Toxic Air Pollution Particles Found In Human Brains (theguardian.com)

Damian Carrington, writing for The Guardian: Toxic nanoparticles from air pollution have been discovered in human brains in "abundant" quantities, a newly published study reveals. The detection of the particles, in brain tissue from 37 people, raises concerns because recent research has suggested links between these magnetite particles and Alzheimer's disease, while air pollution has been shown to significantly increase the risk of the disease. However, the new work is still a long way from proving that the air pollution particles cause or exacerbate Alzheimer's. "This is a discovery finding, and now what should start is a whole new examination of this as a potentially very important environmental risk factor for Alzheimer's disease," said Prof Barbara Maher, at Lancaster University, who led the new research. "Now there is a reason to go on and do the epidemiology and the toxicity testing, because these particles are so prolific and people are exposed to them." Air pollution is a global health crisis that kills more people than malaria and HIV/Aids combined and it has long been linked to lung and heart disease and strokes. But research is uncovering new impacts on health, including degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, mental illness and reduced intelligence.

Comments

Correlation does not imply causation

[JoeyRox]

This is particularly true for Alzheimer's, where research has had several false starts trying to correlate cellular-level brain observations to the disease.

Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause

[gurps_npc]

Frankly, we haven't done a good job managing pollution. Not enough research - generally because entrenched interests fight attempts to do the research. And too much partisan politics involved. Issue got pegged as liberal vs conservative rather than healthy vs non-healthy

Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be easy to test. Extremely polluted countries or regions (Bangladesh, parts of India, parts of China) should have higher incidence or earlier onset or both of Alzheimer's if this is true. If they don't - then it must be some other factor. Perhaps it is the same thing that allows Alzheimer's to form Amyloid plaques also allows these particles to cross the blood-brain barrier? In which cause there is only correlation and no causation.

Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is that those areas have generally poor levels of health and healthcare anyway, and people don't live long enough to see the expected effects. If it brings on problems 10 years earlier but the subject dies of something else first...

It's very difficult to do controlled studies on humans like this, which is why mice are often used. Also, you don't have to wait decades to see the results in mice.

Chemtrails!

[ashshy]

Right? :)

Spoiler Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you look at first world rates of cancer/Alzheimers, is this really surprising? Like, at all?

SOMETHING out there is causing it, and writing it off as a "disease of age" isn't going to bring us any closer to a solution.

Takes me back to my time working at a paint store. The company went to great lengths to make their paint formulas as environmentally safe and healthy (as low VOC) as possible for the environment/customer.

Try and tell that to the customer, though... and the response was always "that sh!t don't work" or "that sh!t don't hold up" gimme the "good stuff". We also need to convince people that this is something worth fighting/changing our ways for.

Maybe the evidence that all this pollution and who-knows-what-the-hell-else is actually showing up in our brains will be the push people need.

Nuclear Testing.

[zenlessyank]

I'm sure all those nuclear tests and all that nuclear material that got blasted into the upper atmosphere has had NO effect on humanity. I am also sure that the underwater detonations in the ocean had no effect either.

Democracy Always Fails To Avoid Social Problems

[alternative_right]

Democracy is really good at promising welfare and benefits for individuals, because those vote in groups, but not for avoiding actual problems, which will inconvenience someone.

Think about what must be done to reduce air pollution: someone must give up their cars, or not get one, or have them be too expensive; somebody's imports must cost more because we limit sea shipping; someone will have their dreams dashed because they cannot engage in landfill-producing or energy-intensive practices to launch their interpretive dance studio or artisanal dildo factory.

Limiting our impact is anti-democratic because it is anti-individualistic. And no one wants to be the first to live in poverty without cars, cheap imports or foolish vainglorious hopes and dreams.

Re:toxic

[MightyMartian]

Not to worry. Someone is making money, so it's fine if pollutants kill our brains and bodies. All that matters is the rich get richer with as few impediments as possible.

Re:effect can't be too dramatic

[mlegatt]

It has been - e.g., http://www.apa.org/monitor/201.... Because they're caused by ultrafine particulates (something which is harder to track relative to the larger PM10 and PM2.5), it takes long term exposure and accumulation to be better detectable. Also UFPM moves different than PM10/2.5 relative to wind, and is emitted in inconsistent ratios (e.g., from combustion across natural gas, coal, petroleum, etc.). For example, the two main sources of UFPM from driving an internal combustion vehicle are due to combustion (out of the tailpipe), and the metals released from frictional breaking. Since EVs and hybrids tend to rely on regenerative breaking and use less/no gasoline, both sources are addressed.

Found, now what?

[buck-yar]

So toxic particles are in our brains, how do we get them out, chelating?