ENVIRONMENTAL INFIRMITY: According to the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University Medical School, climate change over the coming decades is likely to increase rates of allergies, asthma, heart disease and cancer, among other illnesses.
Image: Photo courtesy Thinkstock
-
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 »
Dear EarthTalk: Aren’t environmental issues primarily about health? Detractors like to trivialize environmentalists as “tree huggers,” but the bottom line is that pollution makes us sick, right? Wouldn’t people care more if they had a better understanding of that?— Tim Douglas, Stowe, Vt.
No doubt many of the ways we harm our environment come back to haunt us in the form of sickness and death. The realization that the pesticide-laced foods we eat, the smokestack-befouled air we breathe and the petrochemical-based products we use negatively affect our quality of life is a big part of the reason so many people have “gone green” in recent years.
Just following the news is enough to green anyone. Scientific American reported in 2009 that a joint U.S./Swedish study looking into the effects of household contaminants discovered that children who live in homes with vinyl floors—which can emit hazardous chemicals called phthalates—are twice as likely to develop signs of autism as kids in other homes. Other studies have shown that women exposed to high levels of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants common in cushions, carpet padding and mattresses—97 percent of us have detectable levels of these chemicals in our bloodstreams—are more likely to have trouble getting pregnant and suffer from other fertility issues as a result. Cheaply produced drywall made in China can emit so much sulfur gas that it not only corrodes electrical wiring but also causes breathing problems, bloody noses and headaches for building occupants. The list goes on and on....
But perhaps trumping all of these examples is the potential disastrous health effects of global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions may not be directly responsible for health problems at or near their point of release, but in aggregate they can cause lots of distress. According to the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, climate change over the coming decades is likely to increase rates of allergies, asthma, heart disease and cancer, among other illnesses. Also, it is quite likely that, as global temperature rises, diseases that were previously found only in warmer areas of the world may show up increasingly in other, previously cooler areas, where people have not yet developed natural defenses against them. And the loss of rain forest that accompanies increases in temperature means less access to undiscovered medicines and degradation of the environment’s ability to sustain our species.
Given the link between environmental problems and human health, more of us are realizing that what may seem like exorbitant up-front costs for environmental clean-up may well pay us dividends in the end when we see our overall health care costs go down and our loved ones living longer, healthier lives.
To help bridge the understanding gap between environmental problems and human health, the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences offers the free website, Environmental Health News, which features daily reports on research showing how man-made environmental problems correspond to a wide range of individual and public health problems. Even your local TV station or newspaper likely carries an occasional story about the health effects of environmental pollution. We don’t have to look very hard to find examples of environmental neglect leading to human suffering. But with newfound public awareness and the commitment of younger generations to a cleaner future, we are moving in a good direction.
CONTACTS: Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, http://chge.med.harvard.edu; Environmental Health News, www.environmentalhealthnews.org.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentUsing ethanol in a vehicle emits MORE carbon dioxide into the air than using gasoline. WSJ, 10/08/09, p. A16. So, why is the author of this article not interested in the protecting the environment by eliminating biofuel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSel Graham
I am fifty seven years old. For forty years I have heard that the life I live is destroying the planet and making me sick. Keep talking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, anti-scientists waste no time chiming in when you mention the environment. Any fuel that is cultivated and used in a sustainable loop adds no carbon to the atmosphere. This includes ethanol. Petroleum fuels and coal come from the ground. No matter how these are used, they add to the carbon budget. The most economical way to re-solidify and remove this carbon from the atmosphere is to increase the biomass that would retain it. So far, we're not doing a very good job of that because of deforestation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoisoning air and water is bad for your health. Altering our human-friendly climate could eventually put us on the list of endangered species. The mass extinction event occurring now is analogous to the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Except in this case, we have no way out.
The biofuel is made from plants that have taken in CO2 from the atmosphere. What is released is taken back up by the next generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe petroleum, however, has been stored over millions of years and we can burn it up a lot faster than we can re-capture it with today's technology.
I guess I should have read your comment before replying to #1. You've already answered his comment. At least it seems we are in agreement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt helps to read your science more carefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Wirth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDirect me please to the list of species that have become extinct in 2010.
I would settle for: ten mammal species, ten bird species, ten fish species and ten reptile species.
Do not inlude "estimates" of species that are "presumed" to have gone extinct from deforestation, and especially, do not include those species assumed to have become extict that have not even been discovered yet. (I especially like that one.)
Do not include threatened or endangered species.
If the earth is currently experiencing a "mass extinction" this should be a piece of cake.
I think you have to attack pollution on both fronts. The immediate, alla the sulfur gas example, and the future, global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch points will hit home on various people to create a greater, more well rounded, view of the problem.
Perhaps the toxins have affected your mind because single case examples are very wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnlighten me, why are single case examples wrong? If science is observing a mass extinction how can it not observe a single example of that extinction? How else, in other words, does science come to that conclusion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd If you could do so with out the patronizing and condescention I would appreciate it. Thank you
I agree with your thoughts here and I really love your blog! I’ve bookmarked it so that I can come back & read more in the future
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have also given such type of thoughts in my website, you may have a lot:http://www.healthresource4u.com
Here is a perspective that is at least only slightly off topic. Tentative connections are changing climate->lower crop yields->greater social instability; Russia is exporting no wheat this year because of the lower yields there (related to unusual weather) and higher prices in Egypt are fueling the protests there. Population is a general problem, but lower yield combined with higher population creates trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Russia instead sends most of its wheat exports to the Middle East, where they are used to make unleavened flatbreads. Egypt is its largest export market..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10879138
Connecting the dots:
http://www.businessinsider.com/egypts-food-problem-in-a-nutshell-2011-1
I agree that increasing awareness of the link between the environment and health, is the way to change behavior. The key is to personalize the information in an easy and accessible manner and in small increments to people do not get overloaded and then ignore the message.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question was whether or not people would pay more attention to conservation if they understood the links to health. You guys are arguing about fragments, leading yourselves into narrow issues. The author uses examples that may or may not be real important. The question is, if they or other examples ARE important and linked to our health, would we give a damn if we knew about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question was whether or not people would pay more attention to conservation if they were aware of the environmental links to health. The issue isn't whether or not the examples used are correct or significant. Personally I find it hard to believe we are not suffering more and more as a result of a degraded environment, but that's not the issue. The issue is does anyone care if they know about it. Apparently some don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistimbo555,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour request for a list of species that have gone extinct in 2010 is not a “piece of cake” because it is demonstrably impossible — unless one knows for certain the exact location of every last member of a species, it is impossible to be certain when the last one has died. Therefore, “extinction” is defined retrospectively, only after a period has elapsed without observing a living specimen. No such period has elapsed for last year, and so by definition the example you seek cannot exist.
Even this definition of "observation over a period" is suspect, because as the number of members of a species decrease they necessarily become more difficult to observe, making it possible to declare a species extinct only to have it observed later. Extinction of a species cannot by definition be certain even after hundreds of years.
However, it is not the actual extinction of species that has many scientists worried about a current “mass extinction.” It is the trend that is worrisome. Say a species had millions of members but has been reduced to a couple thousand spread over such a wide area that it becomes difficult to breed, making them susceptible to disease and predation. Such a species might be observed every day by many people, yet almost certainly doomed to extinction. This should be worrisome, although it is not extinction by definition.
Yes, this makes it speculation. After falling 29 feet from my 30 foot roof I might also speculate that, although I am currently unhurt, the next foot is going to be a bad one. Speculation comes in degrees of certainty, even if absolute certainty cannot be attained. I suspect that you too would prepare for the worst after 29 feet, even without certainty. You, like me, might prepare for the worst once it became obvious that you were going to fall.
I believe it is prudent to speculate, and to speculate early and reassess often when the consequences are dire.
Polluted environment is not only bad for physical health but it is bad for mental health.We are destroying beauty of nature and making hell to this earth.I think main reason is western man`s fear psychology. Western man`s psyche based on fear to overcome this fear they are constantly want conquer the nature want to make themselves self.They are inventing new and new technology and polluting world.To save the world from this hell we must stop future research in science.and technology,stop to think himself God Enough is enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read this article in my local newspaper about "Global Warming will lead to more health issues". This claim that "Climate Change" is likely to increase rates of allergies, asthma, heart disease and cancer, seems to me maybe a bit of speculation. My question is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do they know this and why do they never tell us some specifics just how these illness be increased by a 1 deg rise in temperature? On this earth right now, we have a wide difference in temperatures from the 120 degree F in the middle east, to -20 degrees in the places inside the Artic Circle (example). That’s a spread of 170 degrees, and man seems to do well in adapting to both these extremes. There are no scientific based warnings that tell us that that living in the Northwest Territories, for example, causes any health risks.
Now as near as I understand the average temperature increase in the last century is about 1 degree C which is about 1.8 degrees F. Assuming that they are basing their warnings on another 1.8 Degree F increase, how can this be when right now we experience wide variations much greater that 1.8 degrees.
I have lived and worked in Saudi Arabia and in the Northwest Territories of Canada and can testify that the people live and thrive in both extremes.
AJSP
If you think technology is bad why are you using it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the link to <a href="http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/">Environmental Health News</a>!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this