It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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?