Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
A direct effect on human health related to climate change is the likely increase in infectious diseases transmitted by insects or through contaminated water.
In the March 25th issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, infectious disease researcher Emily Shuman points out that insects are more active at higher temperatures and broaden their range. Altered weather patterns bring drought to some areas, flooding to others and a higher likelihood of water contamination to both.
The World Health Organization predicts a 3 to 5 percent increase in the population at risk for malaria with a temperature increase of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. And two degrees is our best-case scenario right now. The WHO also sees 10 percent more diarrheal diseases related to unclean water by 2030 due to climate change.
Shuman urges the development of warning systems to spot disease outbreaks early, along with continued research into treatments and vaccines, which, she writes, “will go a long way in preventing human suffering that could otherwise occur as a result of climate change.” [See http://bit.ly/bQhdJX]
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentGood Lord!!! Will you people get off the "climate change" kick already!! Oh but wait... summer is coming here in the US so its time to promote the cause. Long hard winters make that tricky. I know... you've GOT to sell magazines to stay in business. Just like the tabloids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@morebhp - Do you know the difference between WEATHER AND climate? I didn't think so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople like you are ignoring DECADES of data and research because of your own ill-formed opinion?
Please, take a science refresher course so you can begin to understand the issues.
I realize your modus operandi is to paint detractors as stupid. Thats fine. Go for it. Our difference lies in who's data we believe. I don't trust any and all sources of data like you believers. You act as if ANYONE with a PhD is a believer. We both know that is not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience refresher? Thanks for the great tip. How cute. I'm sure if I took a few courses I'd suddenly see the earth is about to burn up and we should all bury our cars and eat grass. I just need to be sure to choose professors who subscribe to the doomsday view. Have any recommendations? I'm waiting with baited breath.
@Morebhp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are coming across as a arrogant and ignorant science illiterate.
Trent. --Thanks for the note. I'll try to shape up on any subsequent posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@morebhp - In reality you know nothing about me or my modus. Where did I mention anything about PhD or degrees - or even different comparisons of data? Like your first post you assume way too much and your own words give you away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a big difference between seeing obviously, factually incorrect statements and assuming someone is stupid. I did not assume you were stupid, but unfortunately (for you) the more you post the more you work against yourself.
Back to my question to you - do you know the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE? Because your first post strongly indicates that you do not.
If you did understand that difference your posts would obviously be different. The Science refresher could certainly clarify the difference, which I am intentionally not listing here.
Candide, I'm not going to play your game and answer your loaded questions. You'll criticize any answer I give. I'm not interested in giving you a platform to demagogue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who does not accept the big global warming hoax gets treated on this site like they flunked 3rd grade science. Questions like yours are just more of the same. It's always the same "you don't know anything about science" sort of comments. That's not very persuasive or convincing. But don't change, its entertaining.
30 years ago, conventional science was predicting a global ice age. Now its just the opposite and we are all supposed to roll over and buy into it. (I'm sure you'll have some poignant comments to discredit that little "inconvenient truth".) Thats fine. Doesn't diminish my confidence in the least. The burden of proof is on you, You are the one with the doomsday prediction.
@morebhp - "You are the one with the doomsday prediction."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere, exactly did I say anything like that (my bet is that you will not answer this question either)?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Keep on posting, its much better than anything I could say.
Oh come now. We all know how the story goes. Climate change is going to do all sorts of horrible things. This article is just an example of the horror that lies before us. Did you read this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismorebhp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, your post that "30 years ago, conventional science was predicting an ice age" shows that you are simply perpetuating misinformation. What you say is true, but what you conclude from it is entirely unfounded.
In 1972, the eminent scientist J.S. Sawyer predicted a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 by 2000, along with a 0.6C temp increase. This was based on extensive study of CO2 and it's effect, extremely well documented since the 1800's, on greenhouse warming. Other scientists noted that according to the Milankovitch cycles (astronomical changes in Earth orbit), which were, and are, extremely well correlated with minor historic climatic changes, predicted a period of cooling. Both camps were absolutely correct. CO2 and temps did rise. And all climatologists understand that Milankovitch cycles are extremely reliable, and so the warming we see is actually even more alarming in light of the fact that we should indeed be entering a minor cooling phase. So, your statement shows that you know little about either the scientific or historical context of your facts, and your conclusions are absurd in light of them. You ridicule the scientists with incorrect assumptions and conclusions which are historiccaly incorrect, misleading, and insulting to the scientists themselves. It appears you are getting your information, probably indirectly which would explain your fuzzy facts, from the very well-funded misinformation campaigns of Exxon-Mobil et. al.
2009 (when the misinformation sellers said we were cooling) was in fact the second warmest year on record globally. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. I have not yet heard the final word on the northern hemisphere winter, but the Feb. cold snap was not a climate event, it was a weather event. You should consider reading a great primer on weather and climate, on how this winter did not negate climate science, and on the Artic Oscillation and El Nino, both of which were correctly predicted by NOAA.
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/snowstorms.html
candide -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice try, but you cannot conduct a rational argument with an individual who cannot communicate with reasoned premises.
Try not to waste your intelligence on those who have no interest in an intelligent, respectful dialogue. Just not worth your valuable time.
Candide,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo yourself a favor and try not to waste time with individuals who have no interest in a rational, objective, respectful argument.
Not worth your valuable time....
candide -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice try, but you cannot conduct a rational argument with an individual who cannot communicate with reasoned premises.
Try not to waste your intelligence on those who have no interest in an intelligent, respectful dialogue. Just not worth your valuable time.
what diarrheal means
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat diarrheal means
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this