“My pregnancy was completely fine, but all of a sudden my water broke. It seemed completely random and the doctors were never able to determine any physical reason for it,” she said. “I was so careful during my pregnancy. No alcohol, no smoking and a good diet. So I’ve always wondered if it was something in the environment, not necessarily air pollution but the environment in general.”
Another Long Beach mother, Susan Taylor, said her doctor thought a gum infection most likely was the cause of her daughter, Maddy, being born early, also at 31 weeks. But, she said, “we did live near a very busy, noisy intersection.”
Like most women, Gugerty and Taylor didn't know there was a connection between air pollution and pregnancies. But Gugerty said that she “absolutely” worries about the potential health effects of the pollution around her home in Long Beach. Her son, now 12, has asthma.
About half of the babies included in the study were born in Long Beach. Air pollution experts have said that people living in that area faced a variety of increased health risks, including cancer and reduced lung function, due to heavy traffic and other sources of air pollution related to the ports and freeways.
Every year, more than half a million infants are born prematurely in the United States. In the study, 8 percent of the 81,186 babies were preterm, including 1 percent that were “very preterm,” or under 30 weeks of gestation.
The link to air pollution was strongest for the “very preterm” babies, who often weigh less than three pounds and have the greatest risk of serious health problems. The researchers compared women who lived in areas with the most traffic-related pollution with women who lived in areas with the least traffic pollution. Those in the polluted areas were 128 percent more likely to deliver “very preterm” babies.
The risk of less severe preterm babies—those born between 30 and 37 weeks--was about 30 percent higher for women living in the areas with a lot of traffic emissions.
About 3 percent of the study’s pregnant women had preeclampsia, which can result in premature babies. Its causes are unknown, although doctors think it is related to abnormal growth of the placenta.
The new study focused on “an important area of research, since there are a lot of reasons to believe that there is something happening with environmental chemicals and preeclampsia,” Woodruff said. “Women with preeclampsia have high blood pressure, and some air pollutants can increase blood pressure. This is a serious condition, and these women are at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Scientists are uncertain how air pollutants might trigger premature babies. The chemicals may interfere with placental development, which would impair the nutrients and oxygen delivered to the fetus. Or they could trigger oxidative stress—when cells are overwhelmed and DNA is damaged by reactive compounds in the environment called free radicals.
Wu said it is likely that other pollutants are to blame, not the fine particles and nitrogen oxides. Instead, those two pollutants could be an indicator of other toxic compounds in vehicle exhaust, such as polycyclic aromatic compounds. A recent study of babies in New York City linked those compounds, called PAHs, to preterm and low-weight babies.
Wu said doctors should warn pregnant women about air pollution because “they should be aware of these issues.” While most can’t move to avoid traffic emissions, Wu said they might be able to take precautions, such as reducing their commutes or closing their windows in cars and homes.
But avoiding air pollution is virtually impossible, Woodruff said, so “pregnant women should be aware of the risks and advocate for the kinds of [government] actions that reduce overall exposure to air pollution.”
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