Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases, Study Finds (nytimes.com) 32
Several large-scale, human-driven changes to the planet -- including climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the spread of invasive species -- are making infectious diseases more dangerous to people, animals and plants, according to a new study. From a report: Scientists have documented these effects before in more targeted studies that have focused on specific diseases and ecosystems. For instance, they have found that a warming climate may be helping malaria expand in Africa and that a decline in wildlife diversity may be boosting Lyme disease cases in North America. But the new research, a meta-analysis of nearly 1,000 previous studies, suggests that these patterns are relatively consistent around the globe and across the tree of life.
"It's a big step forward in the science," said Colin Carlson, a biologist at Georgetown University, who was not an author of the new analysis. "This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss." In what is likely to come as a more surprising finding, the researchers also found that urbanization decreased the risk of infectious disease. The new analysis, which was published in Nature on Wednesday, focused on five "global change drivers" that are altering ecosystems across the planet: biodiversity change, climate change, chemical pollution, the introduction of nonnative species and habitat loss or change.
"It's a big step forward in the science," said Colin Carlson, a biologist at Georgetown University, who was not an author of the new analysis. "This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss." In what is likely to come as a more surprising finding, the researchers also found that urbanization decreased the risk of infectious disease. The new analysis, which was published in Nature on Wednesday, focused on five "global change drivers" that are altering ecosystems across the planet: biodiversity change, climate change, chemical pollution, the introduction of nonnative species and habitat loss or change.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, are very common. Since roughly the 1980s systematic reviews have been considered the highest possible tier of scientific evidence [wikimedia.org].
This is because of certain facts about science that outsiders often find shocking: (1) complex questions nearly always have contradictory evidence and papers taking opposing views of issues, particularly early on; (2) every paper, no matter how good, has methodological shortcomings if not outright errors; and (3) many novel findings
Virologists create diseases in their labs (Score:1)
Then proudly publish their results.
Occasionally, the new viruses leak out and cause a pandemic like Covid-19.
People that blame the environment are simply trying to deflect attention from the cause of the worst pandemic in a century. Covid-19.
For a summary of the evidence for the lab leak see
www.originofcovid.org
Re: (Score:1)
reviewer can't cherry pick papers based on what they find. There are rules that ensure papers can only be excluded for objective reasons that apply to all the papers on the topic.
Meta analysis's too can be biased. Take it for what it is, another group running a study. Though this study happens to be about other studies (hence meta).
My favorite kind of scientific inquiry (Score:3)
- Broad reach in source material
- Cautious language in the inferences
- Provides "evidence" rather than "proof"
- Avoids apocalyptic languages and conclusions
- Suggests mitigation efforts are needed
At first glance, I believe them. I can get behind all of this.
I'm a believer in AGW. I think we're in for deep trouble, pretty much all of it our own doing. But telling people that the world is disintegrating doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't propel change. Even if it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My favorite kind of scientific inquiry (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect.
Malaria was eliminated in the US and Europe through judicious application of DDT in the 1940s and 1950s. The entire world has been plagued by malaria since the beginning of recorded time.
The other primary way to mitigate malaria is through control/elimination of standing ground water.
Africa has seen variations in malaria largely coinciding with rainfall variations - primarily driven by variations in decade-long climatic cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic, like El Nino/La Nina.
Everyone's so quick to claim, "oh, it's AGW!" when there are other much more probable, provable causes. Just because an environment changes doesn't mean it's AGW.
I will agree, observationally, that urbanized development (an absence of variation in ecosystems) has contributed heavily to tick-borne illness (and indeed, the general wellness of ecosystems decaying). Ticks are consumed by fowl and possum in extremely large numbers. Unfortunately, habitat for those animals has been destroyed for suburbia: places where, 50 years ago, there were rural family farms, or just family dwellings with gardens and fields, separated by treelines, was ideal habitat for opossums, chipmunks, mice, and game birds (turkeys, grouse, pheasant, quail, woodcock). These species all eat ticks as a primary part of their diet. You can see this throughout the US, and is evident even in the span of 20-30 years in some places: squirrels and chipmunks aren't as common as they used to to be, and places that had ample gamebirds now have few to none.
Believe it or not, humans have been here for a long time - burning, building, and growing things on land. North America had a large population of people doing just that for millennia before Columbus came and killed them all with disease, leaving behind remnant orchards, fields, and forests which had been carefully manicured to produce a bounty and variety of food with as little effort as possible.
If you live in a city, you're a big part of this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's so quick to claim, "oh, it's AGW!"
This isn't a claim made in a vacuum. But certainly initial claims were based on very simple models that needed validation.
Nevertheless you get a correlation of over 90% between simulated and observed malaria cases depending on your temperature and rainfall dataset using a more modern model. See table 1 in this paper [nih.gov]. I note that rainfall is included in that model, not just temperature, which supports what you say about malaria being influenced by rainfall variations. But I also note that rainfall variati
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks - that's the data I was looking for, but was on my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Malaria is an Old World parasite and didn't exist in the New World before the Columbian Exchange. So you will find no Mayan records of malaria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: My favorite kind of scientific inquiry (Score:3)
I will agree, observationally, that urbanized development (an absence of variation in ecosystems) has contributed heavily to tick-borne illness (and indeed, the general wellness of ecosystems decaying). Ticks are consumed by fowl and possum in extremely large numbers.
Go tell rural Mainers the tick infestations they're dealing with are due to ... urbanization.
Just fucking ridiculous. Bugs are creeping north, bird ranges are creeping north, and everyone can see it. It's pretty fucking obvious this isn't "urbanization". FFS man, the wild turkey population is exploding. You're trying too hard to deny climate change, it's leading you to make up random shit and hope it sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly didn't understand what I said, and that's OK.
It's about ecological balance. An excess of turkeys with negligible predators is an imbalance. Ticks will feed on turkeys in their nymph stage. That's part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
But telling people that the world is disintegrating doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't propel change. Even if it's true.
I find it difficult to believe that people aren't helped by knowing things that are true. It gives them the gift of being able to make decisions without misunderstanding the consequences.
But even it that is the case, fuck them and tell me the truth. I want to know.
Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
humans are the most significant infestation.
Are you saying (Score:2)
humans are the most significant infestation.
So... Thanos was right?
Re: (Score:2)
So... Thanos was right?
Or agent Smith?
Re: (Score:3)
i, for one, welcome our new viral overlords ...
What are our options? (Score:1)
Yet more about how we need to reduce CO2 emissions and the global warming that comes from burning fossil fuels. We have three options. Burn fossil fuels and see more global warming. Use only renewable energy and see energy prices rise from shortages. Use nuclear fission to provide much of our energy to avoid both. Is nuclear fission the perfect option? No, because bad things come from nuclear fission too. What nuclear fission offers is not perfect, just the least bad.
Is there a fourth option? No. I
Re: (Score:2)
Use only renewable energy and see energy prices rise from shortages.
The more and more energy you produce from renewables, the fewer shortages you see. Because more energy is more energy.
But certainly we can't turn off all fossil fuel consuming devices tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
The more and more energy you produce from renewables, the fewer shortages you see. Because more energy is more energy.
That works until there is a cold dunkelflaute that leaves all your wind and solar power struggling to keep up with demand. I've seen people talk of overbuilding and/or storage to mitigate against this but it takes energy to produce the windmills, solar panels, batteries, or whatever. With all energy sources there's an energy return on energy invested, and the EROEI of nuclear fission is tough to beat. Here's some numbers on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I know that there will be people that beli
Re: (Score:2)
That works until there is a cold dunkelflaute that leaves all your wind and solar power struggling to keep up with demand.
Pumped hydro and thermal storage the the proven technologies to bridge over a dunkelflaute. Batteries are economic for small amounts of storage too because of their millisecond response time.
EROEI of nuclear fission is tough to beat.
EROEI doesn't matter unless you're going to manufacture those PV cells during that dunkelflaute. Its better economics to avoid buying power when its prohibitively expensive.
No way!! (Score:1)
You mean the environment (which is always changing), can effect animals (which are always changing) and plants (which are always changing) and even Hoomans (which are always changing). Who could have guessed...
The only constant is change.
and not pollution (Score:2)
Study (Score:1)