Toxic Air Pollution Particles Found in Lungs, Livers and Brains of Unborn Babies (theguardian.com) 70
Toxic air pollution particles have been found in the lungs, livers and brains of unborn babies, long before they have taken their first breath. Researchers said their "groundbreaking" discovery was "very worrying," as the gestation period of foetuses is the most vulnerable stage of human development. From a report: Thousands of black carbon particles were found in each cubic millimetre of tissue, which were breathed in by the mother during pregnancy and then passed through the bloodstream and placenta to the foetus. Dirty air was already known to strongly correlate with increased miscarriages, premature births, low birth weights and disturbed brain development. But the new study provides direct evidence of how that harm may be caused. The scientists said the pollution could cause lifelong health effects.
The particles are made of soot from the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, homes and factories and cause inflammation in the body, as well as carrying toxic chemicals. The study was conducted with non-smoking mothers in Scotland and Belgium, in places with relatively low air pollution. "We have shown for the first time that black carbon nanoparticles not only get into the first and second trimester placenta, but then also find their way into the organs of the developing foetus," said Prof Paul Fowler, at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. "What is even more worrying is that these particles also get into the developing human brain," he said. "This means that it is possible for these nanoparticles to directly interact with control systems within human foetal organs and cells."
The particles are made of soot from the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, homes and factories and cause inflammation in the body, as well as carrying toxic chemicals. The study was conducted with non-smoking mothers in Scotland and Belgium, in places with relatively low air pollution. "We have shown for the first time that black carbon nanoparticles not only get into the first and second trimester placenta, but then also find their way into the organs of the developing foetus," said Prof Paul Fowler, at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. "What is even more worrying is that these particles also get into the developing human brain," he said. "This means that it is possible for these nanoparticles to directly interact with control systems within human foetal organs and cells."
Ok, but .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's also fair to say that particles of pollution like this were surely getting into the lungs, livers and brains of unborn babies as far back, as say, the Industrial Revolution, where pollution in cities or even small towns was often bad enough so thick black soot lingered in the air all day long.
It's scientifically notable to prove unborn children are exposed to it. But putting it in perspective? It would seem the human body is able to handle a certain amount of this without problems, or else we should have seen FAR more birth defects, stillborn children and issues with pregnancies in the past than we do in modern times where pollution control devices are mandated as standard for all automobiles, and scrubbers are put on smokestacks of coal powered power plants, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably had this for most of the 1-2 million history of human evolution, since we started to control fire.
Re: Ok, but .... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even stood next to a camp fire? Back when houses where heated by wood or coal black carbon coated every building.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as particulate matter goes, the visible stuff is actually not as bad for you as the smaller particles that penetrate deeper into the body. The problem is you can't see the smaller particles.
There seems to be a general trend that goes beyond particulate matter. We take care of the visible stuff because it's visible. Invisible pollution, even if it's worse for your health, is easier to ignore.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, I have, and I'm as absolutely certain that they weren't burning plastics on those campfires in 3500 B.C. as I am that your sockpuppets modded me down for being right.
Re: (Score:2)
its also true the nature of risk has changed a lot. Ancient man was almost certain to die relatively young from some combination of malnutrition, germ/virus sourced disease, or injury.
Now that most of us are living longer in most places, if it turns out certain types of pollutants increase our risk of things like cancers, or dementia later in life it certainly becomes worth looking at how we can address them, even if it was never a priority before.
Zero emissions (Score:2)
The problem with "zero emissions" is it's not practical in a society with energy needs.
It's a good goal to try to get as close to achieving as one reasonably can. I'm not saying, "Who cares? Pollute away!" But every "zero emissions" vehicle you see on the road with the pretty little placard glued to it to indicate that fact is just shifting emissions from the tailpipe to further upstream. For that matter, as long as we use brake pads to stop vehicles using friction, and we have rubber tires that wear dow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People are working on solutions for
Re: (Score:1)
"Handling it" doesn't mean it's necessarily safe for the long-term state of DNA in both individuals and the gene pool as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
you're not accounting for the vast number of pregnancies that miscarry, most before the woman knows she's pregnant
Dissection of fetuses (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> or else we should have seen FAR more birth defects, stillborn children and issues with pregnancies in the past than we do in modern times
Umm...We did?
Re: Ok, but .... (Score:2)
Try most of human history. Black carbon is a significant portion of wood smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... overly capitalist Retardicans for this one.
Don't worry - the Dummycrats have their own bits of stupidity. But environmental pollution and not caring about its effect on the populous tends to not fall in their camp quite as much.
This is obviously in the UK, so your form of idiocy needs to be localized to their form of government.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Clearly Republicans and Christians (the two can overlap) don't care because they're the ones who keep pushing to remove pollution restrictions on factories.
"Having scrubbers for coal plants is too expensive. They need to make money."
"Just let them dump their stuff in the river. It'll wash away."
An Ironic Theory (Score:5, Funny)
There's an interesting ironic theory that the evangelicals' pro-pollution stance is causing more LGBTQ+. Altering hormone levels is one of the biggest risk factor of many of these chemicals. (It's just speculation, I'm not claiming any clear evidence.)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's Alexa Jones now.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can tell you didn't get that directly from Alex Jones because you didn't talk about the frogs turning gay. But I see his gay-pollution meme still lives.
I'm glad someone else is carrying the torch now, lest hormonal imbalances inflict us with "more LGBTQ+". Whatever that is, and however hormones might cause it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I now know 3 people diagnosed as being on the spectrum as adults.
I also know one dude who was diagnosed with Aspergers, back when that was still a thing, but as a child.
The 3 people above have one obvious thing in common: They're hypochondriacs, attention whores, and perpetual victims.
1 of them is a girl I dated in high school. She was about 15x more popular t
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure if you are blaming parents for poor parenting, doctors for creating "too many fake mental diseases", and/or children for being, well, human.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids are blameless, on the spectrum or not.
Re: (Score:1)
> kids are blameless
I thought you said many are hypochondriacs?
If the problem is "everybody", then your solution(s) is probably ignoring human nature: humans are screwy. Solutions that require near-perfect humans will fail.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you said many are hypochondriacs?
Adults, my man. Adults.
Remember, I said:
I now know 3 people diagnosed as being on the spectrum as adults.
If the problem is "everybody", then your solution(s) is probably ignoring human nature: humans are screwy. Solutions that require near-perfect humans will fail.
If the problem is "everybody", then perhaps a normal thing is being made into a problem
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Gay rats! Now there's something for Republicans to scream over.
Anime (Score:2)
"This means that it is possible for these nanoparticles to directly interact with control systems within human foetal organs and cells."
Doesn't this sound like the plot of some anime? I mean, the potential downsides aren't lost on me.. just the wording gives it that kind of tone to me.
My thinking on this: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping to rest in a cave in bear country, mostly safe-ish.
Living in one? Whole different story.
So? (Score:2)
yeah about that. [livescience.com]
Many isotopes and radioactive elements occur naturally in the environment, where they get into plants and water. So, every time a person eats food or drinks water, they may be imbibing tiny amounts of radioactive isotopes. The biggest sources of radiation in our bodies are trace amounts of carbon 14 and potassium 40, said Mike Short, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Though these isotopes make up most of our body's radiation, we take in only about 0.39 milligrams of potassium 40 and 1.8 nanograms of carbon 14 a day. The amount of radioactivity caused by isotopes inside the human body is comparable to 1% of the radiation dose people would get on a flight from Boston to Tokyo, Short said.
If you're old enough you have TetraEthyl Lead in your body too. Joy.
Choose your poison folks.
Re: (Score:2)
What does naturally occurring radiation that we have absolutely no control over have to do with man made pollution?
Re: (Score:2)
Choose your poison folks.
OK... I choose tighter industry regulation on chemical emissions.
New lead same as the old lead (Score:2)
This is the new lead. It is safe to assume that these particles are substantially more prevalent in low-income neighbourhoods.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just think if today the government announced that lead was found to be a neurotoxin. Half the voters would be calling out fake news and eating lead out of spite.
It's not a baby until it's born (Score:1)
If it's unborn, the correct word is "FETUS"
Re: (Score:3)
You can bet your bum this is one story the so-called "Right to Life" crowd won't give a flying fsck about.
Necessary (Score:2)
Politicians have to come from *somewhere*.
I guess?
Scotland needs a powerwash (Score:2)
I'm not surprised, if you've ever been to Edinburgh - even if the air quality now is pretty good, the entire city is basically covered in soot. You can't tell me that none of that makes its way into the air or peoples lungs. Someone needs to powerwash the whole place.
"Toxic" ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Evolutionary advantage? (Score:2)
We're working on it... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)