It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Loss of Trees Linked to Higher Death Rates in Humans

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 04:50 AM
Hi peeps...

With all the for this and against that. I have become very concerned about what studies are legit and what are not. I am having much doubt in myself being able to determine which is which and what is what. So without further a due I shall leave it up to your good selves to determine the legitimacy of the below article...

Loss of trees affects many things. Especially our biosphere. Now there is reason to believe that the loss of trees has a link to higher death rates according to a study conducted by the US Forest Service...

A team from the U.S. Forest Service, led by Geoffrey Donovan, set out to see what effect the loss of all these trees was having, if any, on human health. The researchers examined mortality data from 1,296 counties where ash borers are present, comparing pre-invasion figures to those after the massive tree die-off, from 1990 to 2007.

After adjusting their findings for demographic variables, like income and education, the team discovered a startling association: fewer trees aligned with more human deaths.

From the study: ~

There was an increase in mortality related to cardiovascular and lower-respiratory-tract illness in counties infested with the emerald ash borer. The magnitude of this effect was greater as infestation progressed and in counties with above-average median household income. Across the 15 states in the study area, the borer was associated with an additional 6113 deaths related to illness of the lower respiratory system, and 15,080 cardiovascular-related deaths.

Study link: ~
NB: to view the full paper you have to download the pdf or register and then purchase..


p.s. I did do a search for this as I always do before posting a thread. But found no results...
edit on 12-6-2013 by fluff007 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:22 AM
Interesting stuff.
Since we kind a significant quantity of our air from trees, it does make sense that cutting them down would have some effect on the air quality.
I haven't read the report. But I just like to point out that just because there is an apparent correlation between the two, it doesn't mean that one caused the other. Perhaps the increases in respiratory diseases are due to increased amounts of industrial pollution or something entirely different. I imagine that most places that has experienced significant loss of forest areas have also experienced increased industrial activity.

I guess my point is that it is all connected. It sounds pretty plausible that cutting down trees would have an effect, but I doubt it's exclusively why.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:28 AM
So from your quoted text, this affects counties infested with the Emerald Ash Borer.

What about places that lose trees/forests and don't have that insect?

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Philippines

So from your quoted text, this affects counties infested with the Emerald Ash Borer.

What about places that lose trees/forests and don't have that insect?

Yes that is what the study has said.. Well I would imagine if the places that lose trees at the same rate as the states in which the trees have been killed by an insect. The you would think that the same would apply..

Maybe there is a certain ratio of number of trees lost to number of deaths. It is a possibility. But obviously more research would need to be done...

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by Mads1987

I am not saying that one may have caused the other. I was just informing people of an interesting study that had been done and the relationship they found between the trees that were lost and the people that were lost..

Losing trees is not going to help anyway. But there might be a correlation between the two. More research should be done..

new topics

top topics

log in