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."
Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...
They needed a study to correlate the relationship between heavy coughing and longevity? Being a doctored researcher must be a great life.
If you're a libertarian like me, you want no regulation of pollution.
Frankly, air quality is for those goddamn socialists states - like Singapore, or Denmark.
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
Yeah, yeah, yeah - it's better than the pure acid that was present in the 1970's, but the air still ranks worst in the country.
Worst yet is that there is little/no public transportation to speak of, and something like 40% of the population here drives a truck, SUV, or minivan.
But apparently China is much, much worse.
..........FULL STOP.
its called common sense.....
Wear a gas mask and a veil.
Then you can breathe, long as you don't inhale.
What?
So cleaning the air for 70 years gives someone an extra 5 months of life? I was expecting something a little more significant than that...
I had to say it. :)
There's probably way too many variables in this study.
"I like it when the red water comes out.."
No shit, there I was. Getting out of my prius (i actually just like the car..it's not a political statement), i noticed a dude staring at me as he got out of his 4-door F350. He kind of chuckled to himself a little. I said, "You think that's funny? Your kids are breathing your exhaust. Now THAT'S funny".
Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion? Like mother nature stuffing your underwear in your mouth...that's so hot.
THL phish sticks
Correlation does NOT prove causation. And I think most on /. can fully appreciate that.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
I imagine that polluted areas tend to be heavily populated and industrialized. Things like car fatalities, murder rates and industrial accidents might have something to do with avg. lifespan.
...like it's 1995! No duuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
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. I'm sure I'll feel differently when I'm closer to that time of my life, but right now it's just not on my list of priorities to extend that part of my life which is certain not to be the best.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Tobacco is not a major contributor to the overall pollution level. Moreover, tobacoo smoking isn't adding that much in the way of greenhouse gases. Burning oil and gas adds carbon dioxide because the carbon would otherwise be trapped in the earth. Burning tobacco doesn't do much of that because the tobacco is coming from new plants which are constantly taking in new carbon dioxide to grow.
I left a job in the NorthEast corridor almost 20 years ago because I couldn't breath. Yeah, that blue haze drifting around was "fog" all right. State had something like a 65 year average life expectancy. Glad to be back in a state with about a 78 year life expectancy even though I really liked the job.
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?)
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
So by logical extension, would an air filter in the home help to some degree?
Obviously the effect is statistical in nature and even if there was any benefit to an individual, it wouldn't be as effective as living in an area with low pollution. But still...?
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.
There's this guy, Larry Summers who I think you should meet...
Cities? Stupid people? Poor? Why don't you just go ahead and take off the hood, say what you mean: you don't like black people. Sickening this racism is moderated "+3 Insightful" (or at least it is at the time of this posting)
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Wait â" you're saying that by *not* being poisoned every day by the air I breathe, I will live longer? Wow. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Nick
.15*2.72*365=150 days
so i would have lived 150 days more if i wouldn't have used my car every day, or had continuous electricity. that seems quite acceptable to me.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
no.
if we breathe 100% o2, we will experience the rare sensation of having the retina detached from our eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
think before you type.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
I'm in the petroleum biz (ooooh evil, yeah, yeah, i know)... but I get the freshest air every day. You couldn't pay me enough to live in a big metropolitan city. I've smelled NYC.
J
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
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.
... condemn the author's human-centric, insensitive[1] viewpoint as betrayed in this /. summary.
Yours,
The Borg
P.S. Resistance is futile.
1. Star Trek: The First Contact
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Your house, just sitting there, not even including your furnace, air conditioner, or toilet and septic, are putting off far more toxins per day than a smoker. Think about all the plastic, the paint on the walls, the shingles on your roof, the insulation and tar-paper, the chemicals in the treated wood, got a paved driveway?...
The amount of power your PC used during your comment, is probably indirectly equal to 1 cigarette, via the power station, even if it's hydro, the damn because of the raised water level is allowing all sorts of chemicals to seep out of the ground, the trees and plants that were killed in the process, gas to run the bulldozers, etc, even if you use a solar cell to power your PC, the mining to get the minerals in it, the manufacturing of it, the plastic on the wires...etc etc etc.
Besides, tobacco by itself isn't very toxic, the major problem with second hand smoke and the likes, is commercialized tobacco which has hundreds of additives in it, benzene, formaldehyde, acetone, hydrogen cyanide, etc... so even in some sort of agreement with you, cutting down on those additives would almost have the same effect as stopping smoking entirely, by going back to natural tobacco.
"...the damn because..."
Dam* ...lol
A very fine filtration system might cut down on the amount of particulate matter (soot) that seemed to be the focus of this study. Won't help you while you're outside, or in your car, but can't hurt.
Filters can do nothing against other pollutants like, say, ozone or oxides of nitrogen. (Those "ionic" air "purifiers" actually very slightly increase the amount of ozone in the air.)
Avg. life expectancy increase in study: 2.72 years
Days in a year: 365.25
Total Days gain in study: 993.48
% Factor that air pollution had: 15%
Total days x Factor of air pollution:
993.28 x 15% = 149 days
So less air pollution increases life expectancy by less than half a year. Whooptie Freakin' Doo. Lower traffic = less air pollution + less chance of getting hit by a motor vehicle. I wonder which has a greater impact...
I didn't need to wear my scientist hat, to turn down a job in a place that made my eyes hurt from the minute I got off the plane, and where I was sick for a week after every time I visited there...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Tell it to my grand dad, he lived in to woods and died when he was 55. He was eaten by bear.
More people living longer. Like the current population doesn't cause any problems in the world.
They needed a study to correlate the relationship between heavy coughing and longevity? Being a doctored researcher must be a great life.
Good one, Sir. Here are more common sense facts that I'm publishing, so that no additional research is necessary.
Yeah, I've noticed this argument before. "Natural tobacco is perfectly safe, because it's pure".
Pure hogwash, you mean...
Don't forget oil is natural too. Problem is, the gases it produces when you burn it are toxic.
Same problem with all natural plants and woods. When you burn them, you create lots of complicated carbon based molecules and many of them are toxic.
Sap from the natural taxus tree kills you dead. They even use it to treat some forms of cancer. They call it chemo-therapy then...
Your ideas about 'natural' things need some adjustment. Some people have a borderline religious attitude towards nature. It's almost unnatural... ;)
X.
"...cutting down on those additives would almost have the same effect as stopping smoking entirely..."
What I meant was that pure tobacco, especially secondary, would be about the same as your normal intake of toxins, if you are around someone who is smoking, for say a couple cigarettes, then it would be about the same as another day, when your neighbours chimney smoke happened to drift your way, or you burnt off the dead grass in the spring, etc.. I never said it was healthy, only that it was immensely more so by comparison, especially since some of the intentionally added toxins are specifically there to aid in its toxicity, to increase the amount that reaches your blood stream, to pacify or neutralize your lungs abilities to cleanse themselves, etc.
Why is it that various indigenous people, who smoke raw/pure tobacco on a daily basis, still live into their 80's, I'm not saying that if you smoke it it's going to cure you or something, only that it's impact seems almost insignificant, granted, "indians" also don't eat fast food, and eat far less sugar, etc, etc... it's just a single improvement of many that would be needed.
I can't say it any better... http://www.xkcd.com/552/
The difference is that you take extra special care to take as much of the delicious tobacco smoke in your lungs as possible. Your neighbour's chimney was designed specifically to keep the smoke out of his lungs. And when you're burning grasses you get out of the way of the smoke.
So, yes, in theory natural tobacco smoke is probably not more toxic than any other organic smoke, but in practice smokers and people who stay in the same rooms tend to inhale much more of the latter. Sniffing smoke from your neighbour's chimney 20 times a day would probably also be very bad for your health.
X.
Back when I used to smoke I stopped in Ontario California. I don't know if it's still this bad, but when I went outside for a cig I wasn't able to smoke because I was breathing so much crap in just being there, and at the time I was smoking two packs a day. If the air is bad enough to keep a pretty heavy smoker from lighting up for nearly a whole day I don't think there can be any doubt it's bad for you. Now I'm wondering if all my time living in big cities, and smoking for years, is being counteracted by living in the country and quitting.
... scientists reveal that drinking clean water is better than drinking polluted water, and eating uncontaminated food is better than eating food laden with pesticides or other poisons or carcinogens.
It's this type of unintuitive research that I'm proud to sponsor with my tax dollars.
I can't wait to read the upcoming report on the relationship between caloric consumption and obesity. I'm panting in anticipation of the latest research into the apparent connection between teenage intercourse and teenage pregnancy.
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
So basically, the study found that you live on average 148 more days due to the lessened effect of air pollution. A whole four extra months living in a vegetative state in an old peoples sanctuary. Kind of gives us all hope for the future, doesn't it ?
I'm no science geek but, how can they be sure that air quality is the only factor that needed considering? I'm sure that air quality plays a big part, but didn't medical detection/treatment technology improve from 1978 to 2001? Couldn't that account for the longer lifespan?
~Syberz
Dumb scientists. Always coming up with bizarre notions no one would ever think of on their own.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
Worked for a long time.
Libertarians don't want a government without police, court, etc. They want the government to protect the right to do as you wish until it interferes with someone else. Our current government is LESS likely to do something about someone robbing your house because has too many other obligations now.
Yes, and we can outlaw candles and carbonated beverages, too!
One word for this artical. DUH!!! (I wonder how much tax dollars went to tell us this vital bit of info that my 6yr old son could have told you.) Since we need air to live it only goes to say that the cleaner the air the healthier we are and the healthier we are the longer we live.
At the most basic level, you cannot see causation (see David Hume). Correlation does not mean causation, but correlation is all we have to go on.
Sometimes causation is a correct description of the relationship. Sometimes it is not.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
But what about Japan? The most polluted first world country with some of the longest life expectancies in the world...
And in environmental news, scientists have announced that Springfield's air is now only dangerous to children and the elderly.
Woohoo!
I'm not specifically targeting you, but there have been a lot of people in this thread so far just tossing that out (Country living being less stressful) as if everyone agrees with it. Is there any evidence that living in a city is actually more stressful than living in rural areas?
To me, country living, at least in the USA, represents:
* long commutes to work
* having to drive everywhere (even for groceries!!)
* no culture/nightlife
* few/no high-tech businesses
* chain stores and restaurants
* local politics dominated by religious people
* more fear of discrimination based on religion/skin color/sexuality
* rednecks and pick-up trucks
Whereas city living represents:
* public transportation
* everything is within walking or biking distance
* great nightlife/entertainment
* multicultural
* diverse choices of markets and restaurants
* ok-to-great high-tech jobs, depending on the city
* progressive local politics
* tolerance of different lifestyles
Of course, you pay extra for all this so it's more expensive, but to say it's more STRESSFUL??
Tobacco is not a major contributor to the overall pollution level.
No matter. Few would object to even more tobacco legislation, and the "feel good" payoffs for nearly everyone are substantial enough.
Getting people to drive/use less or pay more, on the other hand ...
Totally thinking the same thing...
I wonder how much of this study is impacted by better medicine. They should also test an area with minimal air pollution as a control to see if the people there also experienced an increased life expectancy where the air quality remained relatively the same. More details of how the study was conducted should be published.
That's funny... guess which regions of the US have a higher government spending/remit ratio per capita? It's not the urban areas... it's the rural poor.
Sure, there are more poor people in the cities than in the rural areas... but the rural areas drain the economy much more than the urban areas.
Take your racist claptrap elsewhere... your goddamn rural flyover states are bankrupting my urban state.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Do we really want to live an additional 2+ years? The cost of living and the numerous health issues related with longer life spans just makes those additional years painful. I am watching my grand parents and parents suffer into the 90s. It might be better to die at a younger age before you have to sell your house and live on senior welfare.
It is now cheaper to polute the environment!
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
All lies; there is no direct evidence between the two. This is the same as saying "Direct connection between living next to a nuclear waste dump and life longetivity".
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.
So educate me.
So how would Libertarianism deal with things like spectrum disputes or unfair trade practice complaints? Under a libertarian society, how would a seller of homeopathic remedies be dealt with when it's shown that they're selling sugar pills? Or when it turns out some device is jamming a wide array of consumer devices?
Under a 'liberal' Government you'd have the FTC, the FAA and the FDA. How would a theoretical Ron Paul administration do this? Coase theorem?
If you are harming someone, then you are dealt with. If you are not harming anyone, then you're fine. It's very simple. Why make it more complicated than that?
Besides, we all know how well the FDA works. They are influenced by special interests, too, and how many bad drugs have gotten past them and hurt or killed many?
I don't believe in homeopathy, obviously. But they, at least, are flat-out honest about how they prepare their "drugs" -- by diluting out a poison so much that you'd be lucky just to get a single molecule of it in your dosage.
As long as the honesty is there and the consumer is informed, then it's incumbent upon the consumer to make an informed and rational choice. No one is being harmed by sugar-water, unless, of course, they are doing this in lieu of seeking real medical help.
The placebo effect is a powerful one, so personally I am mixed on what to tell people about homeopathy. Yet, I must be honest about it. It's nothing more than the placebo effect. The normal claims of Homeopathy are pure nonsense, and I won't skip a heartbeat pointing that out. But if the placebo effect is actually doing someone good, I'm not sure how I would handle that.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies