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."

Comments

Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[pepty]

and posting your indignant observation, please check and see if they did.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[DiamondGeezer]

Want to bet that this will be exhibited soon as a poster child of spurious significance and poor statistical analysis?

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Synerg1y]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332329 you go first, I see none.

Anyways, it makes sense that air quality is worse in areas with less trees leading to higher rates of lung disease, but we didn't need this study to affirm that. Just drive in a major city on a hot afternoon and check out the smog.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[nadabu]

Sorry but the very phrase "After accounting for all variables" when doing statistical analysis on any complex real-life scenario is laughable. We don't even know all the variables, much less have rigorous data for them all.

I think their theory is probably right. It makes a lot of sense and the data we do have does fit. But this is statistics, not science; correlation, not proof of causation. It is far from being without value, but it is also far from being conclusive or thorough. It is merely as thorough as it could be given available data.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[gstoddart]

There's things you think you know that are obvious, and then there's actual science.

Sometimes, you need the proper study just to verify your hunch isn't entirely wrong -- everything else is an anecdote or a guess.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[BradleyAndersen]

Would you know what to do with the data if the author provided it?
Have you read the linked article to determine what should have been accounted for, but was not?

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[repvik]

Irrelevant. We cannot possibly know "all variables" - and thus stating that all variables have been accounted for is bunk.
However, that doesn't mean that the study is wrong - it's just not good enough.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's things you think you know that are obvious, and then there's actual science.

There are obvious obviouses; there are things we obviously know are obvious.
There are obvious deepnesses; that is to say, there are things we obviously know are quite non-trival.
But there are also deep deepnesses – there are things about which we don’t have a freaking clue.

Sometimes, you need the proper study just to verify your hunch isn't entirely wrong -- everything else is an anecdote or a guess.

You publish with the study you have---not the study you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[sjames]

And then there's people who after having an eye poked out will refuse to draw any conclusions about eyes and vision until they poke the other eye out.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[sjames]

By that criterion, no study of anything ever has been good enough because we NEVER know for a fact that we have covered all variables.

'good enough' is only knowable in retrospect since at the time, we (by definition) didn't know about the unknown variables..

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[girlintraining]

Sometimes, you need the proper study just to verify your hunch isn't entirely wrong -- everything else is an anecdote or a guess.

Or exploratory research. :)

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[pspahn]

Speaking of poking out eyes, I have long known that EAB (Emerald Ash Borer) has been affecting human health, and you would too if you watch much baseball.

The death of ash due to EAB has caused a significant uptick in the amount of bats made from maple instead of ash. Maple doesn't have the same kind of durability that ash does, and what you end up with are bats that are easier to break. On any given night, you can see highlights of some pitcher nearly losing his face because a large chunk of maple is flying at him. You almost never saw this when bats where made exclusively from ash, as maple is simply more brittle and not as elastic.

Save a pitcher, plant an ash!

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[interkin3tic]

Anyways, it makes sense that air quality is worse in areas with less trees leading to higher rates of lung disease, but we didn't need this study to affirm that. Just drive in a major city on a hot afternoon and check out the smog.

That wouldn't tell you if it was the trees that made the difference. To say that, you'd need to go to a forested area, kill the trees, then compare health before to after. Or, in this case, allow insects to do the killing.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[thedonger]

My study found a similar correlation between cardiovascular and respiratory disease and radio stations whose names begin with "W" compared to those beginning with "K."

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Jane Q. Public]

"Want to bet that this will be exhibited soon as a poster child of spurious significance and poor statistical analysis?"

As Darrell Huff, author of the 1954 classic How To Lie With Statistics pointed out, the salaries of Protestant ministers at the time was very strongly correlated with the price of Jamaican rum.

The point being: so what? A correlation is all well and good, but the chances are overwhelming that it means exactly shit.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Giant Electronic Bra]

How would you KNOW its 'not good enough'? What would even define something as not good enough? This is a stastical study. It demonstrates certain correlation (R) factors between variables. This suggests there is a causal relationship, either direct or indirect. If you are going to say that "because there could be confounding factors that haven't been factored out" the study is automatically worthless then you have just rejected 99.9% of all the scientific research ever done. It makes no sense at all.

Clearly this sort of study is only an observation, suggesting certain hypotheses, possibly falsifying others to some extent. Obviously more research will be needed, but this is pretty close to always true.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[sjames]

It is pretty scary to see bat fragments flying nearly as far as the ball night after night. It's a miracle we don't see more injuries.

At least it's not as bas as it was a couple years ago when it seemed like every hit broke a bat.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[NatasRevol]

That was the fault of cork, not maple.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[sjames]

While there have been a few proven instances of corked bats, that's not what was happening there (since if your corked bat shatters, you're busted).

The superball bat must have been fairly amusing when it broke.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Will.Woodhull]

there's people who after having an eye poked out will refuse to draw any conclusions about eyes and vision until they poke the other eye out.

That statement is SO out of date. The new phrasing is "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[famebait]

Granted, repvik goes a bit too far. The claim of controlling for all factors remains irrevocably bunk, but that does not in itself mean the study is not good enough - it merely reflects poorly on the source of that claim. Which brings us to the crux: who is that source? Does the actual publication make this extraordinary claim, or is it merely a perversion introduced by someone else along the chain from there and to this comment?

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but the very phrase "after accounting for all variables"

Good thing that was written by the submitter, not the actual guys who wrote the article, you dipshit.

From the motherfucking abstract of the motherfucking article:

METHODS:
Two fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality from 1990 to 2007 in 15 U.S. states, while controlling for a wide range of demographic covariates. Data were collected from 1990 to 2007, and the analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012.

"Wide range of demographic covariates." No claim is made that they "accounted for all variables."

Correlation, not proof of causation

Why do people spout this self-righteous bit of twattery as if it's insightful, or useful in any way? No causative effect was alleged. In fact, again, from the motherfucking article:

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.

In other words: these two elements are "associated" with some other underlying cause; they never suggested that "emerald ash borers destroying trees kills humans!" They said, "the loss of trees appears to be associated with an increase in human mortality."

The mechanism and nature of that association? That's for future research to determine.

I know it's passe, but you should really try to read the article before you try to talk about how stupid the people writing it are.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[sjames]

I don't see any claim by the researchers of that nature in TFA or the abstract. It must have been later in the chain.

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[cellocgw]

The problem w/ bats breaking could have been very easily solved by switching to metal bats. And before you go all "but they're much too powerful" on me, metal (or any composition) bats can be designed with any size sweet spot and coefficient of rebound you want. They currently get designed to maximize output so as to let ballplayers think they're the offspring of Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.

Or better yet, let's design bats out of tempered glass, like Prince Rupert's teardrops, so a mis-hit leads to a shower of dust. Hilarity ensues!

Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for"

[skids]

Anyways, it makes sense that air quality is worse in areas with less trees leading to higher rates of lung disease

Given the plumes of VOCs trees emit, no that makes no sense at all. Now, having a bunch of dead decaying trees lying around after being killed by an infestation, THAT impacting air quality would seem to make sense.

wouldn't it be nice to have

[etash]

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!

Re:wouldn't it be nice to have

[CanHasDIY]

There are downsides of course, such as these places not being where most of the jobs are, the hills sliding out from underneath you, the trees falling on your house, earthquakes, fires, floods. But hey, the air *is* great. Priorities. It's all about priorities. Personally, I'm fine driving to the woods once in a while. When rain taps on the roof it's soothing and helps me sleep. If Iived up in those hills, I'd be worried whenever it rained.

Uh, FWIW, not all the peaceful, verdant forests of the nation are located within the borders of CA.

In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.

Re:wouldn't it be nice to have

[NatasRevol]

Are there any peaceful verdant forests in CA?

Every one I've ever been to is completely infested with homosapiens.

Re:wouldn't it be nice to have

[CanHasDIY]

Wouldn't know - never been there, planning to keep it that way.

Re:wouldn't it be nice to have

[Drethon]

Yeah I live there. Creeks run through the city around Grand Rapids and the woods are still there. Find a house where the property ends in such woods. Not necessarily in the woods but close enough for me.

Bad science

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Bad science

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up. The proposed hypothesis does not include a necessary and sufficient statement of falsifiability.

Re:Bad science

[aflag]

Have you read tfa?

Re:Bad science

[Anonymous Coward]

> Take a good look guys.

Too bad you didn't.

> -- why are there more trees in a given area

Isn't what this work studied. They correlated a specific insect cause of tree death with human welfare. The methodology was specifically constructed to remove confounding factors— things like air pollution killing both the trees and the humans.

That isn't to say the research is flawless but it was deeper and more carefully constructed that your slashdot arm-chair-expert off the hip comment gives it credit for.

Re:Bad science

[BradleyAndersen]

While healthy cynicism is good in all things, did you not see this bit:

while controlling for a wide range of demographic covariates

as pointed out earlier here?

Re:Bad science

[BradleyAndersen]

I meant this one, sorry :)

Re: Bad science

[stranger_to_himself]

There's no claim that health was correlated with the presence of trees. The claim is that health is correlated with the presence of something that kills the trees, effectively at random (or at least in a way which is uncorrelated with anything that also directly affects human health) making this quite a neat natural experiment. Your arguments about other confounding factors don't hold in this case. look up natural experiments or instrumental variables if you want to know more about the method.

Re:Bad science

[pepty]

But that doesn't mean the trees are what's making people healthy... it could just be that the absence of pollution is.

I agree they needed better matching controls in the study, but one thing trees do in urban environments is help remove air pollution.

Re:Bad science

[Baloroth]

Seriously, did you even read the damned summary before you post? They controlled for demographic variables over time. The exact quote from the abstract is "Two fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality from 1990 to 2007 in 15 U.S. states, while controlling for a wide range of demographic covariates." But yeah, I'm sure you identified the major problem with the whole study in 10 seconds. A study that was done over several years analyzing 17 years of collected data. But it's wrong, because there is absolutely no way they thought to correct for human behavior, no matter what the summary says.

Oh, hey, whats that, they controlled for income? Even spelled out that the effect of the ash borer was greater in wealthier regions thanks to the greater amounts of tree cover? Well, what do you know, scientists can sometimes actually know what they're talking about! Shocking, I know.

Next time, you could even try reading the full paper before you comment and call them "amateur scientists." Especially when they, you know, have already thought of everything you've pointed out.

Re:Bad science

[sjames]

So finding no correlation wouldn't falsify a hypothesis that there is a correlation?

Re:Bad science

[interkin3tic]

Did you read even the summary?

The most basic would be answering the question -- why are there more trees in a given area?

Because the pine borer killed them.

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.

The areas are the same. They compared before the bugs killed the trees to after. Human health declined with the trees. Again, same areas. Presumably the bugs didn't move in and build coal fired power plants.

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.

She says, evidently having argued against the title and working back to what the paper must have said rather than reading the paper first. Also, there are seven authors. So not "an amateur scientist" but "seven amateur scientists." Not that I'm quite clear what an amateur scientist is: they all work at research institutions of some sort or another.

Re: Bad science

[CAIMLAS]

Yep. As someone who loves the outdoors and intentionally does not have air conditioning (so the windows will be open, letting in the nearby forest breezes in), I would be very curious to see how it correlates with the local tree-killing pest: pine beetles. That's more of a "western states" problem, since we don't have nearly as many aspen and other deciduous trees here.

Re:Bad science

[pspahn]

Not only that, but ash are a tree that does this better than others. There is a reason ash are commonly used as a 'street tree', and that is because they are effective cleaners of the particulates in the air while remaining healthy themselves.

I think an interesting extension of the study would be to look at any similar effects found in the West as a result of MPB (Mountain Pine Beetle). I'm not sure how different the loss of biomass is between MPB and EAB, but I can say I've never seen ash forests tens of thousands of acres in size be completely devastated where tree mortality is clearly over 90%.

With MPB, you have a much larger (and concentrated) loss of biomass while at the same time it is occurring in less densely populated (human-wise) geographies.

Re:Bad science

[Wraithlyn]

It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume these scientists (including the ones that peer reviewed the work for publication) aren't aware that "correlation doesn't prove causation". I mean seriously? You really think nobody thought of this incredibly obvious fact you're pointing out? You think the "after accounting for all variables" right there in the summary, means absolutely nothing at all?

As others (like Baloroth below) have pointed out, you clearly HAVEN'T "taken a good look" at the study, and the things they DID control for. Or in other words... you started with a conclusion of your own ("this study is BS"), and didn't even BOTHER looking for supporting facts.

to start with a conclusion and work his way back to find supporting facts

He started with a HYPOTHESIS, and established a method to test it. An intelligent critique of his specific methodology and control factors would require you to actually read the study. But knee-jerk reactions sure are more fun, aren't they?

When you've identified actual factors he hasn't controlled for that might explain the correlation, perhaps you can submit your own paper. I'll be right here holding my breath.

Re:Bad science

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every post you make on any article appears to be without having read either the summary or the article, with this being no exception.

Not to say the study is correct, since there are so many influencing factors that control is exceedingly difficult, but your particular criticism is completely incorrect.

The study does not just pick places and correlate the number of trees in that area with health, it picks very particular places that were affected by an insect that killed the trees in the last 10 years. So the study is (hopefully) irrespective of all the human factors you mention (area wealth, density, etc) since those were not what caused the change in the number of trees.

It could be the case that the areas impacted the most by the insects had some other unknown correlation (perhaps increased pollution made the trees more susceptible to the insects etc), so I make no claim that the study is correct, merely that your criticism is flawed.

It is ironic that you are criticizing the scientist for making a basic mistake in method when it is exactly what you have done yourself by posting before reading or understanding the article.

Re:Bad science

[gr8_phk]

The data they collected is by county. There are 3143 counties in the US. The Ash borer problem only affected about 15 states over a known period of time. This has the potential to have very good data (I have not seen the actual study but did follow the link to summary). The time period they were looking at included the time Vioxx was on the market, so there's one interesting thing they must have seen - but that didn't correlate with which state had ash trees dying. No doubt there were other things present in the data, but that didn't correlate with the bug-affected areas. Remember, you can pull some bullshit thing out of your ass and say "not accounted for" but unless your bullshit correlates with the areas affected by the bugs and trees then it probably HAS been accounted for by the correlation statistics.

Science is increasingly being used like a religion - even on slashdot. Use it to support the things you like and complain about it when it suggests something you disagree with, and either way don't bother to RTFA.

Re:Bad science

[gr8_phk]

You have to control for human behavior in this, or your analysis is broken.

Not so much. The data was taken by county. Not sure how many were used but there are over 3000 in the US. The affected states contain people of diverse types and so do the unaffected states. They also included data from before and after the ash borer invasion. So unless there is some interesting human behavior that changed in those states over those years, it should not contribute to the conclusion (meaning it is ruled out).

Re:Bad science

[ravenshrike]

If and when AGW proponents start treating the issue seriously and try to solve it rather than make shitloads off of pecuniary schemes that would at best mitigate less than 10% of any harmful effects(assuming arguendo that their models are correct) while simultaneously greatly reducing quality of life, I will start to take them seriously. Since there's virtually no one demanding massive amounts of money be put into carbon sink research and major geoengineering projects, that time has not yet come.

Re:Bad science

[hsthompson69]

The hypothesis posited wasn't one of correlation. From TFA:

"'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health"

That's a hypothesis of causality. Trees *cause* an improvement in people's health.

While finding no correlation may be good enough to exclude that hypothesis, finding correlation is *not* sufficient to lead us to believe in his preferred causality direction.

There are three primary options we must consider when looking at causality within a correlation -> A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B.

In order to do science one must have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes the two options past A causes B.

Re:Bad science

[sjames]

Keep in mind that the wording in an informal interview for laymen may not be exactly the same as in your formal write-up.

Also, since they don't claim to prove that the trees improve health, but only to support that conclusion, the constraint on the hypothesis is similarly relaxed.

Re:Bad science

[girlintraining]

Isn't what this work studied. They correlated a specific insect cause of tree death with human welfare. The methodology was specifically constructed to remove confounding factorsâ" things like air pollution killing both the trees and the humans.

What is testing has, at best, a loose relation with what it set out to prove. The test was "the loss of 100 million trees to the emerald ash borer", but they looked at "the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality." These aren't the same thing. What they were looking at was how many of these insects were present. They concluded that the more of these insects in the area, the higher the mortality rate. The trees are the insects principal food, and it's easier to measure the number of trees in an area than the number of insects.

That isn't to say the research is flawless but it was deeper and more carefully constructed that your slashdot arm-chair-expert off the hip comment gives it credit for.

So what you're saying is this "arm-chair-expert off the hip" person is right -- the research is flawed. Which was the point. And unlike an Anonymous Coward "arm-chair insulter", I provided clear reasoning which many people responded to and asked me to be modded up and that it was, indeed, poor science -- a fact you aren't disputing.

The fact that I only pointed out failings exist and didn't go into great detail studying the study, as it were, appears to be the only source of your disrespect, but you're too afraid to actually post under your own name because you know you're making an ad hominid attack.. but figured that remaining anonymous and kow-towing the popular opinion that girls on slashdot must be stupid would get your comment modded up, and me down, because the moderators don't stop and think anymore about what's actually being said... they just go with their feelings.

The methodology is exactly what I'm attacking: That this correlation justifies their conclusion. It doesn't. I actually have the full study pulled up and had looked at it some time before slashdot posted it to the front page -- and having looked it over, I think it's nice as a piece of exploratory research, but I disagree vehemently with both PBS and the OP's summary of the study -- they take a single correlation and somehow expand it to mean "trees = better health".

That's not what the study said. That's not what the science says. And that's not what I said either. To get to that conclusion requires a lot more data than this single point, which doesn't even show a strong correlation. It hasn't reached a level of statistical importance that would even justify further research. And while yes, there is a "growing body of evidence" that the natural environment provides health benefits... well fucking duh. How is that advancing our knowledge in any meaningful way? It isn't! We already knew that living inside the core of a nuclear reactor is worse for your health than living in the suburb it serves. Duh, of course environment has an impact on health.

But it is amazingly, confoundingly difficult, to say what in the environment causes health benefits. There's very little solid ground to stand on here; Most of what we know is correlative, and weak at best. A lot, and I mean a lot of additional research has to be done before we can even get past those stupid stickers on bottles of oxygen that say "Known to cause cancer in the State of California" let alone to the point where we can confidently start making changes to the environment knowing they will most likely lead to improvements in human health.

That's the state of the art as it exists today, and that's not something being said by a "arm-chair expert" as an "off the hip comment"... but by the majority of the scientific community. And frankly, I feel sorta dirty having to justify the call for more data, and more research... it's the single most commonly heard thing amongst scientists... "Well, the data looks promising, but I think we need to study this more before we draw any conclusions." I've said pretty much exactly that, and I get slapped in the face by jerks like you for being an "arm chair expert"... *shakes head* Really disappointed, slashdot...

Re: Bad science

[girlintraining]

There's no claim that health was correlated with the presence of trees.

From the summary of the article::

'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health.

Re:Bad science

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

Maybe you should try checking for a claim of causation before trotting out the lame correlation != causation cliche. The title of this fine summary is: "Death of Trees Correlated With Human Cardiovascular & Respiratory Disease"

Re:Bad science

[hsthompson69]

You make a good point - science by press release is notorious for turning the most dull and meaningless paper into something exciting and eye catching. Sadly, both the press and the scientists involved are often complicit in the hyping of data in order to garner attention and ultimately funding, either in terms of grants or advertising.

As for supporting any conclusion, they could also have said that health improves trees - their choice of *which* implication to highlight (though neither is proven) is an explicit bias on their part that is both misleading and improper.

Re:Bad science

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Take a look, girl. I'm not sure who "This guy" is.. The study was authored by seven people, six of whom have doctoral degrees. But I'm sure you've outsmarted all of them...

Re:Bad science

[DeathGrippe]

If and when AGW proponents start treating the issue seriously and try to solve it rather than make shitloads off of pecuniary schemes that would at best mitigate less than 10% of any harmful effects(assuming arguendo that their models are correct) while simultaneously greatly reducing quality of life, I will start to take them seriously. Since there's virtually no one demanding massive amounts of money be put into carbon sink research and major geoengineering projects, that time has not yet come.

Totally agree. Not only has that time not come, it will not come until multiple disasters wreak devastation to the extent that the world is forced to allocate the funds that would be required to mitigate the problems. The recent tornadoes are a taste of things to come. Unfortunately, given the way humans are, we will probably not come to that pass until it is too late.

Re: Bad science

[stranger_to_himself]

There's no claim that health was correlated with the presence of trees.

From the summary of the article::

'Well my basic hypothesis was that trees improve people's health.

Yes - that's the hypothesis, but the evidence to support it doesn't come from an observed correlation between trees and health, as previous people have said that would be confounded will all kinds of other factors which would be impossible to measure. The evidence comes from the observed correlation between the pest and health, which is presumably (and this is big assumption) not confounded with other factors, with the presence of trees as the only possible mediating factor.

Re:Bad science

[pepty]

I'm not sure how different the loss of biomass is between MPB and EAB, but I can say I've never seen ash forests tens of thousands of acres in size be completely devastated where tree mortality is clearly over 90%.

With MPB, you have a much larger (and concentrated) loss of biomass while at the same time it is occurring in less densely populated (human-wise) geographies.

I think pine trees might actually be a net source of particulates as far as air pollution goes. They emit a lot of terpenes, which get turned into particulates in sunlight. How about Elm trees? There are plenty of neighborhoods in the midwest that lost 90%+ of their elms due to Dutch Elm disease. The house where I grew up lost 4 out of 5 in as many years, each easily 50 feet wide at the crown.

For all you M. Night Shamylon haters

[GodfatherofSoul]

Suck it!

Well, what do you know

[eksith]

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.

Re:Well, what do you know

[Nidi62]

But seriously, it's no wonder places like The Stanley Hotel are still popular.

It also helps that the hotel was the basis for a very popular Stephen King book and movie, or that it sits in the middle of a beautiful national park.

Re:Well, what do you know

[pspahn]

It also helps that the hotel was the basis for a very popular Stephen King book and movie

The exterior images of which were shot on Mt Hood in Oregon. The actual Stanley hotel does not resemble anything in the movie much at all.

or that it sits in the middle of a beautiful national park.

...a park where tens of millions of trees have died in the last several years due to insects.

Re:Well, what do you know

[Nidi62]

It also helps that the hotel was the basis for a very popular Stephen King book and movie

The exterior images of which were shot on Mt Hood in Oregon. The actual Stanley hotel does not resemble anything in the movie much at all.

Physically no, you are correct. However the story itself was based on that hotel. I don't know about you, but I'd rather stay in the hotel the one in The Shining was based on, not where they did the exterior shots. One of the stories is that Jim Carey couldn't even stay one whole night in the room that is supposed to be most active.

Re:Well, what do you know

[pspahn]

Room 217 I believe. We knocked on that door once when I was younger. The maid answered and didn't speak much English. I wasn't too scared, and in fact it kind of cheapened the whole mystique of the room.

OMGWTFNATURE!

[wbr1]

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.

Re:OMGWTFNATURE!

[the eric conspiracy]

I think it's simple. Trees are relaxing. Less stress makes your health better.

Did you ever notice that everything in Lord of the Rings that kills trees is evil?

JRR was on to something.

Re:OMGWTFNATURE!

[ZombieBraintrust]

Plot lifespan of the human race over the last 1000 years against the estimated number of trees. Tell me what corralation you find.

household income

[ZombieBraintrust]

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.

Re:Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

Please quote to me where causation was claimed.

Re:Haha

[wbr1]

Pardon me while I pull something out a my ass.

So I get my gerbil back?

Re:Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is a joke, right?

[EmagGeek]

It's not April 1, but perhaps they just overslept?

Re:Classic

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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?

Stress Anecdote

[Beorytis]

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.

Re:Haha

[CanHasDIY]

Pardon me while I pull something out a my ass.

So I get my gerbil back?

Lemmiwinks! So that's where you've been hiding!

Re:interesting

[AvitarX]

Yes, by using a localized phenomenon they controlled for the general decline of things such as that.

Pirates and Global Warming

[sisyphu5]

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.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer

[dkleinsc]

"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".

Re:Ask a silly question, get a silly answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Trees are linked with localized reduce wind, reduce pollutants, increase oxygen, increase biodiversity, and partially regulate local temperature year round. There is just as much to assume that his idea is correct as it isn't. Thus why testing is needed and why his idea is called a hypothesis.

I can't believe you are criticizing someone for doing science by stating that the premise hypothesis is not proven already. Do you always criticize things that are not tautologies?

Re:Ask a silly question, get a silly answer

[gr8_phk]

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.

Wow you're stupid. Even if you don't want to sift through all those results and evaluate their validity, that widely held belief should be reason enough to start with that hypothesis.

Re:Ask a silly question, get a silly answer

[dkleinsc]

With the exception of reducing pollutants and increasing oxygen, what do any of those have to do with human health? Humans can be reasonably healthy in high-wind, low-biodiversity, temperature-volatile environments.

My criticism is not "All hypotheses are dumb". It's more of "Hypotheses should be the product of observation and educated guessing, rather than wild guessing." Otherwise, you spend a lot of time and effort testing stupid hypotheses.

Re:Hydrocarbons

[ZombieBraintrust]

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.

Plastics, oil, and methane are hydorcarbons. Do they strengthen my immune system?

Re:Laughable

[sjames]

It does however glance over at it while waggling it's eyebrows meaningfully.

Greenhouse gases! err, Cemetery gases!

[jabberw0k]

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.

Re:Greenhouse gases! err, Cemetery gases!

[Hartree]

Wait a minute. I'm an overweight SUV driver.

Cool! I must be getting double vengeance on all the Japanese Lilac trees here that are blooming and making me sneeze and wheeze!

Re:After accounting for all variables *they know o

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re: After accounting for all variables *they know

[DarrenBaker]

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.

Re:After accounting for all variables *they know o

[gnick]

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.

Re:After accounting for all variables *they know o

[mcl630]

...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.

Re:Classic

[mcl630]

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.

Maybe the tree borers are responsible?

[Toad-san]

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?

Re:Maybe.

[rossdee]

WTF are Arisols ? Do you mean aerosols ?
or perhaps arseholes/assholes

Re:After accounting for all variables *they know o

[flayzernax]

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...

Re:Classic

[Applekid]

So TFS is simultaneously using words that suggest causation, and words that literally depict correlation.

Is this how we become accustomed to doublespeak?

So what if you are in a plains state?

[scorp1us]

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.

Re:Classic

[mcl630]

Since when are poorly-worded/confusing/misleading summaries unusual here?

Mourns-For-Trees

[BergZ]

Now we know which plane Mourns-For-Trees comes from.

Re:Deforestation != Causation

[Will.Woodhull]

Deforestation != Causation

Hmm. I first read that as "Deforestation does not equal Caucasian, which seemed strangely racist. Then I thought maybe it was "Defenestration does not equal Caucasian", which kind of made more sense, since being tossed out a window is pretty much an equal opportunity experience. But that seemed to be stating the obvious.

I got it right on the third read.

That course in speed reading may not have helped my reading comprehension, but it has made my world a more interesting place.

They have it backwards...

[tlambert]

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!

But...

[slashmydots]

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.

Agrilus planipennis Is Right in the Summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Pesticide?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

pesticides kill pests, herbicides kill herbs (plants). Pesticides do not kill herbs.

Re:Pesticide?

[Holi]

All herbicides are pesticides, but not all pesticides are herbicides. A pesticide is any material used to eradicate or suppress any other life form which causes a material or economic loss to humans. Pesticides is a very broad term which includes herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, avicides, acaricides, rodenticides and many others.