Slashdot Mirror
Pollution Responsible For a Quarter of Deaths of Young Children, Says WHO (theguardian.com)
More than 1 in 4 deaths of children under 5 years of age are attributable to unhealthy environments. Every year, environmental risks -- such as indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene -- take the lives of 1.7 million children under 5 years, say two new WHO reports. The Guardian adds: "A polluted environment is a deadly one -- particularly for young children," says Dr Margaret Chan, director-general of the WHO. "Their developing organs and immune systems -- and smaller bodies and airways -- make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." The harm from air pollution can begin in the womb and increase the risk of premature birth. After birth, air pollution raises the risk of pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives, and of lifelong lung conditions such as asthma. It may also increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer in later life.
It's so they can include natural dirty water, Malaria and other parasite deaths in the number and make a nice inflammatory headline.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm beginning to think conservatives like pollution because it causes enough brain damage to make one vote Republican, expanding their voter base.
I know this claim will anger a lot of conservatives, but it's the best explanation I can find for their irrational behavior and conspiracy nuttiness.
Heh, your theory is flawed. I believe it's fairly common knowledge that people in areas with lots of pollution (big cities) tend to be far more democrat leaning that people who live around clean air (the country.)
Perhaps you were subjected to too much pollution as a child to realize that fairly obvious conclusion to your line of thought.
Yes, pollution is bad for your health. In no way is that a false statement.
At the same time, living in a pre-industrial society is also very bad for your health. As it living in a poorer society for a number of important reasons.
And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.
Of course, by the same vein that not all polluting activities are harmful on the margin, not all are beneficial on the margin either. Clearcutting rainforest to make room for banana groves is almost certainly a net harm. Burning natural gas to electrify rural areas that didn't previously have power is almost certainly a net gain. In between there's a whole realm of less obvious answers.
There's a future where all our power comes from nuclear and renewable and all our food is grown or synthesized on a small amount of land. We aren't there yet, and so we have to pick and chose.
And democrats are any better? Did you see the last candidate they put forward for POTUS? That bitch be whack yo.
Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.
Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservative and behold the "Uncle Tom" and "race traitor" comments!
At least vaccine denial has bipartisan support.
Just an idea; The ends do not justify the means. Democrats were definitely worse this time around about that particular ideal and seemed to have forgotten what that phrase even means to put forward a candidate like Clinton. Sheesh. Get out of your echo chamber once in a while. I agree with their policy. I do not agree with their actions. Actions speak louder than words and their actions are horrible.
One of the primary differences, though, is that you choose to get into a car, or to put on/not put on sunscreen/etc.
Second-hand smoke, air pollution, etc., are unavoidable in some areas (and "move to the middle of an uninhabited swath of land" isn't really a viable option for some people). It's the difference between getting bit by your own dog and getting bit by someone else's.