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.
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.
Especially considering they are lumping poor hygiene and lack of sanitation (aka "being poor") with air pollution
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.
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.
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.
Scientific studies conducted in Bangladesh by the NIH show that child death that occurs, parents make two more to ensure that some survive into adulthood. Something like if two children die, four extra are made. Families where no children have died are much smaller than families where multiple children have died. And yes, they accounted for the whole correlation/causation thing. This is the single biggest factor to the TFR.
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.
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.
Your family goes first.
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe my brain has been poisoned by pollution.
By the way, one doesn't have to stay in one place. They could be poisoned in cities and move to the country to fit in with others like them. Maybe poison in the cities could mean more low-IQ migrants to rural areas.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
Ah yes. Because the countryside is free of pollution
Perhaps you were subjected to too much manure as a child to be able to tell when someone is feeding you more of it.
Or perhaps they are deliberately vague so the stats can be abused by people who cite them in order to try to lend credence to their broad assumptions.
there might be some effort to work on these other big problems.
But that might make more CO2, so forget about it.
Nixon created the EPA to short-circuit the leftist environmental movement that was emerging as the Vietnam war wound down. They needed something new to protest about when the war was gone.
Long term, the strategy backfired, as could have been predicted. Leftists took over the EPA and advanced their anti-industrial agenda.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It goes through cycles.
Table-ized A.I.
Projection. Your counter-theory bad two unproven assumptions.
Table-ized A.I.
Correction: "had", not "bad". Mondays.
Table-ized A.I.
There's some evidence that lack of exposure to filth at an early age causes allergies later in life. I suppose it's a matter of degree; minor exposure allows the body to learn to handle problems, major exposure overwhelms the young body and kills it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If the labeling standards/metrics are poor, people want them improved. Just because the metrics are poor now doesn't mean people want to keep them that way. Many also believe that poor labeling standards are better than no standards. Arguments can be made both ways on that.
I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.
Table-ized A.I.
No, there is a difference between label standards (which we have), poor label standards (the gmo project), and outright denial of science and facts of labels like Food Babe and using fear and ignorance to sale homeopathy. There is nothing to label for something that has no problems found in any study.
I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.
Yes, both sides have problems with science and use it to push their political goals. Glad we both can agree that each party err "side" is bad for science for different reasons.
But Democrats are making everything about race so your post has everything to do about race because reasons and muh racist republitards. Therefore;
I resent the fact that you called me a racist in your post and will demand an apology because fuck you that is why and respect me because I am fucking better than you. BTW vote for me even though you are a piece of shit. /s
Democrats are fun people.
Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You appear to be meandering now. Homeopathy wasn't mentioned before. Are you claiming homeopathy is a progressive thing?
Table-ized A.I.
If only there was a network of information that you could use to find out what I am talking about instead of acting like a disingenuous partisan fool. You can search Food Babe and the gmo project. Although, it is easier to act like a disingenuous partisan fool than to have your bubble popped by reality.
Good luck. I think you are going to need it.
Vague fool.
Table-ized A.I.
lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?
Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.
I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.
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.
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.