Death of Trees Correlated With Human Cardiovascular & Respiratory Disease

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @06:58AM from the newspapers-now-a-public-health-menace dept.

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."

3 of 152 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Before assuming "they didn't control for" by pepty · 2013-06-11 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

and posting your indignant observation, please check and see if they did.
1. Re:Before assuming "they didn't control for" by gstoddart · 2013-06-11 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Bad science by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 07:24 · Score: 5, Informative

> 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.