BAD FOR BABIES: Car exhaust has long been linked to respiratory problems, but new research reveals an association with premature births and preeclampsia
Image: 44444 U.A.E/FLICKR
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Women exposed to air pollution from freeways and congested roads are much more likely to give birth to premature babies and suffer from preeclampsia, according to a study by University of California scientists published Wednesday.
The findings, based on pregnant women in the Long Beach/Orange County region of Southern California, add to the growing evidence that car and truck exhaust can jeopardize the health of babies while they are in the womb.
Reviewing the birth records of more than 81,000 infants, researchers found that the risk of having a baby born before 30 weeks of gestation increased 128 percent for women who live near the worst traffic-generated air pollution.
In addition, preeclampsia increased 42 percent for women who lived in those areas, according to the study, published online in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Preclampsia, a serious illness that involves high blood pressure, can endanger the baby and the mother.
The team of scientists from UCLA and University of California, Irvine studied babies born in Long Beach, near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and in adjacent Orange County. Those areas are traversed by several major freeways used by commuters as well as heavy-duty trucks delivering goods to and from the ports.
The infants’ birth records were matched with their addresses and then compared with traffic patterns and estimates of two pollutants—particulates and nitrogen oxides—from vehicles near the mothers’ homes.
The study was unique in that the researchers constructed a database estimating what the pregnant women breathed in their own neighborhoods--within three kilometers, or less than two miles, of their homes. Previous studies have used general air pollution measurements, which is a less accurate estimate of what people are exposed to.
Only traffic-generated emissions were included in the study, not pollutants from factories and other sources.
Fetuses “are in a very sensitive stage of development” that could be vulnerable to the toxic substances inhaled by their mothers, said Jun Wu, an assistant professor of epidemiology at UC Irvine and the study’s lead author.
Other recent studies have linked air pollutants to preterm births and low birth weights. But until now, “no study has associated air pollution with preeclampsia. This is the first one,” Wu said.
Tracey Woodruff, director of University of California, San Francisco’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, said the research offers a relatively “new twist on air pollution,” since most scientists have focused on respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
“This is just one more piece of the scientific evidence that air pollution can have effects on adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said Woodruff, who was not involved in the research.
The babies in the study were born between 1997 and 2006 at four hospitals: Long Beach Memorial and three in Orange County--Anaheim Memorial, Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley and Saddleback Memorial in Laguna Hills.
Maria Gugerty, a Long Beach resident, said she always has wondered what might have caused her son, Will, to be born premature, at 31 weeks. Her son was likely one of the preemies reviewed in the study since he was born at Long Beach Memorial in 1997.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentPretty unconvincing to me on causation. Let's see, if you live near a freeway or a port you are probably poorer. This leads to many other more important consequences than nearby traffic including worse diet, less access to medical care, greater likelihood of obesity, more likely to smoke or use illegal drugs, less likely to excersise, and likely to be under greater stress. Let's face it. The U.S. does not have a significant air pollution problem despite contorted studies like this one to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy oldest daughter was born at 30 weeks and I don't live anywhere near anything. It happens. It's always happened. Pollution is not a very likely cause. This is a study with a political agenda, like many others these days.
Before we blame pollution for everything, even though it isn't a good thing, how does this correlated with past premie birth rates when Los Angles was even worse than it is today. Could we also see a correlation of premies in China where pollution is far worse than in California.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly traffic-generated emissions were included in the study, not pollutants from factories and other sources.
..."
I wonder how the researchers were able to exclude the impact of cigarette smoking, industrial and other sources of air pollution.
I love comments by armchair scientists who have probably not ever constructed a properly formed hypothesis in their entire lives and who wouldn't know the scientific method if it came and bit them on the leg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt that Octo-Mom would agree with this analysis. Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't forget traffic noise as it affects pregnant mothers. I am disappointed the author made no mention of the number of uncontrolled variables. There is no way anybody can make any legitimate conclusions based on this study. It's simply bad science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps JRBobDobbs could enlighten us "armchair scientists" on the conclusions he has drawn from the above article and why he accepts the findings. Also perhaps he could counter our points with some specifics based on his extensive knowledge of the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJRBobDobbs - perhaps you can tell us what firm conclusions you have reached after reading this article and what those conclusions are based upon. Was it the compelling testimonials of the women who had pre-term babies and who lived near a highway? Perhaps you can draw upon your knowledge of the scientific method to address the specific objections of us "armchair scientists". Or could it be that this is just another study trying to make a social statement based on scant evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tend to agree, from someone with no science background. I lived in Riverside and had 2 miscarriages, while 7 of my friends also had miscarriages at the same time. Then I was very early in pregnancy and did now know I was pregnant during the San Diego Wildfires in 2007. I had to work rescue and assist for thousands of evacuees, myself included. We did the best we could for what we had at the time. My daughter ended up with a very rare genetic abnormality and the odds were 1 in 100,000. Seems to have major connections. I would suggest a study around those that were pregnant in the most recent Southern California wildfires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this