust, pollen, molds, charcoal etc you end up with worse problems such as asthma and allergies.
We evolved to live with air pollution in the home much worse than what we see today.
There are a lot of variables that are captured in areas with âoeair pollutionâ. They also tend to be areas with more poor (and thus poor health and eating habits) and obese people. Itâ(TM)s very hard to do a multivariabele analysis controlling for these aspects, so a lot of studies
Re: (Score:2)
Gas stoves - news for nerds???
We used to discuss nerd issues & proper stuff, now the *editors" (who must be highly paid [not sure why?] seem to) just pick random bollocks from t'interwebs and re-post for clicks.
I'll get modded as troll (without a doubt, think I'm being targeted as it happens within minutes of a post, but what the hell) despite having mod points had to comment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you shield yourself from too much dust, pollen, molds, charcoal etc you end up with worse problems such as asthma and allergies.
The jury is out but exsposure to germs particularly as kids seems to be important. Also parasites.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
We evolved to live with air pollution in the home much worse than what we see today.
We evolved as hunter gatherers, we've not had a to of time to evolve since starting living in one place.
Re: (Score:1)
Hunter gatherers lived in caves with fires made from a variety of wood. Coal is clean in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Hunter gatherers lived in caves
Cartoons are an accelerate depiction of palaeontology, I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Living 30 miles into the forest is not going to help with mold and dust, it might even hurt.
I do mostly agree with your other points.
Re: (Score:2)
So, bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Life with you would be most fun. Do you also whip yourself for an hour every Sunday morning? :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your fault here. I really dislike these kinds of stories because they really change the focus of climate change into something that doesn't even matter.
Like there are zero ways that home gas stoves account for any measurable amount of emissions. Like if every home got rid of gas stoves, very little changes in the bigger picture. I mean, yes, at some point we ought to decommission gas cooking when a reasonable alternative like electric is available in your country, so if you don't live in such a
Re: (Score:2)
> so if you don't live in such a place that electric is reasonable then this really doesn't apply to you
I thought we went through this in the Crypto thread. Converting electricity to heat is wasteful. All cooking should be done on Bitcoin ASICS so they can perform useful work before ultimately generating the same heat. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is a compound problem of finding the cheapest way to do everything. But all that "cheap" has a cost.
It's only because we can produce things at such low cost that we have the luxury to be concerned about global warming. We didn't concern ourselves with child labor laws until we had the automation and industrial capacity to no longer need children to work to help feed the family. Only then did we have the luxury to concern ourselves with sending children to schools instead of to factories. If we lose the cheap path then we lose the luxury to worry about global warming.
And yes, for the Slashdot crowd, we do indeed need nuclear, however that's a serious uphill climb. Like biggly uphill.
No, it's not an uphill climb. Who i
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not an uphill climb. Who is opposing nuclear power any more? Where's the protests? Where's the lawsuits?
No one cares about nuclear power enough to support it. No one wants what happened to Fukushima to happen to their town.
If the people opposing nuclear power speak up then they need to explain why anyone would consider it if it is so bad.
For exactly the same reason Air Pollution is a problem, birth defects and premature deaths of babies. Any damage to the germline of human DNA is passed down from generation to generation. Human DNA is susceptible to very low doses of radiation. Internal exposure to beta radiation has plenty of energy to create birth defects and transgenic disease.
The nuclear industry has consistently
Problem solved! (Re:Gas stoves are an issue) (Score:2)
It's obsolete and too complicated to be worth considering anymore. Nuclear require specialized techniques to handle the fuel and specialized personnel to operate the plants. Who would want to do all of that education to work at a boring power plant?
Why would people want to do dangerous and boring work? Because they get paid to do it.
Who is going to do this training? As it is now the US Navy trains plenty of people to operating nuclear power plants., that is likely where most of the people working in civilian nuclear power will come from.
It's obsolete and too complicated to be worth considering anymore.
Really? Nuclear power is obsolete? Then why is it that the US Navy keeps building nuclear powered vessels? A given design may be obsolete but there are many more ways to build a nuclear power reactor.
It's much easier to consider the arguments *for* contemporary power systems like wind, solar and geothermal energy which are much easier and less risky for us to use and only require standardized industrial techniques like crane operators, electricians, mechanics and riggers. That means more jobs for everyday people, so it's good for the economy too.
Okay hen, we
Re: (Score:2)
As it is now the US Navy trains plenty of people to operating nuclear power plants.,that is likely where most of the people working in civilian nuclear power will come from.
So your saying that nuclear power is a form of welfare. Good point.
Really? Nuclear power is obsolete? Then why is it that the US Navy keeps building nuclear powered vessels?
Because civilian nuclear power is obsolete.
We will just build more windmills, solar panels
Yes and build more solar thermal, geothermal so we won't have to worry about nuclear power.
There will be a breaking point where rising energy costs will force politicians to make the decision that they don't want to do, and that is actually solve the problem.
I agree and at that point you're saying they will de-fund nuclear power completely and put it all into contemporary energy solutions that don't rely on mining. I mean look at how they played you for your vote then turned around and decided to fund solar instead, that must make you feel so mad and foolish. h
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying we solved all of our energy problems. If we will do fine without nuclear power then we already have all the energy we need, and all we can expect to need, from wind and solar. The shortages of fuel in the UK and China are myths. You are saying the problem is solved. If the problem is solved then why all the articles on air pollution, energy shortages, and global warming? You just pointed out we solved the problem, so why no recognition of that?
Re: (Score:2)
we will do fine without nuclear power
Yes, the human race will adapt and probably won't even notice. Doesn't even care.
The shortages of fuel
Only apply to oil, coal and nuclear.
You are saying the problem is solved.
So you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not an uphill climb. Who is opposing nuclear power any more? Where's the protests? Where's the lawsuits?
It is a topic of political inertia in a highly polarized political field for some of Federal dollars. The Government doesn't score political points for putting the horse in front of the buggy in this case except for a niche group of people who keep rooting for it. It doesn't need to make sense, it's dead in the water if doing something like this doesn't get them some assurances for their reelection bid. Federal money is kaput on the matter for the time being.
Public apathy and real things like Fukushima o
Re: (Score:2)
Federal money is kaput on the matter for the time being.
The nuclear power industry isn't asking the government for money, they are asking for permission to build.
You're working with a public that's largely driven by emotion that says they want to be driven by logic but honestly want to be driven by emotion.
I am quite certain that rising energy costs, fuel shortages, and a strong desire not to freeze to death will get people to reconsider nuclear power.
Cheap words are fun to play with and fun to play with people's votes with.
Democrat politicians have not just been saying things against nuclear power for the last 50 years, they followed up by holding nuclear power back with legislation. Or perhaps more accurately they held nuclear power back through not writing regulations, ther
Re: (Score:2)
We can start building them now, or we can keep waiting as energy costs rise and nuclear power looks cheap at twice the price
Then you will wait. Because this country will absolutely not be proactive about the issue. Now where everything is too late, then yeah, at that point you might start seeing something going up.
If Democrats don't follow up the words with actions then at some point those words will not get them votes. There is a simple reason why those words will go only so far, there is another political party that can say nice things about nuclear power too and then follow up with actions.
And that other party will do nothing either outside of tell you what you want to hear. There isn't some massive nuclear voting bloc in this country, nor is there some massive nuclear PAC.
The cost of a new nuclear power plant is effectively infinite if the government prohibits the building of a new nuclear power plant
You almost get it. Okay let's say some politician wants to do nuclear. So they mention it and the policy that needs to change.
Re: (Score:2)
And that other party will do nothing either outside of tell you what you want to hear.
That party said there would would be a vaccine within a year and delivered.
There isn't some massive nuclear voting bloc in this country, nor is there some massive nuclear PAC.
There is a nuclear power lobby now. Why do you think Democrats supported nuclear power now after opposing it for 50 years? It's because voters want it, and they will vote for a party that will deliver it. You may be correct that the Democrats are all talk but how long is talk going to last if the opposition has a history of acting?
Well then the other team says, sure we're on board with it if you ban abortion or make mail in voting law in the US or some other BS.
Then that party will lose elections.
Both parties want nuclear power now. The one that delivers with
Re: (Score:2)
There is a nuclear power lobby now. Why do you think Democrats supported nuclear power now after opposing it for 50 years?
So you're saying you voted for Biden.
If your reply starts with "So you are saying.." then you are seeking to insult than clarify.
So you're saying I'm crying with laughter, because I am.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying you voted for Biden.
So you are saying that everyone that voted for Biden wants nuclear power? That's lot of people, a majority of the people. Biden won in states like California, New York, and Illinois, so those states are going to to build nuclear power plants? They must, they voted for Biden and people that voted for Biden want nuclear power. We already see politicians in Illinois trying to keep nuclear power plants open there. With Biden in office it's likely they stay open for at least another decade.
If people that wa
Re: (Score:2)
Laugh while you can monkey boy.
I've been laughing at your lost blathering for years, please continue to provide me with amusement.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is expensive today because the people with experience in building a nuclear power plant are now retired, senile, or dead. Nuclear power costs will come down with experience, and the only way to build experience with nuclear power is to build nuclear power plants. There is no shortcut on this.
So you're saying that nuclear power is obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that nuclear power is obsolete.
Yes. Now run along, the adults are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Now run along, the adults are talking.
So you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually legit. (Score:3)
They did a study in the 80s in Oregon to see the "benefits" of shuttingdown down the nuclear plant and what they found was that after coal replaced it that premature births suddenly spiked. More recent studies have been done with predictable results: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
But the impact, adds Severnini, goes further, with lower birth weights linked to lower incomes, shorter height and even a lower IQ: a drop of 5.4% in birth weight, he notes, suggests a 0.7% decrease in full-time earnings.
I'm not sure about the money angle but I do know that not being as smart in a world increasingly dependent on intellect is undesirable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the money angle but I do know that not being as smart in a world increasingly dependent on intellect is undesirable.
That depends upon perspective. A dulled human population is ripe for take over by the robot overlords, and I am totally in favor of that.
Re: (Score:2)
They did a study in the 80s in Oregon to see the "benefits" of shuttingdown down the nuclear plant and what they found was that after coal replaced it that premature births suddenly spiked. More recent studies have been done with predictable results: https://www.theguardian.com/en [theguardian.com]...
It's astonishing how many people have died because nuclear power is "too dangerous".
This is a Correlation (Score:1)
Furthermore, I don't see any evidence these researchers tried to find a "natural experiment". [wikipedia.org] This is where two similar populations have one variable changed as a result of third party influence. It seems they didn't even collect data. From TFA:
Re: (Score:3)
C'mon man, it's right there in the summary:
The analysis, which combines the results of multiple scientific studies, is the first to calculate the total global burden of outdoor and indoor air pollution combined. Indoor pollution, mostly from cooking stoves burning solid fuel such as coal or wood, made up almost two-thirds of the total pollution burden on pregnancies in 2019, according to the latest findings. This is especially true in developing areas, such as in some parts of south-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. "At an individual level, indoor air pollution exposure appears to carry a much higher burden compared to outdoor levels," . . .
Ah, climate is the new Covid? (Score:2)
It seems the media is ready to change the subject because people are getting bored of Covid.
Re: (Score:2)
Air pollution is quite an horrifying killer, which makes the global warming thing look like a joke in comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
bored "with" Covid, please.