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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene
This last one doesn't seem like it really fits in with the others too well. Certainly impoverished people may not necessarily be able to afford the chemicals needed for good hygiene, or they might lack the education to know why hygiene is important, but impoverished people in countries with good anti-pollution policies and with otherwise strong economies may also have problems with hygiene and possibly for the same reasons.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Thinning out the herd starting with children who can't hack it due to pollution isn't such a bad thing. Along with the ones who can't be in the same room as a peanut. Let Darwinism run its course already
Why are all these children exposed to all this pollution? Because their social run precludes the possibility of applying political and economic pressure to the task of keeping the environment clean.
Far more than 1 in 4 babies are born dirt-poor. Their communities have no means of dealing with this problem, and never will.
The first world can self-regulate on pollution all it wants...the third world will keep right on dumping on everyone below them. They must, in order to survive.
Abortions are becoming harder to get, but Trump is making up for that by lifting the bans on coal waste being dumped into streams. The net result should be just as many, if not more, children dying off before they reach maturity and put more of a strain on the economy.
On top of that, he's also encouraging people to avoid vaccinating their children. This is just another facet in his ingenious plan to eliminate overpopulation.
We're going to Make America Great Again, just like the old days when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire periodically and thousands of children died from polio every year.
But doesn't this help lower our carbon footprint by reducing population growth?
Especially considering they are lumping poor hygiene and lack of sanitation (aka "being poor") with air pollution
This means relatively fewer deaths from famine and disease. I dare hope that someday accidents will become the #1 killer of children.
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.
100% is no longer cap or limit on number of deaths.
The WHO has lost the ability to do simple math; hence their statements are no longer believable.
"pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives" cannot be more than 30% since
25% is due to "unhealthy environments"
45% is due to "malnutrition"
What about war, drowning, starvation (which is different from malnutrition)?
A recent New Zealand study found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.
So unless you want to start banning cars and going out in the sun, STFU about casual second hand smoke. Walking through that cloud on your way into the restaurant isn't as dangerous as driving to get there. I'm not suggestion people should take steps on their own to avoid it or not expose their children to it, but enough is enough from the nanny state governments of the world.
Smoking does not cause cancer, lung disease or other ailments. It increases the risk that someone will get them. Just as driving does not cause automobile crashes, it just increases the risk of having one.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Strangely, 3/4 of all childhood deaths are due to pristine lands without any industry or modernity.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That's why Trump gave the EPA post to someone that hates regulation. People in cities will be most affected and who needs them anyway.
WHO says that 3.3 million deaths linked to indoor air pollution.
WHO Assistant Director-General Family, Women and Children's Health says "Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves."
Providing electricity or gas mechanisms for cooking could solve those 3.3 million deaths. But that simply requires some level of economic development.
Too many people anyway. Gaia must be put back in balance. This is the way nature works, not like some Disney film.
More mouths to feed with cheap Monsanto and ADM nutrition-free GMO starch. Who needs them other than Monsanto, Bayer, and ADM.
I would love to see the breakdown. Lack of access to clean water is probably the #1 cause of infant in 3rd world shitholes. How convenient to lump "make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." together to fit the agenda
there might be some effort to work on these other big problems.
But that might make more CO2, so forget about it.
Religion and politics are birth control through other means.
How many children die due to abortion each year...seems like we need to rethink WHO is to blame.
The world is laughing at us for being libs and SJWs with respect to the environment, but TRUMP is fixing that. With his choice of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, Stephen Bannon from Goldman Sachs as his de facto chief domestic advisor, denial of climate change, and his commitment to revive to coal industry in the US midwest.
U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!
Wait, what fraction of childhood deaths come from greenhouse gases? We need to focus on that first. It's the most important thing in the world.
It never killed anybody to put a GMO indicator on the package label. If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product. Most progressives are NOT for outright banning GMO's, just a label. Freedom.
Table-ized A.I.
If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.
Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).
Most progressives
You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progressives" so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.
just a label. Freedom.
No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science. If you want science to inform government policy then you would be against "just a label" salesmen and positions like Food Babe and non-gmo project.
Want to talk about what labels may need or not need? You don't start from a position of ignorance and fear to inform your solution.
I assure you I have no sinister intent. More precision would have made the writing verbose, and most people prefer short over precise in my experience.
Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects. I don't wish to delve there today. Maybe if those topics become primary /. topics I'll revisit.
Table-ized A.I.
Says WHO?
Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects.
I have had my fair share of time dedicated to this topic. And as I have said it is primarily based on pseudo-science that as a voting demographic tend toward the D.
I think the phrase, 'don't throw rocks in a glass house' comes to mind. Each party denies science they just disagree which science they dislike. Except vaccines. Some reason that has bipartisan denial.