It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Asthma Rate and Costs from Traffic Pollution Higher: Much Higher Than Past Traditional Risk Assessme

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Asthma Rate and Costs from Traffic Pollution Higher: Much Higher Than Past Traditional Risk Assessments Have Indicated


www.sciencedaily.com

A research team led by University of Massachusetts Amherst resource economist Sylvia Brandt, with colleagues in California and Switzerland, have revised the cost burden sharply upward for childhood asthma and for the first time include the number of cases attributable to air pollution, in a study released this week in the early online version of the European Respiratory Journal.

The total cost of asthma due to pollution is much higher than past traditional risk assessments have indicated....
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.sciencedaily.com
www.sciencedaily.com
www.sciencedaily.com
www.sciencedaily.com




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I have often advised many of the friends I have that are fanatical about going for a jog and chastising smokers that they need to reconsider their assumptions about how clean their lungs are.

For many years I have been sounding the 'not-science-but-an-observation' bell....

If you spend an hour running along (or even relatively near) a well-trafficked road, you might be loading your respiratory channel with the equivalent of a couple of cigarettes' worth of tar and pollutants.

Routinely scoffed at, I found this article a reaffirmation of the idea.


For this work, Brandt and colleagues analyzed several surveys on health care visits by children with asthma and their previous estimates of the number of asthma cases attributable to pollution to estimate the annual costs of childhood asthma. They also estimated the cost of asthma exacerbation due to regional air pollutants. They feel the new method does a better job of accounting for the full impact of traffic-related pollution and will be widely applicable in urban areas.

She points out, “Traditional risk assessment methods for air pollution have underestimated both the overall burden of asthma and the cost of the disease associated with air pollution. Our findings suggest the cost has been substantially underestimated and steps must be taken to reduce the burden of traffic-related pollution.”

This work was supported by California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District and its settlement funds from BP, as well as by the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Hastings Foundation.


((emphasis mine))

The question for a conspiracy theorist is this: Why would the obvious truth be so severely and definitely underestimated, and for so long?

Is it because it messes up actuarial tables for the insurance agencies? Is it because you wouldn't be able to claim higher rates for urban dwellers without angry mobs 'occupying' your parking lots? Or could it be something else?

Your thoughts are welcome.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Originally posted by Maxmars
The question for a conspiracy theorist is this: Why would the obvious truth be so severely and definitely underestimated, and for so long?


Reporting the truth about air pollution by cars would force government agencies to move away from gas-powered vehicles and onto alternative fuel vehicles, severely affect the oil industry? Skewing the pollution numbers low (which would be ea$y for $ome big corporation$ to do through lobbyi$t$) would let the people think that everything's OK and drill, baby, drill...

In other words, profit is the first, last and only concern.

That's my guess.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
As an asthmatic and a smoker this subject is highly interesting to me.

I've often opined that smoking is used as a scapegoat for industrial and automotive pollution, particularly as the number of smokers is continually reducing while asthma is increasing.

People seem blind to the obvious - I've had people complain about me smoking within 10 feet of them while stood right next to a busy stretch of road. They fail to understand that the tiny amounts of smoke they may inhale from my cigarette (however unlikely or impossible that is) is nothing compared to the sheer volume of pollution pouring from the exhausts of the vehicles that surround us and the factories belching smoke into the sky every day.

There could be a variety of explanations, but I would assume that if the true extent of the damage done by pollution was revealed then there would be serious financial and legal consequences for the corporations involved. This is especially true if, as I believe, that this pollution is the leading cause of lung cancer - not smoking.

I wouldn't suggest for a minute that smoking is a healthy habit, but I sincerely doubt it is as harmful as we are told - it's just too convenient.
edit on 26/1/2012 by Malvenkemo because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
From an "observational" standpoint, crowded roads and the pollution they create can literally make you sick.

I used to have a nifty little convertible sports car. On pleasant days in the DFW area, after work, I would put the top down for the drive home. Time and time again I would be caught in stop-and-go traffic on 35-E, for up to an hour at a time. All those car exhaust fumes would make me totally ill, by the time I got home, I would be headachey, nauseous, dizzy, and be coughing a lot. Plus I would be irritable and cranky because, if you've ever driven in DFW, you know how completely insane the drivers are there. Rude, pushy, and dangerous.

There is something about rush hour traffic which negatively affects people's health, not only physically but mentally.

If I observe something in life, but scientific papers say something different, I simply ignore the papers. After all, science has come out and stated some things as "facts", only to turn around and have to retract their statements and put out new facts that directly contradict the old facts. For instance, remember when they told us that egg yolks were dangerous for our health, and so was coffee and chocolate? Now they're coming out saying that egg yolks are full of healthful vitamins and minerals, and coffee and chocolate do wonders for our health.

Science "fact" as it is put out today usually has a corporate sponsor behind it. This makes their "facts" irrelevant and subject to change at a moment's notice. I go with what I have experienced, that is the only "fact" I can trust.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Malvenkemo
 


Interestingly, I recently had a conversation with several asthmatic smokers who all told me the same thing; despite what they've been told - whenever they have an asthma event (I hesitate to use the word 'attack') if they have a cigarette they actually breathe easier.

I can't help but wonder about that. If you feel comfortable saying so, have you found the same?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes, interestingly enough I have found that to be the case as well. Very often when I'm having difficulty breathing cigarette smoke will alleviate the problem. I know several people who also find the same to be true.

Obviously it's no substitute for my inhaler (or another flammable substance that I shouldn't mention, which is a powerful bronchodilator), but it does fly in the face of the accepted 'facts'.


edit on 26/1/2012 by Malvenkemo because: Additional information



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


I completely agree with your view on science FissionSurplus. It reminds me of the end of Michael Crichton's 'The Lost World' -

"A hundred years from now, people will look back at us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what
people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies.

"And meanwhile, you feel the way the boat moves? That's the sea. That's real. You smell the salt in the air? You feel the sunlight on your skin? That's all real. You see all of us together? That's real.

"Life is wonderful. It's a gift to be alive, to see the sun and breathe the air. And there isn't really anything else."
edit on 26/1/2012 by Malvenkemo because: Spelling




top topics



 
2

log in

join