Childhood Air Pollution Directly Linked To Adult Lung Health, Study Says (theguardian.com) 28
Air pollution breathed in during childhood is one of the factors in adult lung health, according to a new study. From a report: The origins of the study date back to 1992 when researchers began investigating the effects of air pollution on groups of children in California. Some of these children are now in their 40s. Dr Erika Garcia and colleagues from the University of Southern California decided to see how they were getting on. More than 1,300 people replied and filled in detailed questionnaires on their income, lifestyle (including smoking), homes and health. This was matched against their childhood health and the local air pollution when they were growing up.
The first finding was that people with higher childhood exposures to particle pollution and nitrogen dioxide had a higher likelihood of bronchitic symptoms as an adult. This relationship was strongest for those who had developed asthma and lung problems as children, meaning these people had a vulnerability that continued into adulthood. The second finding was unexpected: a relationship existed between childhood air pollution and adult bronchitic symptoms for people who did not have lung problems as children. This suggests the damage from air pollution in childhood may only manifest in adult life. Garcia said: "This was surprising. We thought air pollutant effects on childhood asthma or bronchitic symptoms would be a major pathway by which childhood air pollution exposure affects adult respiratory health."
The first finding was that people with higher childhood exposures to particle pollution and nitrogen dioxide had a higher likelihood of bronchitic symptoms as an adult. This relationship was strongest for those who had developed asthma and lung problems as children, meaning these people had a vulnerability that continued into adulthood. The second finding was unexpected: a relationship existed between childhood air pollution and adult bronchitic symptoms for people who did not have lung problems as children. This suggests the damage from air pollution in childhood may only manifest in adult life. Garcia said: "This was surprising. We thought air pollutant effects on childhood asthma or bronchitic symptoms would be a major pathway by which childhood air pollution exposure affects adult respiratory health."
too many confounding variables (Score:2, Interesting)
Childhood exposure to pollution is, of course, strongly correlates with where you live, and that is strongly correlated with social class and income, which continue into adulthood.
I am dubious as to whether it's possible to disentangle these factors.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if you're sucking in pollutants from cars, buses, and trucks in a city or pollutants from coal plants. Your lungs and health will suffer.
Go back to the era of the London smog [wikipedia.org] and see how healthy [nationalgeographic.com] those people are/were.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's not.
40 years of unsupervised activity - subjects could have done anything to skew the results in that time. and then youve got the basic problem of unreliable testimony from test subjects yada yada... i know science is hard but these studies arent exactly precise, labratory controlled experiments - they largely rely on subjects telling you the truth/recalling events accurately which is a problem in itself.
pollution is bad, any monkey can see that, but modern science is slow and frankly pathetic. that study prob
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's not. It's undeniable if you live in an area with large amounts of air pollution you will have poorer lung health and poorer health overall. Every study has shown this.
That's not what this study said, though. This study says that if you were exposed to air pollution as a child, you have poor lung health as an adult, even if you did not have lung problems while you were actually exposed to the pollution.
It's very plausible. But in the presence of confounding variables which also have "undeniable" effects [news-medical.net], it is very hard to draw conclusions.
It doesn't matter if you're sucking in pollutants from cars, buses, and trucks in a city or pollutants from coal plants. Your lungs and health will suffer.
It's a reasonable hypothesis. Nevertheless, the fact that you start out believing the hypothesis being tested is not a good reason to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to research like this, it's becoming possible for people to sue for the damage done to them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious that despite the obvious and well known fact that things you breath in which are bad for you none the less draws out the "OMG CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSTATION SO DISREGARD THIS STUDY!!" crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Leaded gas is perfectly safe
Re: (Score:2)
My anecdotal evidence jives with their clinical... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
;strongly correlates with where you live, and that is strongly correlated with social class and income, which continue into adulthood
...
What other mystery cause do you propose that causes lung problems if it's not something you're breathing in?
These:
https://www.himss.org/resource... [himss.org]
https://publichealth.tulane.ed... [tulane.edu]
https://www.commongroundhealth... [commongroundhealth.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I think that there are too many confounding variables to pay much attention to this correlation. Childhood exposure to pollution is, of course, strongly correlates with where you live, and that is strongly correlated with social class and income, which continue into adulthood. I am dubious as to whether it's possible to disentangle these factors.
Of course the paper talks about this starting at page 11.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not possible to disentangle these factors within the limits of this study. While it would be nice, this is pretty typical of public health research. "Ecological" research -- that is to say research about humans in their "natural" environment -- is always confounded.
The idea that a single study has to be authoritative just doesn't work in real-world questions involving human health, because every kind of a data has its limitations. Intervention studies in principle could work, but it's not ethical t
Children are polluting the air? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the more awkward headlines I've seen.
I'm sure it is if you don't know the difference between a child / children - human beings of a certain age, and childhood - a state or period associated with being a child.
"One of the more awkward headlines I've seen." (Score:2)
why do they keep paying for the me study? (Score:1)
externalities of driving everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:externalities of driving everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a perfect example of the consequences of driving everywhere. Driving produces plenty of NO2 and PM10.
We're switching to EVs and they _greatly_ cut down on emissions. Apart from the tailpipe emissions, one of the underappreciated problems with ICE cars is the brake dust, it's far more dangerous than we thought before. And EVs basically don't use frictional brakes, cutting down on the emissions.
Don't mention smoking (Score:2)
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
"science", NOT Science (Score:2)
Just another statistical analysis of cherry-picked information to get a pre-selected result that can be announced to the public as a "new scientific discovery" that indicates a need for some change in government policy/regulation that was desired by the people behind the "study". The tell? (aside from there being no scientific work done here, only statistical analysis) is right here: "More than 1,300 people replied and filled in detailed questionnaires on their income, lifestyle (including smoking), homes a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The study is paywalled so we can't see a good explanation of how the data was gathered and evaluated.
They were surprised that "a relationship existed between childhood air pollution and adult bronchitic symptoms for people who did not have lung problems as children". It doesn't sound like a predetermined conclusion.
Who will pay for diesel ultra pollution in EU (Score:1)