Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Small increases in air pollution that are well below current safety limits can raise the risk of lung cancer and heart attacks, according to two new studies.
Researchers found that long term exposure to microscopic particles of soot at levels similar to those found in suburban areas of Britain can increase the risk of lung cancer by up to 36 per cent.
The short term impact of the same levels of these sooty particles, which are produced by diesel exhausts, also increased the risk of being admitted to hospital or dying from heart failure by two per cent.
The particles, which are more than 100 times small than a human hair, can become lodged in the lungs and pass through into the blood stream, causing inflammation.
The scientists behind the two studies say that their findings indicate that current safety limits on air pollution are still too high and need to be lowered.
Air pollution could raise diabetes risk - TelegraphChildren who live near busy roads may be at greater risk of developing diabetes later in life, a study suggests.
Researchers found that children living in areas with higher levels of air pollution, for example from exhaust fumes, are more likely to develop insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes, by the age of 10.
Previous studies have shown that women in heavily polluted areas tend to have smaller babies, and low birth weight is known to raise the risk of type 2 diabetes, providing a possible explanation for the figures.
Air pollutants could also react with fats and proteins to cause cell damage or lead to higher levels of inflammation in the body, both of which could lead to insulin resistance, researchers said.
Scientists from Helmholtz Zentrum in Munich studied blood samples from 397 10-year-olds and estimated each child's average daily exposure to pollution from exhaust fumes.
For every additional 500m in proximity between a child's home and the nearest main road, the chance of their developing insulin resistance increased by seven per cent, according to findings published in the Diabetologia journal.
Agreed. However, the "Conservatives" here will point out the savings to Social Security.
There is no such thing as zero air pollution outside of a controlled environment like a clean room. Britisn is trying to use fear techniques to persuade people that energy use is dangerous and has to stop.
There is no such thing as zero air pollution outside of a controlled environment like a clean room. Britisn is trying to use fear techniques to persuade people that energy use is dangerous and has to stop.
The EPA paid the American Lung Association millions of dollars to come up with bogus studies showing that their new regulations against cheap energy form coal would save tens of thousands of lives. I'm sure the British government did the same thing.
"Science" is largely a propaganda industry these days.
There is no such thing as zero air pollution outside of a controlled environment like a clean room. Britisn is trying to use fear techniques to persuade people that energy use is dangerous and has to stop.
The EPA paid the American Lung Association millions of dollars to come up with bogus studies showing that their new regulations against cheap energy form coal would save tens of thousands of lives. I'm sure the British government did the same thing.
"Science" is largely a propaganda industry these days.
Post links for this, Pattycake, or be exposed for the baldfaced liar that you are.
I think of Beijing. And there are some who say China is thriving and that it's going to surpass us. They claim China is the economic model to follow even though the middle class there is hurting terribly. Oh, it isnt safe to go outside on alot of days in Beijing. Nice place.
I've seen China a few years ago. Americans would find it hard to belief the level of pollution in some major cities in China. If you haven't walked in a street with your eyes burning from the pollution, you probably wouldn't understand.I think of Beijing. And there are some who say China is thriving and that it's going to surpass us. They claim China is the economic model to follow even though the middle class there is hurting terribly. Oh, it isnt safe to go outside on alot of days in Beijing. Nice place.
They need environmental regulations.
I've seen China a few years ago. Americans would find it hard to belief the level of pollution in some major cities in China. If you haven't walked in a street with your eyes burning from the pollution, you probably wouldn't understand.I think of Beijing. And there are some who say China is thriving and that it's going to surpass us. They claim China is the economic model to follow even though the middle class there is hurting terribly. Oh, it isnt safe to go outside on alot of days in Beijing. Nice place.
They need environmental regulations.
All progress has a cost. In China, that cost is going to be very high.
Doing both is what true progress looks like.
There is no such thing as zero air pollution outside of a controlled environment like a clean room. Britisn is trying to use fear techniques to persuade people that energy use is dangerous and has to stop.
The EPA paid the American Lung Association millions of dollars to come up with bogus studies showing that their new regulations against cheap energy form coal would save tens of thousands of lives. I'm sure the British government did the same thing.
"Science" is largely a propaganda industry these days.
Post links for this, Pattycake, or be exposed for the baldfaced liar that you are.
No, that's the goal of bliss ninny Utopians.The true goal of progress is to have it with clean air and water. Giving up those two things aren't progress.
Global warming and air pollution are separate issues. There are common causes, but it would be a mistake to consider them as one and the same. Global warming is a very long term effect measured in decades and centuries. The effects of air pollution are more short term. However, both are caused by the crap we dump into the air we breath.The EPA paid the American Lung Association millions of dollars to come up with bogus studies showing that their new regulations against cheap energy form coal would save tens of thousands of lives. I'm sure the British government did the same thing.
"Science" is largely a propaganda industry these days.
Post links for this, Pattycake, or be exposed for the baldfaced liar that you are.
Post a link to any evidence there has been any global warming since 1998.
Having a granddaughter that suffers from chronic asthma, I applaud the effort. The government wastes a lot more than $94,000 to build a teapot museum and lot more than that for raises to congress.The EPA paid the American Lung Association millions of dollars to come up with bogus studies showing that their new regulations against cheap energy form coal would save tens of thousands of lives. I'm sure the British government did the same thing.
"Science" is largely a propaganda industry these days.
Post links for this, Pattycake, or be exposed for the baldfaced liar that you are.
EPA and American Lung joined in 69 position.. Impossible to tell who's on top..
10/31/2002: EPA and American Lung Association Announce Asthma Research Strategy
02/15/2007: EPA awards $94,876 grant to American Lung Association for Chicago Clean School Bus project
This is the equivalent of corporate welfare for non-profits.. They even GET MONEY to LOBBY for MORE MONEY..
Sweet deal...
