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.
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.
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.
"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.
"
Interesting that you picked the NZ study and not one from somewhere else because here Melanoma and car accidents are both big killers due to us having far stronger sun, very low levels of ozone meaning we have the highest incidence of melanoma in the world: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa...
Also, the driving standards here are terrible as are the roads, and there's a lot of old cars still in use with the average age of cars being 14+ years meaning they lack a lot of the modern safety features and given that's an average, there are plenty of cars that are 30+ years old still running around. We have a very high accident rate and many deaths on the roads as a result of poor driving and old vehicles.
Put those together and then consider that smoking sits in between them and then think, how safe is smoking? It is already illegal to smoke in a car with children and there's a push for the country to be completely smoke free by 2025 because that's at least something that can be done to improve health as we can't fix the ozone layer, turn off the sun, or train drivers to not be crap behind the wheel apparently.
As for pollution, NZ is 85% renewable energy so that's nice, but transport makes up a lot of our pollution and the air in cities like Auckland is very poor at some times of the year due to traffic fumes along with a large amount of wood burners. There's very little support to move to EVs (I have one) or to encourage no-polluting heating (I have heatpumps) and there are even efforts to penalise those who generate their own electricity (I have solar) so it is pretty poor in the face of the whole clean green New Zealand image.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
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.
Yes, that pesky nanny state government. Always trying to keep people from getting cancer. Those bastards!