Slashdot Mirror
Death of Trees Correlated With Human Cardiovascular & Respiratory Disease
eldavojohn writes "PBS's NewsHour interviewed Geoffrey Donovan on his recent research published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine that noted a correlation between trees (at least the 22 North American ash varieties) and human health: 'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health. And if that's true, then killing 100 million of them in 10 years should have an effect. So if we take away these 100 million trees, does the health of humans suffer? We found that it does.' The basis of this research is Agrilus planipennis, the emerald ash borer, has systematically destroyed 100 million trees in the eastern half of the United States since 2002. After accounting for all variables, the research found that an additional 15,000 people died from cardiovascular disease and 6,000 more from lower respiratory disease in the 15 states infected with the bug, compared with uninfected areas of the country. While the exact cause and effect remains unknown, this research appears to be reinforcing data for people who regularly enjoy forest bathing as well as providing evidence that the natural environment provides major public health benefits."
I thought I'd try to be different :)
Those three words make a huge difference...
and posting your indignant observation, please check and see if they did.
a cabin in the woods? complete with a cinema nearby, hospital, supermarket, grocery and all the facilities we need every day..well maybe some small roads connecting them..oh wait!
So if I print more, my commute time decreases?
Take a good look guys. This guy just committed a basic mistake in method. He made a leap unsupported by the facts. The presence and quantity of trees may be correlated with healthier people, but that in no way means there's a connection. He hasn't controlled for environmental factors. The most basic would be answering the question -- why are there more trees in a given area? In densely populated urban areas, there will be fewer trees, obviously... and we know cities have more pollution than a prestine wilderness. But that doesn't mean the trees are what's making people healthy... it could just be that the absence of pollution is.
This is an incomplete analysis and an attempt by an amateur scientist to start with a conclusion and work his way back to find supporting facts, while ignoring the fact that in science, you do things the other way around. And if you don't, you get crap like this.
I'm not about to go throw myself in a lake and start tree bathing because I think it'll improve my health... at best it'll be a placebo reaction. At worst, it'll kill me due to my allergies. What I'd do instead is try to find populations where trees are present at various threshold concentrations and match the environments as closely as possible so the only control would be the number of trees in a given area, and see if the correlation still holds.
Oh, and something to be aware of... richer neighborhoods have more trees than poorer neighborhoods, to the point that if you take satellite photography of a large metropolitan area, that alone can predict to a high degree of accuracy where the rich people live. Is this because they can afford to keep their environment cleaner as well?
You have to control for human behavior in this, or your analysis is broken.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Suck it!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Did they control for the declining number of remaining bottles of '83 Cheval Blanc? Their numbers have also been dwindling steadily for the past ten years...
Yippies.
Where can I reserve a charter flight to an exclusive Oregon forest bathing resort where my forest immersion adventure can renew my natural soul, prevent cancer, alleviate back pain, fight off depression and cure my allergies?
M. Knight Shyamalan was on to something.
But seriously, it's no wonder places like The Stanley Hotel are still popular. After Stanley went to the area to recover from TB (with all that repertory jazz) it turned out to be such a good spot, he opened a hotel. It couldn't have been just the crisp air. Maybe we should have neighborhood tree planting campaigns alongside the neighborhood watch.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
Is this a surprise? We evolved in nature - with trees. Even now, we still do not know how much effect long term presence or absence of many trace compounds has. Whether it is something found in diet, or even in the air, emitted by plant transpiration. To think we do, and have it all under our thumb is simply hubris, and it will bite back.
Silence is a state of mime.
Tree, and grass, hydrocarbons strengthen the immune system. Nasty synthetics are what damage our organs. Take a good whiff the next time you mow the lawn. That smell is a good thing at natural levels.
The magnitude of this effect was greater as infestation progressed and in counties with above-average median household income.
lol so nothing to do with trees. Wealthy people have cardiovascular disease and the problem has increased over time.
Please quote to me where causation was claimed.
Pardon me while I pull something out a my ass.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
This may be the case, but there are also Arisols being sprayed in the air. large amounts of aluminum, barium, and Strontium, all of which have a very negative impact on plant life, and animal life. This could just as easily be the cause of the drop in health statistics.
To repeat what others have said, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. More people have moved to cities too, where the air is worse. And no one is able to "account for all variables".
Insects do not systematically destroy anything. To claim that is to anthropomorphize insects. Last I heard, that's an evolutionary no-no.
As much as I dislike reading summaries for people.....
From TFS:
"And if that's true, then killing 100 million of them in 10 years should have an effect. So if we take away these 100 million trees, does the health of humans suffer? We found that it does.'"
I don't see how that doesn't claim causation.
It's not April 1, but perhaps they just overslept?
Reread the OP, and the linked article.
The linked article states so in the abstract itself, using weasel words of "provides stronger evidence of causality".
The OP also strongly suggests it by mentioning asinine "forest bathing".
I will gladly go out on a limb (so to speak) and predict the ultimate validation of my use of "asinine".
Is there anything else you'd like me to do for you?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I have lived for 20 years in an established Midwestern suburban area (all major residential developments are 50-120 years old) where the Emerald Ash Borer has just begun to take its toll. Aside from the green ash (a frequently-planted street tree) we have blue, black and white ash, all native to the area in fair numbers. I walk a lot in my neighborhood. I know individual trees, and I notice when one is gone. I really noticed the one morning this spring when eight were gone in one day along my mile-long walk to the train. It's a lot like bereavement, which is something pretty well established to increase stress and disease.
Whether and how trees benefit us while alive is one thing, but since this study focused on areas infested with EAB it seems to be more about measuring the effects of losing a great number of trees in a short time.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
"Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health."
There's no particular reason why that hypothesis would be true. And I say that as someone who enjoys walking around in the woods. In fact, for those with nasty allergies, trees can be positively bad for your health.
I'd want Mr Donovan to produce, at the very least, some sort of proposed mechanism behind "trees => health".
I am officially gone from
TFA has it exactly backwards -- The rise in tree deaths is clearly directly related to the rise in obesity in the study area, which has led to an increase in the average weight of persons newly buried in local cemeteries, which results in higher outgassing of carbon and other greenhouse gases from tombs and mausoleums. Humans are the cause of everything horrible on this planet, didn't you get the memo? Especially the SUV drivers, they're overplusdouble evil.
Yes, between scientists and religious idiots. Scientists acknowledge they don't know everything. Idiots assume they do, or at least that knowing everything is possible.
BTW, the word is Preventive, not Preventative.
That would be the *media's* fault for cherry-picking the language and the studies. If you ever really drill down into a study, you'll find a metric shit-tonne of ambiguous language the media turns into certainties.
After accounting for all details, I've determined that exposure to matter created by the emerald ash borer is harmful to humans. The general level of health should be restored if Im given a grant to kill all ash trees to drive the emerald ash borer to extinction.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
...that noted a correlation between trees (at least the 22 North American ash varieties) and human health...
While the exact cause and effect remains unknown...
He's claiming correlation, not causation.
From TFS:
"that noted a correlation between trees (at least the 22 North American ash varieties) and human health" and "While the exact cause and effect remains unknown, this research appears to..."
He's claiming correlation, not causation.
Oh, and something to be aware of... richer neighborhoods have more trees than poorer neighborhoods, to the point that if you take satellite photography of a large metropolitan area, that alone can predict to a high degree of accuracy where the rich people live. Is this because they can afford to keep their environment cleaner as well?
You have to control for human behavior in this, or your analysis is broken.
Ah good point! But, well, from the fucking interview:
A team of researchers with the U.S. Forest Services looked at data from 1,296 counties, accounted for the influence of other variables -- things like income, race, and education -- and came to a simple conclusion: Having fewer trees around may be bad for your health. Their findings, published recently in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, suggest an associative rather than a direct, causal link between the death of trees and the death of humans.
So ... you know ... either take the time to at least skim the article or go fuck yourself -- scientifically of course!
For all those cardiovascular and lower respiratory disease deaths?
So a proper, well-balanced experiment would be for us to destroy 100 million trees somewhere NOT infected with emerald tree borers, and see what happens to the human death rate then, eh?
Hey, it's tough on the trees, I know .. but in the end .. if it WERE all the fault of the emerald tree borer, humans might do more to protect the trees while protecting themselves! Seems, fair, right?
Man, ain't the scientific process wunnerful?
"After accounting for all variables..."
Uhhh...
Did they check the pesticide usage in the infected forests, that alone could account for their results.
People have no idea how the universe works and will "use" science or religion for furthering their own agenda's no matter what it does.
HOWEVER.... DOT DOT DOT (emphasized)... this study seems fairly unbiased...
Pollen > human health?
Other insects > human health?
Something in the ecosystem feeding on the trees or something living or feeding on the trees > human health
We grew up in a complex environment (as a species) and we are trying to simplify and concretify (yes a made up word) that environment into little terrariums. Thats the #1 cause of disease right there.
Thats a completely biased opinion for you tools. Bathed both in science, religion, anecdotes, and random life experience. Don't like it. Or how I came to that conclusion. Well oh well lol...
What? The decline of global warming is caused by the decline of pirates?
So TFS is simultaneously using words that suggest causation, and words that literally depict correlation.
Is this how we become accustomed to doublespeak?
More Twoson than Cupertino
Or a desert state? These places should stand out like sore thumbs. But Colorado - far from a forested state enjoys some of the best health and lowest cancer rates even though there is increased background radiation from the mountains.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Since when are poorly-worded/confusing/misleading summaries unusual here?
Pirates... global warming.... yada yada
What more would you expect from the Propaganda/Bull Shit channel.
Its this type of specious claim that makes it hard for laymen to take real environmental problems seriously.
Please stop donating to the Watermelon morons' mouthpieces.
Now we know which plane Mourns-For-Trees comes from.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
They have it backwards... as humans get unhealthier, the trees suffer.
So exercise and eat right... remember for every mile you jog, you save a tree!
If you're the one cutting the trees down, that's good physical exercise so you'll probably have better heart health and respiratory capabilities.
Yes, and then I promptly spit mountain dew all over my keyboard because it was yet another in a long string of examples of poor editorial control on slashdot. The study talks about insects, but do you see the specific insect mentioned in the summary? Nope. In fact, the study is about whether the number of these insects in a given area leads to increase mortality... but the summary talks about a "hypothesis" that trees are good for your health. Da fuq they get there?
From the summary:
The basis of this research is Agrilus planipennis, the emerald ash borer,
What the fuck is your problem?
They undoubtedly are painting a picture that precludes other known data from many other sources of degradation of atmosphere and total assault of by military, scientific and communications groups around the planet. Trees good, people bad.
Journalists love epidemiology. Lets them write another crap article to attract more gullible readers.
Is there ever any value in this junk. Donovan and his group also claim to be `researching' the
effect of S. Cal wildfires on public health. In 2012 the (apparently highly rated journal) Gastroenterology
published a study concluding that tobacco `smoking cessation strategies should be considered for
patients with BE' . Reading that paper you see they tried, and failed, prove a link between diabetes
and high BMI but had to publish to justify funding. Presumably that's the game here too.
This is what happens when speech to text software gets too good ...