Slashdot Mirror
Lower Air Pollution Means Longer Life
thefickler writes "A new study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has found a strong link between air quality and life expectancy. The researchers looked at air pollution, deaths and census data for 51 metropolitan areas between 1978 and 2001, and what they found was a direct correlation between improving air quality and extending life expectancy. People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution."
Or, maybe ppl in these areas (which likely aren't metro areas) don't live as stressful a life and get some extra life expectancy from that.
Or smog sucks.
Both?
-bZj
.sig
Yes, pollution concentration and contents changes over times and you need a methodology to keep track of these things. If common sense was a viable guide to life than we wouldn't need science.
I can't tell if the post I'm responding to was meant to be a trolling or flamebait comment but it certainly seemed that way. Pollution is the textbook example where even a libertarian needs to compromise to some extent. Pollution is an externality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality. That is, the harm created by it is highly diffuse and applies to people not involved with the original transactions that created it. Free markets solve for pretty much everything but externalities. This is because transaction costs (the cost of making deals) easily outweighs the benefit to not having the negative externality from any given single pollution source. So it isn't in anyone's incentive to make individual deals with each polluter to reduce pollution even if it is in everyone's best interest to reduce the pollution level. In such circumstances, the only solution is central regulation of some form.
Furthermore, there is a philosophical reason that pollution doesn't apply in the standard libertarian framework. The central philosophical idea behind most forms of libertarianism is that if I'm not harming anyone then I should have a right to do whatever I please. This is a strong argument. Unfortunately, pollution does harm other people. It isn't as direct or as obvious as murder or theft but it is harming people. It is again, just more diffuse and harder to pin down exactly who is harmed by which bit of pollution. For both economic and philosophical reasons even a hard-core libertarian should be ok with regulation of pollution.
That should be the case. It's my observation that much of the time libertarians wish the problem away by downplaying the impacts of pollution.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM." ... to kill the environment and abuse your employees, load down nations with debts they can never pay back, and gain exclusive monopoly control over land, air and water - and then watch those die who can't pay. Or shoot them with your own hand if they try to 'steal' 'your' 'hard-earned' resources.
At least that's the kind of 'freedom' most anarcho-capitalists I've seen dream about. And unrestricted, unregulated, corporate iron fist and death to the teeming masses.
The absolute freedom to take everything you want and give nothing back.
If you're not into that kind of 'freedom', we have something in common.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
I am shocked. Shocked, I say! You mean to tell me that better health leads to a longer life!? Well sir, I have apparently been wrong my whole life; thank you Slashdot!
"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.
And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Remember, noble lofty ideals can always be twisted one way or another, and exploited, including your lofty libertarian ideal of freedom. Incidentally, the closest things we have to libertarian societies are the wartorn and corrupt african republics that you hear about on CNN. Just how FREE are they? Well:
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
It just goes on...
Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.
But I am used to it.
Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.
If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.
Sure you can take something and twist facts any way you want to make something correlate to something else, and in that case, sure correlation does not imply causation. And perhaps an initial correlation does not imply causation, but typically warrants further investigation and studies. But when you have a studies that take years of data, good, large, samples, and some generally smart people doing it, saying "correlation is not causation", especially without any argument or justification, is just silly.
Parent is either +1 Funny or -1 Troll.
People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.
Of course, if we Americans would eat less crap, eat more healthy foods, and got out and exercised now and then, we'd extend our lifespans by a considerably greater amount.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
A high degree of correlation may imply causality. It can indicate that further study is worthwhile. It is not proof.
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
True, but how does causation ever get proven? Every day life doesn't exist in a lab and not all (or even most) variables can be controlled for. It's very much impossible to concretely prove causation within our populations for things that don't cause instantaneous death... Often times, the best we can hope for are very strong correlations and make a *reasonably* educated assumption.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So you're a liberal?
I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?
A GOVERNMENT.
Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Easy: I've never had it explained to me how you would go about preventing the former from sliding into the latter pretty quickly. That is, in a way that didn't sound inhumane (well, if they can't defend themselves they probably weren't going to survive anyway), farcical (oh, everyone will just get along and not hurt one another because everyone will just love having freedom so much), or sociopathic (I'll defend myself with strenght and weapons).
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Again, how would you stop someone from "unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else" without hurting someone else? What about gray area situations, like abortion, euthenasia, soft crimes, the death penalty etc...
What exactly is your practical libertarian method of maintaining social order in a modern society the size of, say, Canada?
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.
Sorry to say buddy, but you already do. The government controls the lives of most people. Sure that may suck when you have to pay taxes, or you get a ticket for speeding, but on the other hand, that bored borderline sociopathic teenager from the rougher sides of town will actually think twice about breaking into your house, because the executive branch of the law will probably catch up with him and he will be in shit.
Anyway, I don't actually want to control your life. You'll find most socialists don't either. They're just happy to vote the way they feel things should go.
Incidentaly, did you vote Ron Paul? If so, good on ya for at least putting your money where your mouth is. If not...
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.
Consumer contracts are written by teams of bright well-educated lawyers who commonly bill $200 to $700 per lawyer per hour.
Consumers commonly make $10 per hour and are over their heads in debt. About half of them have below-average intelligence. About 5/6 of them are not truly literate even for regular newspaper-like text, never mind a legal document. Consumers are given one-sided contracts with no reasonable alternative. There is no practical opportunity (time) or financial ability to seek the advice of counsel, and no alternative provider of services.
This is a fundamentally cruel situation. Even as arrogant and elitist as I am, I can see that this is harmful to society. It encourages contempt for our legal system, general distrust, and a feeling of unfairness. All of that encourages corruption, which of course hurts everybody.
Good scientific method doesn't permit practitioners to make just any conclusion they want, especially not conclusions like that one which are unfounded and can easily be wrong. You have the benefit of their study to reach your conclusions, they didn't.
Without the study, there is no evidence to support the contention that there is a degree of correlation between 'heavy coughing' and longevity, or pollution and 'heavy coughing' or pollution and longevity.
In fact, to a large extent, they might be fairly unrelated, or only remotely related.
If a causal relationship is not logically provably true, and not shown clearly by other studies, then it really can't be safely assumed.
Commonly held beliefs and things like 'common sense' are frequently actually commonly held myths, and common errors.
Retired people don't work.
I really don't care about an extra 2-3 years of nursing home hell where I'm fed through a tube and can't remember my own name...What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.
but clean air isn't giving you 2-3 extra years in a nursing home.
With better air quality, you should stay healthier longer, and will be moving in to that nursing home 2-3 years later.
Cleaner air could give you 2-3 more good years.
-I only code in BASIC.-
Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...
Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.
However, in this case it has a lot to do with the fact that certain elements - those who earned big money on pollution being allowed to happen - for many decades did everything they could to stop the government from taking appropriate action. Just like for climate change now, there were "pollution sceptics" and people advocating "common sense" and "freedom".
Another thing is that the harm caused by pollution has been hard to quantify, and therefore it has been hard to come out and say "This industry produces this amount of pollution, which causes this amount of extra death and disease, which costs society this amount of money" - if we can put a clear cost on pollution, we can justify things like pollution taxes or economic sanctions.
Well, the point about the people earning money by using the atmosphere as a cesspool is valid, but that's not why this is science.
Science often proves the obvious because the "obvious" has to be tested from time to time to keep it honest. Yes, it's obvious that pollution is bad. It's also obvious that radiation is "bad". You do not want to sleep on top of an unshielded nuclear reactor core, for example, even if you could avoid getting cooked. But at some point the effects of radiation aren't worth bothering about.
The same goes for pollution. It's a valid question to say, at what point does reducing air pollution become irrational? This study shows we haven't passed that point yet.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
>>>Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.
In this case, nothing has been proved. Correlation/coincidence is not the same as causation. It's entirely possible the extra 2.7 years was caused by less stress thanks to country living, not less pollution. We don't know for sure.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And here on your left, folks, is an example of Libertarianism in it's prime:
I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach.
Yes, the standard rant.
Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages...
Good so far. We could, in practice, identify all polluters and properly force them to cover the true costs of their activities. FOrce them to cover their externalities.
...it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution.
Wow. That, but not regulation. Hmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated.
Right, just the things that *you* think are pollutants. The "provable" pollutants. How many decades fight was it before cigarette manufacturers agreed that their products were "provably" harmful? What's that? They still say that cigartettes aren't harmful? Hmm.
The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".
Um, hello? Do you know what most "regulations" entail? Try this - they generally define an accepted and acceptable method of doing business with economic incentives (such as fines) for not doing so.
Congratulations, on having decided that regulation is the best method for dealing with pollution. Oh, only just don't call it "regulation" - that's a bad word, even if it describes the approach you wish to take.
More Kool-aid?
I enjoyed your post... your naivety is so sweet :)
The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.
It is a great ideal!
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.
This assumes perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, there are people who take advantage of the system and we, the people, do not have anyway to find out about their shenanigans unless there is someone looking out for our interests. I would argue, the most efficient way to take care of this is via government oversight. I'm not saying it will work, but it seems like the best way to go.
You are making a lot of assumptions on the time people invest in researching a company before buying their products or using their services. I'd say most users of a company's products/services base it solely on price.
So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.
These freedoms do sound reasonable, but how do you quantify harm? Fine, take LSD. But then what happens if you end up schizophrenic? I would say you are now doing me harm because, we the people, as taxpayers, have to pay for your medical care. (I do _believe_ we have an obligation to assist)
There are good things and bad things with "big government" and regulation. You can't just assume "big government" == bad.